Posted in Gunting Dalam Lipatan

MCA has lost the trust of Umno grassroots

Vernacular schools will be maintained, Deputy Education Minister P. Kamalanathan stated yesterday — see Bernama report.

Kamalanathan’s comment was in response to the call by Gabungan NGO Melayu-Islam to abolish vernacular schools.

Gabungan NGO Melayu-Islam

I am mildly surprised to see who are the Malay-Muslim representatives that demanded the abolishment of Chinese school. Refer photo of their press conference: Tunku Aziz Ibrahim is sitting in the middle.

Dzulkarnain Taib – the guy speaking into the microphone – is the Malaysian Young Journalists Club president. He was at one time the editor-in-chief of Suara Keadilan, the PKR newspaper.


Luahan hati

Let’s look at an op-ed published yesterday by the Kumpulan Menyokong Umno (KMU). The website is ranked 470 in the Alexa measure on Malaysian web traffic, which puts its reach at a little better than news portal (478 on Alexa).

The point that I’m making here with regard to the Alexa Top 500 ranking is that is read by a lot of the Umno crowd.

Commenting on Chinese schools, said yesterday:

“Walaupun DAP sentiasa menekankan bahawa Umno adalah sebuah pertubuhan rasis yang mengamalkan penindasan terhadap kaum lain, khususnya Cina namun hakikatnya kerana rasisnya Umno itulah, sekolah-sekolah vernakular masih dibenarkan wujud. Bahkan Umno masih lagi mencuba dengan kaedah tarik rambut dalam tepung menerusi kewujudan SEKOLAH WAWASAN.

“Namun seperti yang dikatakan lebih awal, kaum imigran bermata sepet dan keturunan mereka tidak akan bersyukur sebaliknya masih memperjuangkan kecinaan dan superioriti bangsa mereka.

Buatlah apa pun keputusan, namun hakikatnya entiti rasis akan terus menyalak dan berjuang agar Cina mereka akan terus dikekalkan dan rakyat Malaysia khususnya Melayu-Bumiputera perlu sentiasa kowtow dan menyungkur di hadapan mereka.”

Luahan hati

We’ll examine the complaints of the Umno supporters one by one.

(1) Umno, the evil regime

“… DAP sentiasa menekankan bahawa Umno adalah sebuah pertubuhan rasis yang mengamalkan penindasan terhadap kaum lain, khususnya Cina …”

And Lim Guan Eng did it again yesterday! He slammed the “racist agenda of Umno and Utusan Malaysia” and alluded that “if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life and breeds ill will and suspicion – it is an evil government” (see ‘Guan Eng tuduh Utusan mahu meraikan pembunuhan 13 Mei’)

Star Editor's Choice (TheStarEC) on Twitter 2012-12-30 21-08-17

Guan Eng is talking about the Malay party that persuaded the Raja-Raja Melayu to grant one million citizenships to non-Malays at a time when the Malay community themselves were poor and uncompetitive. He obviously fails to see any kindness in the act by Umno.

He also fails to see that if Umno had lacked decency, the Chinese transient labour would have been repatriated.

And he failed to talk about the act of opposition supporters recently bashing up Bangladeshis on GE13 polling day. So how would a kind, decent and humane DAP government treat aliens, you think?

(2) Tamil schools not on radar

“… sekolah-sekolah vernakular masih dibenarkan wujud. Bahkan Umno masih lagi mencuba dengan kaedah tarik rambut dalam tepung”

The KMU stance is that Chinese schools (note: Tamil schools are not specifically targetted) should cease to exist and that Umno is must shed its kid gloves.

(3) Gratitude

“kaum imigran bermata sepet dan keturunan mereka tidak akan bersyukur”

Ooops. We shall need to add the “sepet” word to our Malaysian First taboo list.

(4) Chineseness

“masih memperjuangkan kecinaan dan superioriti bangsa mereka”

(a) Chinese schools are seen as the embodiment of Chineseness which the Chinese community battles fiercely to protect and preserve.

(b) Chinese schools are seen as the vehicle to drive forward the race “superiority”.

(5) Forever Chinese

“entiti rasis akan terus menyalak dan berjuang agar Cina mereka akan terus dikekalkan”

The Chinese polity is viewed as a “racist entity” that seeks to perpetuate its Chineseness.

(6) Chinese Firstness

“rakyat Malaysia khususnya Melayu-Bumiputera perlu sentiasa kowtow dan menyungkur di hadapan mereka”

The Chinese are perceived as wanting to subjugate the other races, especially the Bumiputera Malay.

The editorial quoted above has managed to encapsulate the negative views of Chinese held by a segment of the Umno supporters. So how large is this segment, huh? (Umno claims to have a membership of 3.5 million or thereabouts).

Playing the Bangsa, Agama dan Negara card

The Chinese are elated, not perturbed, at their 90 percent voter support for the opposition.

If the Chinese can be cocky and arrogant (to recycle two descriptive words let slip by the ditched ex-Deputy Chief Minister of Penang) about the Pakatan electoral gains in GE13, then why shouldn’t Umno go all out to maximize its own Malay support in the next round?

What happens should Umno, for its survival, play the race card to the hilt?

One, Perkasa will be given more room

Perkasa vice president Zulkifli Noordin was the de facto Umno challenger to PAS in Shah Alam. For a last minute parachute candidate, Zul garnered an incredible 38,070 votes out of a turnout of 88,126 voters. That’s 43.2% support from those who cast their ballots.

Furthermore, he did far better than Umno’s 2008 candidate Abdul Aziz Shamsuddin who had gotten 24,042 votes. And Zul’s opponent bukan calang-calang orang. Khalid Samad is the Selangor PAS deputy commissioner.

A key factor to the electoral results is the Chinese presence. As we’ve seen in Terengganu where the Chinese are negligible in number (generally under 3 percent of the electorate), the Umno-PAS fight can easily go either way in the Malay heartland constituencies.

However in the West Coast and those constituencies with a high Malay concentration, Umno won hands down. The logical inference is that in those Malay states with very few Chinese such as Terengganu and Kelantan (and where the Chinese there have, in any case, assimilated well), there is little fear factor among the Malay populace of a potential Chinese threat.

In the more developed states with mixed populations, such as Perak and Selangor, the rural Malay seats almost all went to Umno.

Two, getting PAS on board

Former NSTP group editor A. Kadir Jasin has revealed the Malay unity talks in Selangor following the GE13.

Kadir blogged two days ago:

“Di Selangor bisik dan risik mengenai kerajaan campuran PAS-PKR-Umno cukup serius. Seandainya rancangan itu berjaya, PAS, Umno dan sesetengah elemen PKR akan menubuhkan kerajaan campuran dengan PAS menyumbangkan calon Menteri Besar.”

There are the Umno-friendly Nasharuddin Mat Isa’s in PAS.

The Haruns (Taib and Din) are not aligned to the DAP-Pakatan initiatives such as the #Black 505 rallies and earlier, the Majlis Syura objected to surrendering the kalimah Allah to the evangelistas.

In PAS too there are the Hasan Ali’s although the prototype, i.e. the ex-PAS Selangor Commissioner, has been sacked from the party. But Hasan has since formed Jati and his NGO is working the ground.

We should bear in mind that PAS was formed by a breakaway faction of Umno ulamas. And isn’t the Malay side of PKR an Umno splinter as well?

Three, the players behind the scenes

Dr M, Daim will decide debate on Najib’s future, says veteran newsman‘ (The Malaysian Insider, 30 May 2013).

The veteran newsman referred to in the TMI headline is Kadir.

Another veteran newsman to watch is former Utusan group editor Zainuddin Mydin.

Dan apa Zamkata?

In his most recent blog posting, the former Information Minister writes about the most effective methods to “ajar orang Cina”, citing how the autocrat Lee Kuan Yew brought Chinese Singaporeans to heel and subdued the Chinese educationists. (Singapore does not have a Chinese national education stream.)

The most ominous harbinger of things to come is the stern warning issued yesterday by Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

‘Kerajaan Jangan Lagi Berlembut, Beri Muka Kepada Pembangkang – Tun Mahathir’ (Bernama, 13 June 2013)

The hardline Malay forces will coalesce in GE14 to strengthen Umno. But basically to teach the DAP a lesson. They prefer a rapprochement with PAS and possibly an eviction of the Chinese BN parties.

Memang, “mereka enggan”

In his appraisal of the Chinese tsunami, political analyst Prof Dr Hoo Ke Ping is quoted by the Berita Harian (7 May 2013) as saying in the immediate aftermath of the event that he had previously advised MCA and Gerakan to put up a stiff fight against the opposition but the two Chinese parties had refused to do so.

(“Saya pernah memberi taklimat kepada Jawatankuasa Pusat MCA dan Gerakan supaya melawan pembangkang habis-habisan, tetapi mereka tidak mahu,” katanya ketika dihubungi BH.)

Regina Lee is in this photograph

Jerusubang embed

It is clear from the conduct of the election campaign that the MCA was largely missing in action. Political operatives from the BN components testify to this.

Worse than that, the MCA had allowed its media The Star to promote the DAP evangelistas as well as to cover up for the DAP cybertroopers after the SuperCyber Bullies were exposed.

Today, The Star assigned DAP bff Regina Lee to do a story headlined ‘Big NO to more social media control‘ after the paper’s earlier stories stabbed Shen Yee Aun (whistleblower on the ‘Red Bean Army’) in the back.

The Star spindoctors are deliberately casting doubts that such an outfit like DAP troopers even exists, much in the same vein as the blanket denial that a Chinese tsunami ever took place.

The tilt this week at Chinese school is another form of Malay backlash against the 90 percent Chinese support for the opposition.

MCA’s position in the BN is becoming more untenable by the day and particularly so if the party continues to permit its Jerusubang backstabbers to persist in their mischief.

The Malay hawks are circling, the Umno party president is under siege and his close aides who are blamed for deploying wrong election strategies are now facing the axe.

MCA will soon be regarded as an enemy if it is still reluctant to rein in its media that functions as the most wide-reaching cheerleader squad for the DAP evangelistas.

Dial_M_BlogMCA spilling BN blood


I have no Faceook or Twitter.

89 thoughts on “MCA has lost the trust of Umno grassroots

  1. “I am mildly surprised to see who are the Malay-Muslim representatives that demanded the abolishment of Chinese school. Refer photo of their press conference: Tunku Aziz Ibrahim is sitting in the middle.
    Dzulkarnain Taib – the guy speaking into the microphone – is the Malaysian Young Journalists Club president. He was at one time the editor-in-chief of Suara Keadilan, the PKR newspaper.”

    Why are you mildly surprised Helen? What they did was constitutional, masih dalam kerangka Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

    Helen, what is your take on the link above, I’m yet to get your reply on that, the last time we talked about 1sekolah…?

    1. B’cos Tunku Aziz was the former DAP chairman and Dzul channelling the voice of Keadilan.

      The movers of 1Sekolah with its concomitant of Abolish Vernacular School are the pro-establishment (and not the oppo) Malays.

      Does this mean that when TA was in the DAP, this issue was one of his points of divergence from his party colleagues?

      It’s also indicative that there is other common ground between the oppo Malays and the mainline Malays.

      1. Perhaps everyone has come to their senses and decided to, for once, do the right thing.

        So have you digest the link above, Helen, you seems mum about it?

        1. Perlembagaan Malaysia tidak menyebut tentang sekolah vernakular, sama jualah Perlembagaan Malaysia tidak menyebut tentang Dasar Ekonomi Baru. Perihal dasar dan perundangan perlu dirujuk kepada undang-undang yang terbentuk, bukan apa yang silent dalam Perlembagaan. Selagi undang-undang yang terbentuk tidak bercanggah atau menyalahi prinsip Perlembagaan, maka ia boleh dikekalkan. Sekolah vernakular BOLEH dimansuhkan kerana tidak ada perlindungan spesifik terhadap kewujudannya dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia. Ini tidak bererti praktis untuk mensyaratkan kuota 30% Bumiputera atau diskaun perumahan Bumiputera 10% itu WAJAR dihapuskan.

          Sesuatu yang tidak termaktub dalam Perlembagaan tidak bererti ianya secara otomatik wajar dibubarkan.

            1. Perkara 153. Perizaban kuota berkenaan dengan perkhidmatan, permit, dsb. bagi orang Melayu dan anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak.

              (1) Menjadi tanggungjawab Yang di-Pertuan Agong untuk melindungi kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu dan anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak DAN KEPENTINGAN SAH kaum-kaum LAIN mengikut peruntukan Perkara ini.

              (2) Walau apa pun apa-apa jua dalam Perlembagaan ini, tetapi tertakluk kepada peruntukan Perkara 40 dan peruntukan Perkara ini, Yang di-Pertuan Agong hendaklah menjalankan fungsinya di bawah Perlembagaan ini dan undang-undang persekutuan mengikut apa-apa cara yang perlu untuk meindungi kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu dan anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak dan untuk memastikan perizaban bagi orang Melayu dan anak negeri mana-mana antara Negeri Sabah dan Sarawak APA-APA PERKADARAN YANG DIFIKIRKAN MUNASABAH oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong daripada jawatan dalam perkhidmatan awam (selain perkhidmatan awam sesuatu Negeri) dan daripada biasiswa, danasiswa dan keistimewaan pendidikan atau latihan yang seumpamanya atau kemudahan khas lain yang diberikan atau diadakan oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan dan, apabila apa-apa permit atau lesen dikehendaki oleh undang-undang persekutuan bagi mengendalikan apa-apa pertukangan atau perniagaan, maka, tertakluk kepada peruntukan undang-undang itu dan Perkara ini, daripada permit dan lesen itu.

              Ada tak dinyatakan perizaban syer dan saham? Ada tak dinyatakan perizaban kontrak kerajaan? Ada tak dinyatakan diskaun lot Bumiputera? Kalau kuota penjawat awam yang sudah melampaui batas sedang dirawat dan diubati (dengan reverse kuota India), apatah lagi pelbagai jenis kemudahan yang diberi di atas alasan Perkara 153 yang hanya menguntungkan golongan elit dan bangsawan? Saya tidak membantah agar pertimbangan diberi untuk membolehkan golongan Melayu dan anak Negeri untuk bersaing dengan golongan lain dalam sistem kapitalis moden. Namun, saya tak boleh terima apabila perjawatan tertinggi dalam perkhidmatan awam dan GLC dikhususkan untuk kroni dan kenaikan pangkat adalah lebih berdasarkan warna kulit dan bukan keupayaan. Persoalan di sini bukan HAK berkuota tetapi apa yang dianggap MUNASABAH sehingga statistik penjawat awam menjadi medan penggajian orang Melayu dan Bumiputera sehingga mencecah 80%.

              Tidakkah penyelewengan DEB di atas nama Perkara 153 sama jua serongnya dengan SRJK dan ICHS yang kononnya berpayungkan Perkara 152? Setidaknya kewujudan SRJK sudah termaktub dalam Akta Pendidikan 1996 dan termaktub sebagai UNDANG-UNDANG.

              1. Saudara,

                1) ‘APA-APA PERKADARAN YANG DIFIKIRKAN MUNASABAH oleh Yang di-Pertuan Agong daripada jawatan dalam perkhidmatan awam (selain perkhidmatan awam sesuatu Negeri) dan daripada biasiswa, danasiswa dan keistimewaan pendidikan atau latihan yang seumpamanya atau kemudahan khas lain yang diberikan atau diadakan oleh Kerajaan Persekutuan dan, apabila apa-apa permit atau lesen dikehendaki oleh undang-undang persekutuan bagi mengendalikan apa-apa pertukangan atau perniagaan, maka, tertakluk kepada peruntukan undang-undang itu dan Perkara ini, daripada permit dan lesen itu.’

                Saya membaca perkara perizaban syer dan saham adalah termaktub dalam ‘permit atau lesen’ seperti yang dinyatakan di atas..

                2) Isu penyelewengan DEB jika ada dan terbukti akan salahnya maka ianya pastilah perlu dihakimi di mahkamah. Para pelaksana DEB yang menyelewangkan hendaklah diasingkan dari tujuan DEB itu sendiri. Tidaklah munasabah penyelewengan pelaksana DEB menyebabkan DEB itu dipersalahkan. Seperti tidak adil kesilapan penganut Islam mahupun kristian yang menyeleweng makanya kita persalahkan agama itu sendiri.

                3) Kakitangan awam yang tuan dakwa sebagai tidak munasabah kerana bumiputra telah tuan katakan sebagai melebihi 80%..

                jika kita lihat dalam artikel tersebut ada dinyatakan tentang ‘ Apa apa perkadaran yang difikirkan munasabah oleh YDPA’ makanya kadar 80% itu jika benar, adalah tidak menyalahi kehendak artikel tersebut.

                Namun pihak pemerintah mendakwa bahawa rendahnya peratusan bukan bumiputera dalam perkhidmatan kerajaan adalah kerana golongan ini tidak berminat. Benar atau salah dakwaan ini hendaklah tuan dan rakan2 buktikan dengan menyertai beramai ramai perkhidmatan kerajaan.

                4) Dakwaan bahawa DEB hanya mementingkan golongan elit dan kroni ini hanyalah tinggal dakwaan. Inilah lagu yang dimainkan oleh mereka yang tidak sehaluan dengan pemerintah. Persoalan utama adalah apakah golongan bukan elit dan juga golongan bukan bumiputera menjadi kelaparan dan kehilangan punca pendapatan hanyalah disebabkan DEB?

                5) ‘saya tak boleh terima apabila perjawatan tertinggi dalam perkhidmatan awam dan GLC dikhususkan untuk kroni dan kenaikan pangkat adalah lebih berdasarkan warna kulit dan bukan keupayaan’

                Pastinya saya sangat bersetuju dengan pandangan tuan ini. Cuma saya ingin meluaskan persetujuan kita ini kepada semua sektor termasuklah sektor koporat yang dimiliki dan dikendalikan oleh kaum Cina terutamanya.

                Sila berlapang dada dan luangkan masa untuk melihat bagaimana koporat cina ini melaksana dan mengamalkan dasar warna kulit dan bukan keupayaan..

                6) Dalam isu sekolah rasis seumpama SRJK, saya faham dan sedar serta telah saya luahkan dalam beberapa posting sebelum ini bahawa ianya memang telah dinyatakan dengan jelas dalam undang undang negara.

                Disebalik pemahaman saya itu, saya juga menyedari bahawa adalah hak saya untuk mencadangkan kepada pemerintah agar dikaji semula pelaksanaan sekolah rasis ini. Ini adalah masa yang sesuai kerana saya lihat majoriti orang cina amat menyokong dan mendukung konsep Malaysian First yang ditaja oleh DAP.

                Langkah pertama adalah kita satukan semua bangsa Malaysia dalam satu sekolah. Kemudia kita terapkan agar pada satu masa nanti mereka berkongsi satu budaya. Sejarah membuktikan bahawa Lee Kuan Yew telah berjaya menyatupadukan Singapore dengan membuang sekolah rasis secara total.

                Kami sememangnya sedang mendesak najib untuk sekurang kurangnya menubuhkan makmal bagi mendapatkan pandangan dan maklumbalas rakyat seterusnya memberikan penilaian akan cadangan ini. Seperti yang kita sedia maklum bahawa najib ini kan kegemarannya mengadakan makmal..

                Undang undang sekolah rasis ini boleh diubah dengan majoriti mudah (betulkan jika saya silap) sahaja. Jika majoriti ahli parlimen bersetuju makanya kita boleh laksanakan demi kepentingan Bangsa Malaysia yang di idamkan oleh DAP dan penyokongnya.

                1. i hate n’sync, pendirian saya tentang Sekolah Vernakular atas dasar ini “The fact that you have in this country Chinese and Tamil schools too is remarkable. The Chinese and Tamil schools are actually not protected under the constitution. The constitution only permits the right to learn the language but doesn’t give you the right to learn in the language. There’s a difference.” Prof. Shad Faruqi

                  Saya bukan pakar Perlembagaan Persekutuan jadi saya masukkan pendapat pakar seperti beliau dan berkenaan tentang Sekolah Vernakular sudah jadi UNDANG-UNDANG, saya berpendirian seperti ini, apa komen anda?

                2. Dear Ibni,

                  Apa yang diperkatakan oleh Prof. Shaq adalah benar. Sekolah vernakular tidak diberi perlindungan spesifik di bawah Perlembagaan, tetapi ini tidak bererti sekolah vernakular adalah tidak sah di sisi undang-undang.

                  1) Saudara berpendapat kuota syer dan saham terletak di bawah “permit dan lesen” tetapi saudara jelas tidak memahami apa permit dan lesen yang dirujuk dalam Perlembagaan. Sila rujuk 153(2)

                  “…apabila apa-apa permit atau lesen dikehendaki
                  oleh undang-undang persekutuan bagi mengendalikan apa-apa
                  PERTUKANGAN atau PERNIAGAAN.”

                  Ekuiti korporat untuk Bumiputera bagi syarikat-syarikat tersenarai dalam bursa saham hanya menggalakkan rent seekers dan keuntungan golongan elit yang mempunyai kepentingan politik. Hal ini telah lama dilaporkan dan dianalisa oleh pakar-pakar ekonomi tempatan dan luar negara (Gomez & Sundaram, 1999; Johnson & Mitton, 2003; Gul, 2006; Abdul Wahab & Abdul Rahman, 2009). Ekuiti korporat 30% ini bukan sahaja tidak menjamin pencapaian hasrat dan matlamat asal DEB, malah merupakan sejenis . Mungkin ini jalan pintas ke arah kewujudan kelas korporat Melayu (atau Orang kaya Baru). Saya petik apa yang Abdul Wahab dan rakannya (2009) katakan:

                  “The institutional investors serve as in-expert intermediaries in verifying the level of director remineration in accordance to the investors needs. In addition, we find no evidence to support that being politicall connected is an important determinant to director remuneration with the EXCEPTION of non-executive directors. However, our results suggest that politically connected firms with high level of institutional ownership positively and significantly related to director remuneration, and thus mitigate the effectiveness of institutional monitoring. IN A NUTSHELL, political connection in relation-based economies does matter in mediating institutional monitoring and their impact should be accounted for.”
                  – p. 162-163

                  Saya selama ini memang mempercayai bahawa negara kita diberkati dengan pelbagai rakyat Malaysia yang berilmu, bijak dan berakhlak tinggi dan golongan ini tidak merestui penyelewengan halatuju dan matlamat asal DEB.

                  2) Penghakiman dan kes-kes jenayah bersabit korupsi sudah ada dan ada yang telah pun tersabit, dan saya bukan merujuk kepada Khir Toyo atau Zubir Murshid semata-mata, tetapi juga seperti Perwaja, Renong, MAS dan Bank Bumi. Ini bukan isu perkauman, dan saya bersetuju dengan saudara ini tidak bererti DEB itu salah. Sama jualah penyimpangan sekolah vernakular sehingga membelakangkan integrasi generasi baru dan bahasa kebangsaan wajar diperbetul dan dibaiki, bukannya pemansuhan secara paksa.

                  3) Jika maksud saudara bahawa 80% itu munasabah, saya rasa persepsi itu wajar disemak semula. Apakah dominasi golongan Melayu dan Bumiputera dalam perkhidmatan awam sehingga 80% itu MUNASABAH dari segi apa? Apakah landas dan lunasnya? Saudara boleh menerima alasan bahawa penyertaan golongan bukan Bumiputera amat rendah kerana mereka “tidak berminat”. Kenapa tidak pula difikirkan kenapa mereka tidak berminat? Saya tak boleh paksa orang menyertai perkhidmatan awam beramai-ramai dan itu bukan dalam bidang kuasa saya dari segi pengambilan. Lagipun JPA sewajarnya menggaji penjawat awam mengikut kemampuan, bukan warna kulit. Saya berkhidmat dalam sektor awam dan saya mempercayai apa yang saya lihat dan kenapa ramai yang meninggalkan perkhidmatan awam atas sebab kekecewaan.

                  4) & 5) Saya rasa saudara silap di sini untuk mengatakan bahawa kekurangan dan kepincangan dalam sektor swasta hanya boleh dijawab dengan ketidakadilan dalam sektor awam. Two wrongs do not make a right. Kita perlukan perundangan berdasarkan equal opportunity act dan kita kena bersihkan rumah kita dahulu, yakni, GLC dan perkhidmatan awam. Jangan menjadikan jawatan-jawatan tinggi sebagai habuan politik dan amalkan sistem kenaikan pangkat yang telus.

                  6) Jika saudara percaya sekolah vernakular adalah bersifat ultra vires terhadap Perlembagaan Malaysia, saya tidak menghalang cubaan kumpulan SSS untuk mengharamkannya menerusi cabaran kepada undang-undang pendidikan negara. Saya berasa janggal saudara memetik kejayaan Lee Kuan Yew dalam menghapuskan identiti perkauman menerusi pemerintahan kuku besi yang dianggap sebagai “menyatupadukan” Singapura.

                  Perpecahan kaum di Malaysia bukan sahaja berpunca daripada sekolah vernakular dan penghapusannya mungkin membuahkan hasil yang bertentangan dengan hasrat murni anda. Jika majoriti ahli Parlimen bersetuju untuk merangka dasar pendidikan baru, saya amat-amat berharap penutupan sekolah vernakular boleh diganti dengan tumpuan terhadap pendidikan yang berpaksikan pencapaian ilmu dan pembelajaran berkualiti. Jika usaha itu hanya semata-mata untuk menghukum pengundi Cina, saya rasa, 20 tahun dari sekarang, sistem pendidikan Malaysia tidak akan mendapat apa-apa manfaat daripada usaha ini. SSS hanya satu pendekatan ALIRAN persekolahan, masalah pendidikan kita terletak di KUALITI dan MUTU pengajaran dan pembelajaran. Kalau tukar semua kepada sekolah aliran Bahasa Inggeris ala Singapura pun, impaknya terhadap pedagogi dan kecemerlangan pendidikan adalah kosong saja jika tiada tumpuan diberi kepada kurikulum, guru, sekolah, pelajar dan ibubapa.

                  1. Saudara,

                    Dari panjang lebarnya ‘perbualan’ kita, banyak persamaan pendapat dari perbezaan. Kita pastikan perbezaan kita ini kita uruskan dengan berhemah dan fikiran yang waras.

                    Kita sambung berbual di posting helen yang lain..

  2. I do believe one school/one education system in a long run will unite this beautiful country. No unity can be achieved without this transformation or leap of faith. I hope all races/political parties will look this in a positive matter.

  3. If you go to the zoo and throw stones at the elephant, the elephant will run amuck.
    It would not have happened if you did not throw stones at the elephant. Repent after you throw.
    But in this case, you throw stones at the elephant, the elephant runs amuck, you throw more stones and you expect the elephant to sit still.

    Either it must be an elephant made of stone or an elephant which cannot feel.

    1. Stones? What stones?

      No incident of stone-throwing occurred.

      The elephants ran amok because of the wildlife-captivity divide.

      1. kak helen..maybe dia maksudkan baling batu sembunyi tangan..kan Dapsters buat macam tu…Dapsters membuat sesuatu yang membuatkan orang melayu marah seperti membangkitkan isu rasis boikot dan sebagainya…Dapsters ingat orang melayu takkan bertindak..depa nak sangat ke cina melayu bergaduh?? huhu…teruk la perangai Dapsters ni…

  4. Helen,

    Bukan MCA yang kehilangan kepercayaan dari orang melayu tetapi orang melayu sudah hilang kepercayaan pada orang cina. Kami sudah lama menyedari bahawa MCA dan DAP ini adalah hanya satu wadah untuk memastikan kepentingan bangsa cina terjaga dan terjamin.

    Orang Cina sudah buat keputusan bahawa mereka tidak memerlukan lagi sokongan dan dokongan majoriti melayu seperti sebelum ini. Makanya mengapa pula perlu untuk kami mengekalkan perjanjian tidak bertulis atas dasar kesefahaman untuk hidup bersama orang Cina.

    Kita tetap akan hidup bersama kerana kami orang melayu sudah terjebak dengan baik budi keterlaluan pemimpin terdahulu kami yang memperjuangkan dan memujuk raja raja melayu untuk bersetuju menerima berjuta pendatang asing yang dibawa masuk oleh penjajah British sebagai rakyat Persekutuan Tanah Melayu sedangkan pada masa itu orang melayu masih dalam keadaan serba kekurangan dan daif.

    Pemimpin terdahulu dan juga pemimpin selepas itu yang kebetulan juga ayah kepada najib mempunyai wawasan yang murni. Mereka berkeyakinan bahawa orang melayu boleh maju dengan bantuan ‘ikhlas’ orang cina.. keikhlasan yang telus teramat sangat dari cina inilah yang menghasilkan Ali baba.. Bukan Najib saja yang tertipu tertapi ayah dia pun sama tertipu dengan permainan cina cina ini. Kemajuan orang melayu di ukur dan dibanggakan oleh pencapaian melayu menjadi pemilik dan pengarah dalam hampir kesemua syarikat syarikat di BSKL.. Maka berbanggalah pemimpin UMNO termasuklah najib dan ayahnya.. seperti misi mereka telah berjaya dan mereka merasakan betapa ikhlasnya cina menolong melayu..

    Saya amat bersyukur dengan hasil pilihanraya 13 ini. Setelah lama bersabar, akhirnya cina cina yang selama ini berlindung dalam MCA telah menunjukkan belang sebenar. Mereka sangat yakin bahawa mereka akan berjaya bunuh UMNO.. Keputusan undian di PDM telah dengan jelas membuktikan betapa UMNO di tolak secara total oleh orang cina termasuklah cina buddha yang anda katakan lebih sayang umno dari cina kristian.

    Pengalaman di Gelang patah adalah amat mahal harganya. UMNO ditolak disemua tempat PDM cina. Kami dijanjikan dengan kata kata manis oleh pengundi warga emas cina bahawa mereka masih BN. Hidup BN kata mereka namun kita tahulah apa undian mereka. Sistem pengiraan di PDM ini membolehkan undian kita telus. Hakikat adalah jelas di Gelang patah, pengundi cina tanpa mengira warga emas, muda, Buddha ataupun kristian tetap menolak melayu.

    Kita akan tetap hidup bersama. Kita tidak mampu untuk bergaduh cuma keadaan adalah tidak sama. Urusan kita selepas ini hanyalah atas faktor kepentingan ekonomi kita..

    Akar umbi UMNO sedang melihat kelakuan najib sekarang ini. Sekiranya masih berkelakuan seperti Nizar anak Razak makanya kita perlu letakkan dia serumah dengan Nizar. Anak orang elit ini sememangnya sukar memahami kehendak majoriti melayu. Tambahan pula dikelilingi oleh penasihat yang mendabik dada konon nya melayu baru yang liberal.

    Ok Helen.. macam dah panjang sangat saya menulis ni..

    1. Ibni ismail,

      As i said earlier, GE13 proves whats Malays have been saying all this while. That Chinese as a community cant be trusted.

      Again i must say I am not against chinese. rather, i am upset that they are against UMNO(meaning against malays).

      I must also admit that i will say “padan muka” to Najib should I meet him. He deserves it as he ignored many advises given by Malays that he is deemed as ‘terhegeh hegeh’.

      He liberalised financial sector. yet Najib said nothing on massive discrimination in private sectors against malays.

      Najib reminded UMNO that it must remember in many constituents, there are as much as 40% non Malays voters. But he did not even remind other BN components that many constituents that won by MCA has Malay majority.

      Najib seems oblivious that the office of AG is viewed suspiciously by Malays. He did not repimanded Nazir, his younger brother. for insulting his own father by saying “DEB” is bastardised.

      FOr reason best known to him, he appointed Hindraf guy as deputy minister. He left vacants the post of Minietrer of transportation for MCA to reconsider. Why cant he appoints NMP from Sarawak or sabah who contributed to BN winning the Federal Govt.

      And he shocked the nation by wanting to put SPR under parliament. and this will open the opportunity to useless and racist PR to have a say in SPR. What is wrong withy SPR under the purview of Yang DiPertuan Agong.

    2. Ibni Ismail, what you say echos the sentiments of my friends, my family and I. Tapi saya sedih kerana dahulu saya boleh bertegur sapa dgn kawan2 Cina tanpa syak wasangka. Sekarang bila lihat Cina tersenyum, saya tertanya apa lagi yg AhBeng ni nak ambil dari saya?

    3. Tak adalah. Melayu lembut sejak zaman berzaman dan cina tahu ni. Marah macam tu je lah. Tak adalah sampai nak ambik tindakan yang bukan – bukan.

      Biar je lah sekolah cina tu. Kalau alternatif lagi bagus, it will die a natural death. Nak suruh cina sekolah kebangsaan, tapi keadaan tak berapa sesuai dengan arabisation yang berlaku.

      Lagi satu pemimpin melayu biasanya baik dengan cina. Takkan kita tak tahu kot. Ekonomi sape pegang?

      Dah lah marah- marah. Kita fokus kita je. Kalau UMNO kuat, tak adalah masalah – masalah ni.

  5. Inilah akibat terima “nasihat” dari selatan.

    Kebangkitan Melayu harus dilihat sebagai tindakan pemeliharaan diri, mengambil balik hak yang termaktub dalam perlembagaan.

    Tunku Aziz masih marah setelah ditipu DAP dan diperlekeh oleh tokong joseph lim. PKR pun sudah celik mata apatah lagi PAS yang kalah teruk.

    1. Ray,

      PAS is still in denial mode. It refuses to accept reality that its influences in waning, resukting in losing Kedah. all because PAS is “kowtowing’ to DAP.

      Malays are not happy about it.

      1. …but gaining support in Selangor, Terengganu, and seats in Melaka, NS.

        While the lost a couple of seats in Parlimen, they got 2 more seats in ADUNs.

  6. Amatlah mendukacitakan sekiranya orang Melayu dan orang Cina bermusuhan kerana haluan politik yang berbeza. Kepentingan MCA dalam BN adalah untuk mengimbangi isu perkauman. Kekalahan MCA adalah kerana kegagalannya dalam menangani persepsi dominasi UMNO dalam hal-hal yang menyentuh kepentingan orang Cina (secara amnya).

    Hakikatnya, PR masih mendukung konsep ketuanan Melayu/Islam walaupun DAP sedang menyesuaikan diri terhadap realiti tersebut. Penolakan majoriti pengundi Melayu terhadap PR adalah kerana ketidakserasian DAP dengan PKR dan PAS.

    Keputusan PRU-13 membuktikan bahawa isu-isu perkauman masih menjadi persoalan utama, walaupun terselindung di sebalik isu rasuah.

    Sekolah vernakular menjadi korban politik kerana selama ini perkara tersebut telah dijadikan percaturan MCA dan DAP dalam meraih undi orang Cina. Sama jualah dengan Hudud dan Islam seketika dahulu. Kesilapan Satd terletak pada kedudukan UNESCO dan cadangan badan tersebut – agar sekolah menggunakan bahasa ibunda ditawarkan di peringkat pendidikan rendah sahaja untuk membekalkan ‘non-native speakers’ dengan penguasaan bahasa kebangsaan untuk pendidikan menengah rendah yang bersepadu atau ‘integrative’. Di peringkat menengah atas dicadangkan penambahan satu bahasa antarabangsa. Di Malaysia, kita mengajar bahasa Inggeris di peringkat sekolah rendah lagi.

    Saya kira jika ICHS dapat dikenalpasti sebagai sekolah swasta secara sepenuhnya, maka kuranglah modal politikus-politikus MCA dan DAP untuk mempermain isu tersebut untuk kepentingan mereka. Lagipun sekolah ‘Cina’ itu sebenarnya sekolah Mandarin, dan sekolah ‘India’ kita panggil sekolah Tamil.

    1. Saya berpendapat anda tersasar jauh dalam menakrifkan gerombolan Pakatan berpaksikan konsep dan wadah Ketuanan Melayu/Islam.

      Penakrifan yang lebih tepat dan berasaskan realitas politik ialah Pakatan Rakyat adalah gerombolan yang berpaksikan Ketuanan Cina/Kristian. Perhatikan bahawa saya tidak ungkapkan ia sebagai Ketuanan Cina-Kristian untuk membezakan kedua dua kerangka yang dimaksudkan.Cina-Kristian menggambarkan pemerkasaan pengaruh Cina yang beragama Kristian dalam Pakatan. Tetapi hakikatnya ini tidak benar.

      PRU 13 memperlihatkan hubungan simbiosis antara Cina tok tok dan Cina Kristian untuk menjulang konsep kejaguhan ras Cina. Kita jangan tertipu dengan analisis yang menyatakan Cina sebenarnya terpengaruh oleh pelampau Kristian dan evangelista seperti Hannah Yeoh dan seangkatan dengannya. Ini adalah madah berhelah buat melunakkan hati kita agar memaafkan kebiadapan massa Cina umum. Hakikatnya, adalah mustahil 9% Cina Kristian yang berpendidikan Barat dan berkiblatkan yang serupa mempengaruhi satu bangsa tanpa kerelaan 91% Cina tok2 yang berkiblatkan Taiwan dan Hk

      Pengamatan saya sejak PRN Sarawak 2006 ialah kedua dua Cina tok2 dan Cina Kristian telah bersatu hati, senada seirama untuk menguasai persada politik Malaysia dan seterusnya melaksanakan sinofikasi perlembagaan , institusi dan masyarakat. Psikologi massa Cina adalah berpaksikan kepada keunggulan ras Cina yang mana penafian hak dan pengabdian kaum lain adalah wajar dan halalan toyibbah. Ini adalah penyakit kronik yang sukar dihapuskan dari sanubari Cina dan merupakan batu asas kepada epistomologi tamadun Cina dan konsep kecinaan itu sendiri. Malah, benda ini sukar dikesan atau difahami oleh khalayak kecuali mereka yang memahami Mandarin serta mengerti filasuf dan weltanschung Cina secara mendalam.

      Dalam konteks, Melayu PAS dan PKR tidak lebih dari menjadi balaci dan pengampu Cina apatah lagi orang suruhan yang setia. Ini amat ketara dalam semua negeri tadbiran Pakatan sejak 2008, khususnya PP dan Selangor. Fungsi sampingan Melayu PAS dan PKR dari kaca mata Cina, adalah untuk terus melaga dan melemahkan orang Melayu dengan penggunaan Islam ala Khawarij/wahhabi serta pemikiran liberal yang mereka dokong. Pendekatan ini disokong DAP kerana Cina beroleh manfaat dari perpecahan perpaduan Melayu serta kehancuran maruah Melayu. Dalam sosiologi, proses ini di kenali sebagai proses pengembirian identiti dan pemandulan jati diri. Melayu yang kecundang kepada proses2 ini lambat laun akan mengalami pembencian diri, kompleks inferioriti serta sindrom ketidaksempurnaan dan kompleks kesalahan diri dan ras (guilt complex) yang amat parah. Natijah ya, mereka sanggup menerima dan melakukan apa saja demi memulihkan diri buat menebus dosa bangsa. Keadaan inilah yang menyelubungi bangsa Jerman pasca perang Dunia 2 akibat asakan mitos Holocaust Yahudi.

      Melayu celup berpengaruh seperti Nik Aziz Nik Mat ( berketurunan Cina) dan Anwar Ibrahim( berketurunan Keling) amat sesuai untuk tujuan Machiavellian Cina. Tampak sekali peranan ini mereka galas dengan bangga tanpa segan silu!

      1. Persoalannya saudara, bukankah negara Jerman masih satu-satunya negara terulung di rantau Eropah sementara negara-negara lain yang sewaktu dengannya berdepan dengan kerunduman ekonomi?

        Jati diri Melayu tidak terbina dengan penindasan dan penganiayaan bangsa-bangsa lain. Bangsa Melayu perlu bijak berdepan dengan asakan dan tohmahan berunsur rasis dan menjawab kedangkalan dan fitnah berlandaskan fakta. Tepuk sebelah tangan tidak berbunyi. Jika diteruskan ‘an eye for an eye’ seperti kata Gandhi, maka butalah mata dan hati naluri semua rakyat Malaysia.

        Di kala pelopor konspirasi Cina seperti Warrior231 mengasah mata pedang untuk memeriahkan lagi medan perkauman, kita lupa akan eksploitasi golongan elit dan bangsawan dalam mengisi kocek masing-masing. Di kala api perkauman disemarakkan oleh golongan pelampau, rakyat terus dibuai dengan dondang sayang ketuanan yang lompong.

        Saya bersetuju bahawa psikologi massa Cina adalah berpaksikan kepada keunggulan ras – itu hakikat. Kesempatan yang terbuka luas untuk keuntungan DAP dan masyarakat Cina yang mengambil kesempatan tersebut adalah konsisten dengan naluri ‘self preservation’. Sudah jelas MCA dan Gerakan dianggap gagal dalam memenuhi aspirasi masyarakat Cina di Malaysia. Pertembungan budaya Melayu dan Cina di rantau ini telah membuahkan peristiwa pahit sejarah pembentukan Singapura dengan ‘tacit support’ tuan British.

        Yang diperlukan adalah semangat kekitaan dan kesanggupan untuk bekerjasama, yakni, ‘give and take’ dan ruang untuk kita menyumbang kepada pembangunan negara dan bersama-sama menikmati hasil usaha tersebut. Saya tidak setuju bahawa golongan Cina tertindas dan teraniaya seperti yang digembar-gemburkan, tetapi jelas berlakunya penyimpangan hasrat DEB yang dicanangkan oleh Tun Razak untuk kepentingan kumpulan tertentu. Perkara 153 dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia memperuntukkan kedudukan istimewa untuk orang Melayu dan pribumi Sabah dan Sarawak, bukan lesen untuk jalan pintas ke arah keuntungan atas angin.

        1. Kalau insiden Holocaust Yahudi saudara Warrior231 ibaratkan sebagai MITOS, maka wajarlah peristiwa bersejarah seperti Bintang Tiga dan 13 Mei itu dianggap sebagai LAGENDA.

        2. Siapa yang eksploitasi dan mengeksploitasi, wahai semata sepet. Adakah 10 terkaya di seantero Malaysia di pegang ,Melayu, wahai si punggung bertahi tak berbasuh?

          1. Mata sepet pun tahu orang kaya-raya di Malaysia, tak kira Cina, Melayu atau India, semuanya bersekongkol dengan golongan elit politik untuk mengeksploitasi rakyat marhaen.

            Yang tak bermata sepet tak nampak eksploitasi Orang Kaya Baru?

            1. Mata sepet yang menghuni TTDI, Damansara, Bandar Utama, Sunway, Bangsar, Mont Kiara dan Hartamas adalah rata rata golongan marhaen berpendapatan rm1000 ke bawah manakala pemegang konsesi seperti Kristian YTL, Kuok, LGT adalah Melayu yang menjalani pembedahan plastik untuk tampak lebih kesepetan.

    2. Nsync, I answer in this thread, with some simple “Chinese” / Hanzi, no jargon and no imitation (you know la some just bla bla bla the same verbiage over and over, a dearth of originality).

      Copy here Helen writes might help you understand better the difference : “Chinese have unified hanzi. Although the different dialect groups speaking Chinese language (hanyu) would pronounce words differently, the written character is still one and the same (within the writing system). Speaking Chinese in whatever dialect in one thing but reading takes mastery of the language to another level.”

      Mandarin is a northern dialect, translate to “Chinese” is 官话 (guanhua) / 普通话 (putonghua), which is a spoken language, while “Chinese” (中文/华文) the language consist both Hanzi (汉字) and Hanyu (汉语), hence the correct translation in your cited article can only be Chinese and not Mandarin, because the context shall include both spoken and writing system.

      DJZ website use the term 华文 (Chinese language), not 华人 (ethnic Chinese), their action might indicate otherwise but that is a separate topic. Hope I am clear.

      1. And I propose that we need to defang the racist connotations in order to end the racial extortions.

        Unified Hanzi or not, we are learning MANDARIN, period. Hongkong calls it biliterate and TRILINGUAL – so there is a difference between Cantonese and Mandarin as languages. Singapore ended education in Mandarin but made Mandarin compulsory for Chinese students. I concur that Mandarin is often regarded as the default Chinese language (UN also recognizes “Chinese” as one of the six official languages), with one meaning the other, but it is definitely NOT my mother tongue.

        China’s education system can be rightfully described as Chinese education system, not in Malaysia.

        The issue here is that there is much more parity and clarity to call things as accurately as possible. Tamil and Mandarin schools rightfully denote their language and medium of instruction, while calling them Indian and Chinese schools tend to connote the racial composition more than anything else.

    3. Kalau sekolah vernakular dah tak ada, tak tentu lagi melayu percaya cina dan cina tak dendam dengan melayu.

      UMNO is not doing its job. DEB dah habis, kenalah buat dasar baru yang lebih menyeluruh. Sibuk buat apa pun kita tak tahu. DAP tak apalah menyalak, diorang bukan kerajaan, tak ada kuasa..

      1. “Kalau sekolah vernakular dah tak ada, tak tentu lagi melayu percaya cina dan cina tak dendam dengan melayu.”

        No truer words have been spoken on the subject.

  7. Ali Rustam ” saya akan ingat sampai bila-bila” ….. begitulah juga saya dan rakan melayu sebangsa dgn saya… pintu kepercayaan kepada kaum cina telah terkunci mati….. itu yg tak akan kami melayu lupa….

    1. rashdan, memang betul bro. bila tgk muka sahabat-sahabat berbangsa cina, di dalam hati terdetik perasan curiga terhadap mereka. sejak pru13, perasaan prasangka terhadap kaum cina, makin bertambah kuat.

    2. Melayu kebanyakan memang tak percaya cina pun, nothing new. Pemimpin UMNO je bagi ruang. Dah terkena baru nak ingat sampai bila- bila.

      Tapi kena usaha la, macam – macam mana pun. Tak seronoklah bila berpecah pecah ni.

  8. Ada komentar yang kurang menghayati kandungan Perlembagaan Malaysia. Peruntukan untuk sistem affirmative seumpama DEB itu termaktub dibawah fasa keistimewaan khusus Melayu dan di kemudi YDPA.Sila baca juga jadual perincian keistimewaan tersebut dalam lampiran perlembagaan

    DEB adalah dasar bukan undang2. Namun ia bukan ultra vires perlembagaan berdasarkan Artikel 153 yang secara memperuntukkan keistimewaan Melayu dan Pribumi lain

    Lain pula dengan sekolah vernakular. Kewujudan sekolah vernakular tidak pula bersandarkan apa jua Artikel dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia. Hujah bahawa ia tersirat dibawah peruntukan kebebasan menggunakan bahasa ibunda adalah hujah yang dangkal lagi daif. Sekiranya hujah demikian ada logiknya, maka upacara agama kafir juga boleh dipautkan dalam urusan rasmi negara seperti pertabalan YDPA. Bukankah Pendatang boleh berhujah demikian kerana mereka juga rakyat baginda dan amalan tersebut tidak ultra vires perlembagaan berdasarkan Artikel berkaitan kebebasan beragama.

    Nah, gamplang sudah , Bahasa Melayu adalah bahasa rasmi dalam semua urusan rasmi Kerajaan Malaysia dan ini termasuk pendidikan awam. Maka penghapusan sekolah vernakular adalah sah mengikut Perlembagaan. Sokongan padu saya adalah kepada mana2 parti Melayu yang mendokong dan melaksanakan langkah ini dengan kadar segera tanpa menghiraukan kerenah, bangkangan dan ugutan Pendatang.


    Saya juga berpendirian demikian cuma saya ingin tambah sedikit

    ‘kepercayaan kepada SEMUA lapisan kaum Cina”

    1. “Peruntukan untuk sistem affirmative SEUMPAMA DEB itu termaktub dibawah fasa keistimewaan khusus Melayu dan di kemudi YDPA.Sila baca juga JADUAL perincian keistimewaan tersebut dalam lampiran perlembagaan.”
      – Warrior231

      Dipohon dikongsi JADUAL (1-13) mana yang memperinci “keistimewaan tersebut”.

    1. Maaf saudara Warrior231, jika penyelewengan Dasar DEB masih tidak cukup untuk pemansuhannya, apatah lagi sekolah vernakular yang dinyatakan SECARA JELAS dalam Akta Pendidikan 1996, dan saya memetik takrifannya di ms. 7:

      “sekolah jenis kebangsaan” ertinya sekolah rendah
      kerajaan atau sekolah rendah bantuan kerajaan –

      (a) yang menyediakan pendidikan rendah yang
      sesuai bagi murid dan umur enam tahun;

      (b) yang menggunakan bahasa Cina atau Tamil
      sebagai bahasa pengantar utama; dan

      (c) yang menjadikan bahasa kebangsaan dan

      (d) Inggeris sebagai mata pelajaran wajib.

      Juga di Seksyen 17

      17. Bahasa kebangsaan sebagai bahasa pengantar

      (1) Bahasa kebangsaan hendaklah menjadi bahasa
      pengantar utama di semua institusi pendidikan dalam
      Sistem Pendidikan Kebangsaan kecuali sekolah jenis
      kebangsaan yang ditubuhkan di bawah seksyen 28 atau
      mana-mana institusi pendidikan lain yang dikecualikan
      oleh Menteri daripada subseksyen ini

      Dan juga di Seksyen 28

      28. Penubuhan dan penyenggaraan sekolah kebangsaan
      dan sekolah jenis kebangsaan.

      Tertakluk kepada peruntukan Akta ini, Menteri
      boleh menubuhkan sekolah kebangsaan dan sekolah
      jenis kebangsaan dan hendaklah menyenggarakan
      sekolah-sekolah itu.

      Jika Akta Pendidikan 1996 adalah ultra vires kepada Perlembagaan Persekutuan, maka wajarlah undang-undang tersebut dipinda agar sekolah jenis kebangsaan dapat dihapuskan. Jangan berhujah seperti orang tak pernah ke sekolah.

      Sekolah jenis kebangsaan adalah legasi sistem pendidikan zaman pra-kemerdekaan yang merangkumi sekolah mubaligh yang masih diiktiraf di negara ini. Yang ketara niat pemansuhan sekolah vernakular adalah untuk menghukum majoriti pengundi Cina yang menolak BN. Malangnya SRJK(Tamil) yang terkena tempiasnya. Some people are trying to ride on anti-Chinese sentiments.

      Saya menyokong usaha murni untuk sistem satu sekolah, tetapi saya rasa usaha untuk mempertingkat kualiti dan mutu pendidikan sekolah kebangsaan agar ianya menjadi ‘school of choice’ adalah JAUH LEBIH PENTING daripada usaha membahasa-melayukan sekolah jenis kebangsaan.

      Untuk saudara seperti Warrior231, soal kepercayaan terhadap warganegara berketurunan Cina adalah tidak relevan sama sekali apabila kami dilabel sebagai Pendatang. Saya lahir di negara ini dan saya juga merupakan rakyat Malaysia dan berumahnya saya di sini bukan di atas ehsan dan budi bicara manusia seperti Warrior231.

      1. Mula mula sekali2 jangan bersikap celupar, Pendatang! Siapa yang menuduh siapa yang tidak bersekolah, wahai bangsat! Kalau nak berdebat biar beradab! Jangan bawa masuk perangai tongkang, samseng dan kurang ajar kamu kesini, keparat mentang2 kamu boleh mengharapkan perlindungan blogger yang sefikrah dan sama warna kulit dengan kamu.

        Sekali2 jangan cuba berselindung di belakang satu Akta yang belum diuji keabsahannya berdasarkan peruntukan
        Perlembagaan. Gerakan Satu Sekolah untuk Semua dalam proses mengkaji semua rang undang undang dan bersedia ke mahkamah jika perlu bagi mengesahkan tahap keabsahannya menurut Perlembagaan Malaysia.

        Isu 1996 bertitik tolak dari desakan ekstremis Cina macam awak agar dilucutkan kuasa dan hak Menteri menukar status SRJK di mana berkaitan

        Jangan juga cuba memutarkan fakta sejarah yang penerusan sekolah vernakular adalah kesinambungan Laporan Fenn Wu , laporan rasis Cina yang menolak ketetapan Laporan Barnes yang menyarankan pemansuhan sekolah vernakular.

        Malah laporan Razak menyarankan idea satu sekolah untuk semua berdasarkan fasa 12, Bab ll disini Report 1956.pdf

        Malah Laporan Rahman Talib dan seterusnya Akta Pendidikan 1961 konsisten menekankan aspek ini.

        Click to access 020_report-of-the-education-review-committee-1960.pdf

        Maka jangan cuba berhujah bagaikan hero opera Cina. Hujah seumpama itu lebih sesuai di nikmati dengan menghirup candu sambil meneguk samsu di bawah pohon banyan di tepi jalan. Bukannya dipertontonkan buat bahan ketawa khalayak di blog ini.

        Dan tolong terima hakikat yang keberadaan kamu sini adalah natijah Pendatang yang melarikan diri dalam ketakutan dari Tongsan tatkala Perang Candu dan Pemberontakan Taiping dan Boxer sedang marak di tanah tumpah darah kamu.
        Satu keberadaan yang diizinkan berkat penduduk Bumiputera Tanah Melayu, ada faham bahlol?

          1. Lagi satu, kalau boleh terima elemen pengkristianan sekolah mubaligh mengapa pula kayu ukur lain untuk sekolah kebangsaan, islamisasi konon! Nah, gamplang sudah prasangka rasis si babi tongok.

            1. Siapa terima elemen pengkristianan sekolah mubaligh? Saya berikan ucapan syabas dan tahniah setinggi-tingginya kepada kejayaan Kementerian Pendidikan dalam membahasa-melayukan sekolah aliran bahasa Inggeris sampai tukar terus nama sekolah berkenaan.

              1. Jangan merepek lah pendusta Cina tegar.

                Cuba tanya Nurul Izzah berhubung kemelayuan Assunta Convent atau LGE dan La Salle Brothers akan keislaman St Xavier Institution, Georgetown.

                Sekali berdusta selamanya pendusta

        1. Ramai manusia yang PERGI ke sekolah, tapi nampaknya setakat itulah saja tahap persekolahannya.

          Berselindung di sebalik Akta yang belum diuji? Ujilah, saya sangat mengalu-alukan percubaan SSS untuk mencari sesuatu dalam Perlembagaan Malaysia yang MENIDAKKAN kewujudan sekolah vernakular. Macamlah tokoh kemerdekaan Malaysia semuanya bodoh sakan kerana menggubal Perkara-perkara yang mengharamkan sistem persekolahan yang diteruskan sehingga hari ini. Apa aku peduli? Banyak lagi undang-undang yang belum diuji keabsahannya termasuklah pelbagai klausa dalam undang-undang syariah negeri di negara ini.

          Akta Pendidikan 1996 menyedari REALITI dan keperluan menetapkan kuasa Menteri dalam mewujudkan sekolah pelbagai aliran, termasuklah sekolah-sekolah swasta dan antarabangsa yang menggunakan bahasa Inggeris sebagai bahasa pengantarnya. Laporan-laporan yang disebut memang ada menyarankan sistem satu sekolah, tetapi jangan AWAK yang putarbelit mengatakan bahawa sekolah vernakular MENYALAHI Perlembagaan Malaysia. Tak ada satu pun laporan yang menyatakan bahawa sekolah vernakular itu anak haram jadah macam awak, ok?

          Laporan-laporan selepas kemerdekaan mencadangkan sistem satu sekolah sebagai matlamat SASARAN ke arah integrasi sistem pendidikan negara, berasaskan kepada konsep “ACCEPTABLE TO THE PEOPLE AS A WHOLE”. Kalau bahasa orang puteh tak pandai, boleh pakai khidmat penterjemah bertauliah di DBP. Laporan Rahman Talib sendiri MENGKTIRAF dan MENGEKALKAN SRJK dalam sistem pendidikan negara sehinggalah dasar penswastaan secara meluas selepas 1996. Dalam BabXVII tentang bahasa kebangsaan, tak ada cadangan lanjut untuk memansuhkan SRJK melainkan memastikan setiap SRJK ada guru bertauliah untuk mengajar bahasa Kebangsaan. Saya ulang di sini apa yang diutarakan oleh Laporan Rahman Talib berkenaan Sekolah Rendah (Bab VI):

          Development of primary education in the national language

          133. We consider that simultaneously with this general improvement of all primary schools in four different languages, a process which KEEPS FAITH WITH THE PROMISE TO PRESERVE AND SUSTAIN the cultures of all communities, there must also be a real effort to extend primary education in the national language.

          Itulah masalahnya bila Warrior231 nak jadi hero SSS. Baca laporan pun tak pandai.

          Saya terima hakikat bahawa moyang saya datang ke Tanah Melayu untuk mencari kehidupan baru. Tapi TANAH TUMPAH DARAH saya adalah di Malaysia. Dahlah Bahasa Inggeris lemah, penguasaan Bahasa Kebangsaan dan pengertian TANAH TUMPAH DARAH dalam Negaraku pun tak faham.

          1. Jentik sikit dah letup. Fius pendek kot. Tapi memang cukup seronok.

            Tentang “satu keberadaan yang DIIZINKAN berkat penduduk Bumiputera Tanah Melayu”, satu lagi interpretasi yang jauh meleset.

            Siapa yang bagi izin? Persetujuan atas persefahaman bersama bukanlah di atas “izin” – tak ada referendum dan “minta izin” agar orang bukan Melayu diterima sebagai warganegara oleh orang Melayu. Soal kerakyatan adalah isu yang telah lama didebat dan dibincang oleh tokoh-tokoh kemerdekaan (golongan elit) dan persetujuan yang dicapai (termasuk sultan dan raja) adalah in toto dengan hal-hal lain yang sewaktu dengannya, termasuklah kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu. Itu maksudnya kontrak sosial, bukannya perkenan ehsan manusia seperti Warrior231.

            1. Keperluan memahami asal wujudnya Artikel 153 tersebut perlu dirungkai dahulu sebelum kita mula melatah mengenai proviso proviso yang termaktub dalamnya.

              Artikel153 adalah sebenarnya kesinambungan dari Klausa 19 Perlembagaan Persekutuan Tanah Melayu 1948 yang memaktubkan kedudukan istimewa ( special position) Bumiputera Melayu Dan Pribumi lain. Ia boleh ditakrifkan sebagai Artikel yang berasaskan kepada kedua prinsip sejarah dan sosio- budaya.

              Takrif ‘ kedudukan istimewa’ secara konotatif dan denotatif mengisyaratkan satu status yang tidak di miliki orang lain. Maksudnya lafaz ‘istimewa’ dengan sendirinya menisbatkan pemilikan hak tertentu yang tidak ada atau tidak boleh dinikmati orang lain. Lafaz tersebut bertujuan jelas bukan untuk menzahirkan kesamarataan (parity) tetapi untuk mengesahkan perbedaan dari segi hak, privilij atau seumpamanya antara ras.

              Dan kata ‘istimewa’ dengan sendirinya membawa konotasi pemilikan lebihan atau keunikan tertentu ( sila lihat MacMillan, takrif 1) Dalam erti kata lain, hak, privilij dan prinsip seumpamanya sedia terpaut dengan kedudukan istimewa tersebut. Sebab itu, sejarah menukilkan British mengadakan beberapa hak seperti tanah rizab, biasiswa persekutuan dan seumpamanya yang tidak dinikmati bangsa Pendatang bagi menjernihkan apakah itu kedudukan istimewa Melayu/ Pribumi

              Dan jika Melayu dan Pribumi tiada berhak istimewa, apakah peri perlunya British mendapat persetujuan mereka untuk setiap sesuatu dari penganugerahan kerakyatan kepada Pendatang sehingga persetujuan yang sistem pendidikan vernakular Pendatang dikekalkan selepas Merdeka walaupun ia jelas ultra vires Perlembagaan.

              Ini difahami oleh Lee Kuan Yew sendiri yang mana Perlembagaan Singapura memaktubkan kedudukan istimewa Melayu dalam kerangka masyarakat majmuknya melalui Artikel 152. Tetapi bagi menjamin kelangsungan penguasaan politik dan ekonomi oleh Pendatang Tongsan maka bahagian yang merujuk kepada hak-hak yang terbit dari kedudukan istimewa Melayu sengaja dan dengan liciknya di nasakhkan oleh anak Pendatang bernama Lee Kuan Yew dan konco2 samseng dari PAP.

              Kalau ia bercanggah dengan konsep ‘natural justice’ , premis ‘ All men are equal’ dan bercanggah dengan realiti sejarah kenapa Lee Kuan Yew tidak memansuhkan terus kesemua Artikel 152 tersebut.? Nah, gamplang sudahbahawa Lee sendiri mengakui bahawa Melayu Pribumi merupakan tuan Tanah Melayu dan Singapura serta Sabah Sarawak sejak awal tamadun lagi.

              Tambahan pula, bukankah kewujudan 152 Singapura sepertimana 153 Malaysia juga mengisyaratkan bahawa konsep Pribumi adalah benar dan imigran bukan Pribumi secara automatiknya berkedudukan Pendatang sekalipun selang beberapa generasi. Jadi siPendatang perlu marah atau malu untuk menerima hakikat ini.

              Suruhanjaya. Reid yang menggubal Perlembagaan Malaysia mengambil kira keadaan sosioekonomi Melayu ketika itu. Dan kesedaran keadaan itulah, yang mendorong mereka menggariskan Artikel 153 berdasarkan keperluan menjaga kepentingan Melayu dari segi perjawatan awam, pendidikan dan ekonomi. Jika penafsiran terakhir (yakni ekonomi) ini salah, maka perangkaan rangkai kata fasal 153 (9) tidak seharusnya berbunyi sedemikian dengan rujukannya kepada ” “menghadkan perniagaan atau perdagangan” – lihat Artikel 153(9).

              Jadi DEB secara jelas jatuhnya dibawah ambit ekonomi Artikel berkenaan dan dasar ini tidak bercanggah dengan peruntukan perlembagaan kerana dari segi prinsipnya ia tidak menjejaskan kepentingan bukan bumiputera untuk bergiat bebas dalam ekonomi tanah air (lihat Artikel 153(5) dan 153(9). Malah perlaksanaan DEB sendiri menggambarkan kesaksamaan kepada semua di mana sekalipun DEB berjalan rancak dulu, bukan Melayu tidak terjejas dari terus menikmati habuan ekonomi.

              Menggunakan hujah tiada perkataan syer/saham, diskaun lot dsbnya adalah hujah dangkal kerana intipati aspek ekonomi tercakup dalam rangkaikata peruntukan Artikel 153 dan tidak perlu pemerinciannya bagi tiap satu yang wujud maupun maujud. Dan peruntukan 30% atau apa jua peratusan baru adalah tidak bercanggah dengan frasa ” that the YDPA deems reasonable” (munasabah) kerana kemunasabahan adalah tertakluk kepada faktor masa dan keadaan yakni apa yang munasabah pada tahun 1970 mungkin tidak munasabah sekarang.

              Pada hemat saya, sebarang dasar baru memperkasakan ekonomi Bumiputera perlu menyasarkan 65% pegangan sejajar dengan demografi sediada apatah lagi tika bilangan kaum Pendatang kian menyusut akibat imigrasi, dasar anak 2, kahwin lewat atau tolak perkahwinan atau perkahwinan sejenis dan mungkin juga pemandulan semulajadi.


              Wahai bangsat, jangan dicabar qada dan qadar mu. Jangan ingat anda boleh berseronok selamanya. Terima aje hakikat sejarah yang bangsa pendatang mengemis untuk kerakyatan dan akhirnya menerima Social Contract sebagai jalan keluar dari rela disumbat dalam tongkang untuk jalan pulang. Tetapi bila dah dapat menggigit tangan yang melepaskan bak perangai anjing jalanan. Memang dasar bangsa palat menjentik ikut nafsu tetapi bila berdepan dengan maut, terberak terkencing cabut lari. Aku senantiasa tabik orang Jepun yang pernah mengajar bangsa palat ini mengenal tinggi rendah langit.

          2. “kalau bahasa orang puteh tak pandai….”

            how can u said like that, this could only lead some people to start busy with their thesaurus again, and flout words with no relevance to the context to show off their meagre capacity to argue, a talent u n me never grasp.

            1. 1.A moron will always remain a moron, no matter how hard she tries.

              2.You cannot legislate away stupidity as surely as you cannot shoo away pesky inferiority complexed busybodies in search of attention.

              Ref: Verse 24 and 25; page 43, Volume 4 in Tze, KF ‘Anal Acts’ Szechuan Mahjong Paper and Toilet Roll Press, Gelang Patah, 1969.

              Don’t you agree with the above, Hannah Yeoh aka HY. Seems to me that you have latched onto your life partner here. [deleted]

              For some advise on thesauruses, I recommend Tyrannosaurus Rex, he will give you a good discount and throw in a nice humping in the mix.

              Now be a good girl, take a break from papa’s office laptop and go and ask mommy the meaning of the words you didn’t understand in the above. Oh! I forgot you are a moron! Hard luck being born a Mongoloid, sweetie pie……pai pai pang sai!

              1. Hei helen, you either ban me or totally bar my coments. You have no right to mangle them especially when no obscenity is involved. I gave no one here or anywhere else the right to edit my opinions,neither an iota nor carte blanche.

                And I sure would be ashamed to mangle another’s opinion uninvited if I were the blogger. I either dump it or ban the perpetrator, though I will not contemplate or visit those extremes unlike some social media nannies.

                You can do the right thing now by banning me outright! I am pretty sure you will have plenty of support. I am not seeking to be an Internet martyr but I cherish the freedom of expression. If you can’t stomach even censored or asterisked words, you have no right to declare this a common ground without first setting the parameters. It’s no skin off my nose if you ban me, I couldn’t care less but touching my comments is a no-no!

                And you don’t ambush comments at your whim or fancy. You either get that or give up the pretense of being a fair so-po blogger. I have got that complete comment in my cache. I am going to put it up elsewhere and let readers judge as to where you stand with regard to freedom of expression.

                This episode shows you up for who you really are and where your political inclinations lie. I was willing to give it the benefit of doubt but am no longer so inclined.

                1. For the record, below are the paragraphs I deleted from Warrior 231’s comment.

                  [… Hannah Yeoh aka HY. Seems to me that you have latched onto your life partner here.] “You know, a toilet bowl scum who will splice his evidence as adroitly as he will tongue your c&£@ and lick your s#%* to save on them toilet rolls.

                  Happy wedded bliss, HY. Hope you will be a good sow to them future piglets for they deserve better than the swine of a father they are getting.”

                  1. momma momma, I want sweet, no sweet I sob sob sob, ban me or sweet, sob sob sob bla bla bla 2009 haris Ibrahim bla bla bla ban me bla bla bla sob sob sob…… zzzzzzzzzzz.

          3. Lying Chingkie pig! I dare you write down that paragraph in full. You won’t cos you have lost both your marbles and balls in your desperate attempts to tarnish me. And you have no qualms in behaving worse than a Quranic verse splicing PAS devil just to further your racist and socially divisive agenda. No different are you from your religious extremist devils? As they say, the Christian Chingkie devil make good bedfellows with his Wahhabi Iblis!

            Now let me write out that line for you, to see how you tonguetwist around it

            “This is an ESSENTIAL move towards the ULTIMATE objective of making Malay the MAIN medium of instruction in ALL schools” ( paragraph 133, Chapter VI, page 25)

            a statement that reaffirms the recommendations of the Razak Report, 1956.

            Try segueing around that without falling and twisting your balls.

            2. Realpolitik has thus far prevented a challenge to vernacular education in the courts to ascertain its status vis a vis the relevant articles in the Constitution of Malaysia. In the not too distant future that detente will be breached and the courts will affirm the obvious. Article 152 is written in our Cavour, if one cares to observe the interpretations contained therein.

            3. It is effing Ching MFs like you that have earned your damned race it’s eternal ostracisation as a piggish, conniving, manipulative, amoral horde of sons of bitches/whores. And you call them Indians devious…..hahaha…sez who?

            Now, you don’t have to bother about my English and Malay language deficiencies, I can take care of that, perfectly well, thank you.

            But you better take care of your ethics, effing bastard for sooner or later someone somewhere is sure gonna not take kindly to your amoral waffling, duplicity etc and stick a steel dick aka Luger into your mouth and blow your brains to smithereens. And as your damned demented soul wafts into hell, you will regret each and every second of your lived life as a Chingk pig. Now scram outta our sights!

            1. Wahai Warrior231,

              I think you need an English teacher not only for the language, but also comprehension of a written text. Laporan Rahman Talib CLEARLY spelled out the goal to UNITE ALL SCHOOLS UNDER ONE MEDIUM OF INSTRUCTION. It did not say that the particular goal renders vernacular schools as haram. In fact, it reiterates right from the beginning that the ROAD towards integration must be done with consensus, not with idiotic threats by morons like Warrior231.

              You are blaming realpolitik for the continued existence of vernacular schools. Excuse it, it is realpolitik when when the political parties try to pander to innate racists like you to justify their continued belligerence. If the Chinese community at large wants Chinese schools and continues to support them, then in the spirit of the Constitution and the original premise of the compromise still stands. Just exactly like how the years of DEB is in place and being renewed in perpetuity with NO END IN SIGHT. The Malays want it and they wish to keep it, hence its continuation in various mutations.

              The very fact that Article 153 is where it is in the Constitution of Malaysia is reflective of the controversy in its development and inclusion. Our founding fathers compromised, Tun Dr. Ismail said as much. The framers of the Constitution never meant for the affirmative policies to be in force for perpetuity nor to be abused at the expense of equality. The moving goals and targets by politicians to shore up their base of ultras have cost the country real advancement in societal development, creating a class of citizens who believe that the “special position” in the Constitution means that the Malays and Bumiputeras are above the rest.

              The truth in the meaning and usage of the term special position refers to the historical population and sovereignty of the states in Tanah Melayu and their DISADVANTAGED position relative to the urban mercantile migrant communities. That was the basis for the NEED to create quotas, to make sure that some PROTECTION is made available for the original people of this land, not to grant than dominance by fiat, sans ability, effort or real contribution. Hanya orang bodoh seperti Warrior231 sahaja yang menjatuhkan martabat orang Melayu dengan mengkuotakan kekayaan negara atas alasan tidak mampu bersaing, atau pada pemikiran beliau, orang Melayu hanya perlu menadah tangan meminta syer hasil kekayaan tanpa perlu mengusahakannya.

              The stupidest argument to come from ultras like the brainless Perkasa, and the likes of Warrior231, is that quotas should be reflective of the population share. If that is the case, should we quota everything from civil service ratio to the ratio of head of departments and ministers accordingly? Dumb people never think before they say anything, and hence they broadcast their naive stupidity in proposing untenable positions. Quotas is to quarantee a MINIMUM participation, not to ensure a race-based share.

              I don’t have many choice words for Warrior231. The real sin I see is stupidity, and that is the only one that matters anyway. I am never one for civility or false or pretentious politeness. I like calling a spade as a spade, and he fits the bill as a tin kosong with no substance. A person who have no real arguments will resort to rants. I read all rants thrown at me, but if they contain no points of argument (except accusations that I am spinning), then there is nothing I can point out that can change his subjective opinion. That explains the behaviour of some who went on a rampage of the Churches after the kalimah Allah case lost at the court. People who do not understand fact and logic and the crux of the argument will resort to misdirected violence and anger. The problem was never about the usage of the term, but the ability of the federal ministry to enforce a state law not expressively permitted under the Printing and Presses act.

              I suppose Warrior231 are one of those people who relish to give the Chinese Malaysians a dagger at the earliest opportunity. Thank god this country is still a place based on the rule of law and not law of the jungle where animals like him think that might is right.

              Come back when you have an argument or point to make. Thrashtalking is fun, but pointless obscenities remain the heap of dung that it is.

              1. re: “Come back when you have an argument or point to make.”

                Warrior 231 will not be coming back.

                He challenged @ 2013/06/15 at 3:23 pm

                that he “gave no one here [meaning the blog admin] or anywhere else the right to edit [his] opinions, neither an iota …”

                and thus creating a situation whereby it’s impossible for his comments to be allowed through given that he is in effect demanding for all his obscenities (the censored paragraph here) to be given carte blanche passage.

              2. The crux of your argument is it is not haram per constitution. But there is nothing in the Constitution to validate your point.

                The crux of mine , it is haram only that realpolitik has kept it alive for bigots like you and prevented us moderates from testing the assumption in a court of law based on express provisions in the Constitution, accepted by all communities as of 1957.

                Rahman Talib, Razak all skirted the point with bureaucratic verbiage but their ultimate objectives would have erased vernacular ism in any case. ( see again rahman Talib para 61 that makes it clear, that vernacular have no place in the greater scheme of things). It is the circuitous route to SSS.

                By the way who deems it seditious to question vernaculars but your yellow hordes. The same hordes who say 153, 11 etc are game but raise hell and high water if vernaculars are broached.

                The lines of our arguments shalt never meet but that shouldn’t alter the fact that facts have been mangled to foist your absurdist take. As for you calling me names via couched sarcasm, that is par for course for people of your ethnic. It’s not a surprise at all.

                It’s not a case of stupidity, its a question of ethicality. I couldn’t care you dub me a moron for I have been dubbed worse but there must be rational decency when dealing with facts, not splicing them and then acting saintly when caught in the act.

                Like the vernacular school argument you are again mangling the argument about 153, you can read thru your arguments to see you have lost the plot, awhile back.

                Tell me for a change, how come for two elections immediately after the Constitution, no massive Chingk tumult was evident vis a vis its provisions, and from post 1970 onwards till 1990 post NEP, you have 4 elections of relative quiet until Razaleigh forms Semangat 46. Go figure those if ever this last comment of mine comes through to you on the grounds of fairness, nothing else

                Admin, so its officially confirmed I am banned? Nope you can’t leash me with equivocation. That would be akin to gantung tak bertali :). If it is confirmed, pai pai, ta ta………..sayonara

                1. Before I answer Warrior231, I would like to request if Helen would grant him some leeway to say his piece. I cannot speak for the diatribe directed against others, but I am absolutely ok with the language for myself. I would very much like to reply and engage Warrior231, but if it is not to be, can my e-mail be forwarded to him?

                  Dear Warrior231,

                  You are hitting on something there when you mentioned that it is a “circuitous route” to SSS. I actually believe that it is the route Malaysians have chosen for a number of things – putting a premium on compromise and moving forward only when broad consensus was achieved.

                  It is curious that you mentioned that realpolitik prevented “moderates” like yourself from testing the legality of vernacular schools in court. It is again, a faulty argument which also applies to the DEB and its various permutations. Take, for instance laporan Rahman Talib and all the education acts before or after 1996 – vernacular schools have always been recognized as a thorny issue but never deemed illegal. In fact, it has been embraced as PART of the national education system. If any Malay group feels that it should be challenged, then put forth the relevant clauses under the current education act which offends your sensibilities and see if you can get it to be declared ultra vires to the Constitution.

                  The founding fathers are not idiots or morons like yourself, they knew what they are facing and what they have to deal with. I do believe Chinese education was recognized as a threat, and the deliberate omission of a clause which specifically guarantees the right to education in Mandarin and Tamil is obvious. Many non-Malay leaders at that time believe that the national language should ultimately be the medium of instruction for all schools, but they are requesting that some consideration be given for non-native speakers so that they will not be handicapped in their early education. Subsequent government actions have been consistent with that philosophy, hence the government assisted primary schools.

                  I don’t consider vernacular schools as the sacred cows that some Malays consider DEB to be. Article 153 used to defend the excessiveness and perversion of DEB has gone on for long enough and the REAL success of UMNO was to convince the ultras that the “special position” means that they are one head or sholder above the rest of the Malayans.The fact that they used no words like “right” or “privilege” should alert the Malays that the framers have no intention to create two class of Malayans. It was also repeated in the same sub-clause that anything under 153 does not in anyway negate the principle of equality of all peoples regardless of race.

                  There is NOTHING illegitimate in the intention to integrate the education system into a single stream. The priority is to ensure that all our children will go to secondary schools together. If primary vernacular schools are still needed on a pedagogy basis, we can afford to tolerate it for another few more years.

                  You ASKED why there was so much Chink tumult after 1970s and 1990s, speculating that the Chinks only rise up when the opportunity arises in a split Malay polity. I am wondering if you are being naive or deliberately thick. Tepuk sebelah tangan tidak berbunyi, Warrior231. If you follow the events during those period, Malay ultras baited the community to shore up UMNO support. It is the same game played by the Chinks when they need to show a up yours gamemanship in becoming ethnic heroes. That’s why our communal political system is toxic to race relations in the long run. Ethnic heroes need enemies, and the easiest ones to conjure are the Malay ultras and Chinese communists / Jews.

                  No, you are the one who said that vernacular schools go against the Constitution. I am saying that vernacular schools is a work in progress that can only be won not by alienating the community, but to bring them back along the path of nationalization. The same goes for DEB. It was necessary and it was needed, a real ingenious approach at its time. However, the subsequent perversions distorted the original aims of the DEB so badly that it created a rentier class that cost every Malaysian, Malay, Chinese, Indian, Kadazan, Iban or any other common people lost resources due to systematic looting by the elites.

                  If you are blind to their games and manipulations, please be my guest and be their foot soldier and do their dirty work for them.

                  1. Ok I wrote the one below before reading this latest diatribe. I hope the leeway is given.
                    Let me address the points briefly:

                    re:The founding fathers are not idiots or morons like yourself, they knew what they are facing and what they have to deal with…………..,,,the deliberate omission of a clause which specifically guarantees the right to education in Mandarin and Tamil is obvious.

                    1. It is a figment of your imagination to assume the framers of the Constitution deliberately left out that vernacular clause. They knew its implications for national unity. As early as 1952 when the Fenn Wu report came out, the Brits could see the endgame of where that would lead. The absence of the clause is telling. Neither the non Malay leaders or the non Malay polity ‘rebelled” against its absence in 1959 or 1964. They understood implicitly as part of the unwritten SC , that the vernacular system was transitory and that it was implicitly ultra vires but explicitly tolerated for social harmony. That is why every education document since Razak 1956 carries the same tenor, even the Education Act 1996 as I outlined below (if Helen makes that available, that is). It puts in writing in a circuitous way where the system is evolving to circumvent opposition. That by itself, is implicit administrative admission that they are dealing with sensitive and combustible illegality.

                    2. You conveniently forget the historicity of the 1960s and the current period. A tumult against the status quo only arises when the Malay polity is split as now, as in 1990, as in 1969 as in 1946-1948. In that regard, 2008 and 2013 are no accidental anomalies. The Chingks have always caviled against Malay suzerainty over this land even when the Constitution affirms that status. They desire equal status and an assertion of their worldview as well as a ROI on their economic might.Even you concede to their racist paradigm. And even you are silent about why LKY refuses till this day to jettison Art 152 in his Constitution. He knows the reality and I am sure he is no moron.

                    3. The DEB is provided for implicitly in the provisions of Art 153.Any unbiased reading of the Act would affirm that. You cannot have Special Position without the rights that underpin that Position. You cannot divorce the two, they are mutually intrinsic. And historical actions affirm that status, if not the Brits could have just rode roughshod over the Sultans and the natives and forced the immigrants upon us as a fait accompli, no questions asked . They had all wherewithal and powers to do so, Even AMCJA in 1948 agreed to a limited form of Ketuanan, and the Penang secessionist Movement led by the Chinese was a backlash against Ketuanan. I can go back with historical proof, right back to 1896 (Federated Malay Stats) that affirm the inalienable rights of the Malays over this land. But I wont cause that would be an unnecessary digression. So coming back to the point, the DEB is not ultra vires. Even you seemed to waver in your comments, one moment ‘its ingenious’, the next : its oppressive.

                    4. In no way did I say without that the vernacular system is ultra vires per the Constitution. What I opined is that it is ultra vires based on all available data but that illegality has not been tested in a court of law due to realpolitik constraints. You will notice the non-Malays especially the Chingks will rail as seditious if such assumptions are floated but you wont find the same hue and cry when the DEB is maligned or Art 153 impugned.

                    5. There is no systematic looting by the Malay elites. There is systematic looting by ALL elites, irrespective whether government or opposition, Malay or Chinese or Indian. The rentier is a pervasive system cutting across ethnics not confined to the Malays alone. Even today I was vindicated in another blog, which disclosed that my contention that income inequality had widened in favor of the Chinese (data shows by 2 percentiles) was right after all. The core reason for inequality is not the DEB, the core reason is the general reluctance to accept the principle that wealth begets new wealth and wealth, ipso facto, confers undue advantages to its holder and his descendants and that historical inequalities are best addressed with progressivist taxation and redistribution mechanisms without upsetting growth. It is no accident that 1957 had us as a very unequal society and the period of laizzes faire from 1957-1969 under two Chingk finance Ministers and a pro-Chingk happy go lucky premier exacerbated that. To give you a snapshot, the Gini was 50.6 in 1970, in 2007 it was at 44.1. If you look at the 20 year period (1971-1991) when DEB was intensive and neoliberalism was reined in, the data shows progress

                    Click to access 227-Mukaramah.pdf

                    then we have the demographic spread, Malays confined to the east coast, Chingks the primary beneficiary of Brit infra investment on the WC, the educational factors etc etc……you throw in all that and you get why the elites are where they are and the marhaen where they are. There is a way out which I have worked out but that will be in my blog.

                    5, Nope, I dont help anyone loot, I wish I do so I can loot as well. Many assume I am paid anti-Chingk hack….that would make an ass of u not me if you believe the crap. I would quit my consultancy if anyone dangles the right sort of agongs in my face, though

                    I have called both sides names:

                    My vision for Malaysia is simple,I have already outlined parts of it here:


                    and particularly elsewhere especially RB but my vision is amenable to changing data, scenarios etc as it is imbued with pragmatism.

                    We can stop the name calling and the veiled barbs failing which we can agree to disagree and move on.

                    1. Dear Warrior231,

                      I believe we share similar opinions on the fate and outcome of vernacular schools. Our difference lies in your insistence that SRJKs are illegal. From the earliest pre-Independence efforts to the later education reports, to move towards a single medium of instruction for our schools must be made in consensus. It was deeply unfortunate that the government failed to make national schools the school of choice. At the very least, Chinese Malaysians must learn and accept that while PRIMARY vernacular schools serve the purpose of NOT disadvantaging non-native Malay speakers, they need to be re-integrated into the Malay-medium school at secondary and tertiary level. Only then the national language would take its place and stature as intended in the Constitution.

                      There is a way out, as Singapore has done it – MAKE Mandarin and Tamil mandatory subjects for Chinese and Tamil students in Malaysian secondary schools (as a start) to start the ball rolling and convert SMJKs to SMKs. I see no reason for SMJKs except for the problem of school management authority and autonomy issues. Those who cannot accept the conversion can opt to take their school to the private school route. At the same time, national schools need to seriously address its own issues.

                      With time, the same could be done at the primary level. I want this as bad as the next SSS advocate. I just don’t see the way forward if SSS proponents take the racist route and deny the legitimacy of vernacular education and its history in this country. We need to debunk the garbage argument that learning in Mandarin is essential to the preservation of “Chinese” culture when at the same time the same DJZ assholes are claiming that “Chinese” schools follow the exact same syllabus as national schools. Either one of the statement is false because they cannot be both true simultaneously. If “Chinese” schools are going to hedge their argument on better disciplin and quality, our challenge is to ask how we can offer the same for national schools as that is independent of the medium of instruction.

                      On the DEB, your insistence on interpreting Article 153 as indicative of inalienable Malay rights “OVER THIS LAND” is again the “One Country, Two-classes of People” approach. The “Special Position” of the Malays and the Natives of Sabah and Sarawak is a recognition of the original peoples of the land. This is undisputable, but Article 153 does not abrogate the equality clause, far from it. It recognizes the historical precedence of the Bumiputeras, and it JUSTIFIES the various assistance programs to put them on fairer footing TO COMPETE with other communities. It does not mean the programs, especially under the DEB, are meant for Malay hegemony or superiority. The distortion of the meaning of the phrase Ketuanan Melayu is instructive to many Malaysians. You have the right to be assisted and helped, not the right to lord over others on the basis of your skin colour or origins.

                      We have no disagreements over the ethnic composition of the systematic looting by the elites, often a collusion between the Malay polity and mercantile Chinese.

                      I used Mukaramah’s paper for my presentation and the paper lends no support whatsoever to your Chink conspiracy of 1957-1969. That paper analyzes exclusively data from 1970-2004. The accusation of laissez-faire policy which did not trickle down was mentioned by Roslan, 2001), but he did say that “it resulted in RAPID economic growth”. This proves what many have said before, that Malaysia sacrificed rapid growth for a more distributive growth, but it got distorted with rent economy and patronage politics.

                      GINI coefficient has been coming down since the peak of mid-1970s before coming up again in the early 2000s. Looking at GINI coefficient alone by ethnic group though does not tell you whether they have become COLLECTIVELY poorer or richer to each other but among themselves, and this is where the Mean and Median values come in. The Chinese and Indians have better overall household income, but if we were to sub-categorize the Bumiputeras into Malay and the Sabah and Sarawak natives, and reanalyze the data in the distribution income share changes since 1970, we will see data indicating the rapid rise of a Malay middle class and wealthy top 20%. The GINI data actually show that INCOME INEQUALITY started to rise in 1990, especially for INTRA-Malay inequality a.k.a. gap of rich and poor among Malays themselves (Roslan, 2001). Roslan was absolutely correct when he said that the WIDENING gap between the rich and the poor, EVEN WITHIN GROUPS, “did not form the central focus of the political debate”. It was always inter-group inequality that gets highlighted, when in fact the systematic looting is reflected in economic data where the intra-group inequality worsened. Newer data showed that intra-Malay inequality is persistent and a really NEW economic policy is needed to address this, rather than the slander that the average Chinese is making the average Malay poor.

                      At the end of the day, DEB worked and has proven that our founding fathers were correct. They made decisions when the data showed that their earlier approach actually widened the gap between the rich and the poor when it culminated in a racial bloodbath in 1969. From that point on we took an approach to make sure the poor, regardless of their race, get a leg up in life. We tried to break the Chinese monopolies, and give others a chance to participate in the new economy. Four decades later, the results showed that a lot of the subsequent programs and approaches, especially the short-cut ways of Tun Mahathir, have exacerbated the nexus of big business and politics – the perfect recipe for corruption and cover-ups when things go wrong.

        2. Hei si Warrior, jangan engkau tuduh i hate n’sync celupar bila awak sendiri menghina orang Cina sebagai ‘chinks’ dan india dengan kata nista ‘keling’. Hipokrit betul anda!

          Saya tidak bersetuju 100% dengan i hate n’sync tetapi dia memang memberi hujahnya secara bernas dengan kajian. Terutamanya dalam ‘thread’ ini

  9. During campaigning before GE#13, some commenter here and a few blog that I’m following write about the missing MCA supporter in a lot of places. All around, the news coming to the ground that only UMNO members who doing the campaigning job.

    When you put two and two together together with the result of GE#13, the conclusion by UMNO underground members was that MCA was a problem to them. After GE#13 it start fueling with the comment and demanding by chinese NGO and by DAP.

    MCA, well they get all the brunt and without the support from majority of chinese during GE#13, the hatred was aiming at them right now.

    :[ sarah

  10. “Perkasa vice president Zulkifli Noordin was the de facto Umno challenger to PAS in Shah Alam. For a last minute parachute candidate, Zul garnered an incredible 38,070 votes out of a turnout of 88,126 voters. That’s 43.2% support from those who cast their ballots.

    Furthermore, he did far better than Umno’s 2008 candidate Abdul Aziz Shamsuddin who had gotten 24,042 votes. And Zul’s opponent bukan calang-calang orang. Khalid Samad is the Selangor PAS deputy commissioner.”

    But if you look at the results clearly…

    Khalid Samad (PAS): 33,356
    Abdul Aziz Shamsuddin (UMNO): 24,042

    Khalid Samad (PAS): 49,009
    Zulkifli Noordin (BN) : 38,070

    source: Wikipedia “Khalid Samad”.

    …Khalid Samad also got an increase in the number of votes. Previously he got 33,356. In 2013, 49009. That is over 15,000 votes.

    Consider also that BN has been pushing a multimillion ringgit Sayangi Selangor campaign to recapture the state. I could not go anywhere without seeing their billboards. Komuter stations had thier pillars and walls wrapped with SS posters and the music video was repeatedly plating on the trains!

    1. AC-DC,

      That is only half of the story. BN (friendly) candidates too was able to increase his votes(meaning for BN).

      In Ampang, where Malays forms approximately 55% of voters, UMNO I believe managed to get around 70% of malay votes. But as remaining 20 to 30% malay voters and total rejection by chinese, Ampang was lost to PKR.

      One misleading comment is tht UMNO only appeals to “kampung people (meaning those deemed as “ulu”). wrong. UMNO does appeal to urban Malays too. But as almost total rejection of Chinese towards BN, BN lost quite a number of seats.

      1. Lets take a look at Ampang.

        BN: 28,691 (40.6%)
        PKR: 41,969 (59.4%)

        Majority: 13278


        Malay: 56.22%
        Chinese: 34.17%
        Indian: 8.91%
        Other: 0.7%

        If you said 70% of Malays voted for UMNO, then UMNO would have locked in 40% of the total votes already. Plus the votes from the 9% Indian population, there is a sizable Indian population, half of which usually votes for BN. So UMNO should have scored at least 45%, not the 40% that it actually got.

        As you can see, this is not the case. I would say they got over half the Malay votes, but no more than 63%.

  11. Unfortunate that Warrior is banned. His argument is sharp, with links to support all points raised.

      1. Since I have locus standi in the issue. Allow me to make a few observations based on the principle of fair comment
        I didnt request for a ban. I gave you the option of either dumping my comments wholesale or banning me. And I stressed under no circumstances they should be subjected to editing.
        You took the course of least resistance and I respect that but I expect a modicum of decency when spelling your decision.

        Anyway thanks for the space and tolerance but your decision merely validates the perception I have been harbouring all along regarding this blog.

        2.Ray: Thanks for the support, dude. Really appreciate it. As for the links that is part and parcel of responsible commenting, dude. Facts must be validated and quoted in full even if it goes against the grain of our subjective proclivities. Anyway, you are welcome to my blog : Warrior 231’s Lair. For now it is lying fallow for want of time but will activate it soon. And of course obscenity will be freely allowed if used to pepper a sumptous comment. And of course, hypocrisy, equivocation and factual mangling will receive their due cold shoulders.
        3.I Hate N’Sync
        I couldnt overlook this but in your 7.22 verbal diarheoa, you did mention this:
        In fact, it reiterates right from the beginning that the ROAD towards integration must be done with consensus, not with idiotic threats by morons like Warrior231.
        Could you kindly tell us where in Para 61, Para 133 of the Rahman Talib Report does it mention consensus or anywhere else for that mater?
        Can you do the same for the Razak Report 1956?
        Can you find the same in the Education Act,1996.
        Regarding the Education Act, 1996, the preamble states:
        AND WHEREAS the above policy is to be executed through a national system of education which provides for the national language to be the main medium of instruction, a National Curriculum and common examinations; the education provided being varied and comprehensive in scope and which will satisfy the needs of the nation as well as promote national unity through cultural, social,economic and political development in accordance with the principles of Rukunegara:
        We, the unfortunate recyclable cans, need your esteemed insight into what is meant by “national system of education which provides for the National Language to be the main medium of instruction”
        Too many ‘nationals’ in there and no vernacular is a tad bit confusing to an illiterati like me!! So please help me sir with your profound and earth shattering, nay universe exploding, revelation. We humbly beseech your wise and perspicacious forbeareance in this regard.
        And blimey this preamble is in no way far different from the Ultimate Objective of Razak (1956) as mentioned in Para 22 of Rahman Talib here :
        Oh wise one, I cannot find any word resembling ‘consensus’ in there either nor any meaning/synonyms having exhausted all thesauruses both online and in the book store. This is very troubling indeed as your esteemed self could not have made a deliberate mistake (perish the thought Warrior, damn you for even deigning it!!!).
        Perchance, ‘consensus’ is a exotic Ching condiment dropped accidentaally in your pork trotters soup to con our senses (ah thats it; consensus=con + senses)…hahahahahaha
        Finally oh wise one, where are they ladling out free shares in every company on the local bourse to the Malays. I want my share too, wise sage, and I would be indebted if you told me where.Oh how the riches of Midas will avail me a mansion in Hartamas where my sliteyed servants will be at the mercy of my every beck and call and my chingchonging kway teow gobbling valet be the servant of my every desire.
        I bessech you Wise One not to crap about the Kalimah Allah thingy to anyone in the legal circles lest they laugh at you and demean your honour and infinite wisdom, oh wise Lord of the Flies!
        4. HY; oh verily this heartbraking leave taking is inducing copious flows everywhere, banshee. Are those sobs thy tears of joy mourning my eternal banishment from these this garden of Hades?Or are they copious overflows from thy throbbing loins in anticpation of the Wise One’s snakelike tonguing of thy senses to the heights of Olympia and the Depths of Neptune, ah consensual consenses again, how so sensual! One thinks that yearning is more in consensus with thy thoughts……..I bet.
        p/s ; since I am banned forever more till kingdom come, nations drown and he is crowned a crown of thorns to rule over bramble and thrush, i am glad i can say hy to my N sync records for a change…..thanks for the freedom, Helen.

        1. hehe

          Warrior is funny if you can accept his “colourful” language.

          HA versus HY or could they be ethnic twins “pretend-wrestling” to sway one ethnic community?

          Will make a migration from HA to Warrior 231’s Lair for want of a more robust debate with all the unhealthy doses of spice and chillies.

          1. “Will make a migration from HA to Warrior 231’s Lair for want of a more robust debate with all the unhealthy doses of spice and chillies.”

            Hello Ray,

            You seen the movie ‘Joe Dirt’ where the main character thinks a lump of shit dropped from an aeroplane toilet is a valuable space meteor?


  12. Dear Warrior231,

    Laporan Razak 1956 bermula dengan Chapter B The Committee’s Task, dan dinyatakan dengan JELAS:

    9. Furthermore, throughout our deliberations we hope in mind the fact that our primary task under our terms of reference was to recommend an educational policy ACCEPTABLE TO THE PEOPLE OF THE FEDERATION AS A WHOLE (original emphasis in Italic). Technical and theoretical considerations have in some instanaces had to be subordinated to this paramount objective.

    Di bawah Effects of Recommendations:

    13(b) The establishment of standard primary schools with the national language as the medium of instruction, and the development of schools of similar type but in which the language of instruction may be English, Tamil or Kuo-Yu (Mandarin).

    Di bawah Chapter V Primary Education

    54. We have AGREED that there shall be a variety of Primary Schools, falling into two broad types-
    (a) Standard Primary schools in which the medium of instruction shall be the Malayan national language
    (b) Standard-type Primary schools in which the main medium of instruction may be Kuo Yu or Tamil or English.

    The same emphasis on the proposals being ACCEPTABLE to all is evident in Laporan Rahman Talib and all these made its way into the Education Act 1961 which recognizes the vernacular schools, including federal funding for its operation.

    In Section 3 of the Education Ordinance, 1957 have said, in full:

    The educational policy of the Federation is to establish a national system of education acceptable to the people as a whole which will satisfy their needs and promote their cultural, social, economic and political development as a nation, with the intention of making the Malay language the national language of the country whilst preserving and sustaining growth of the language and culture of people other than Malays living in the country.

    So remember when you shut down the vernacular schools, remember to do your part to ensure the last part of that sentence is done.

    Education Act 1996, via article 28 empowered the Minister with the ability to establish and maintain national and national type schools. The law puts this power in the hand of the Minister. If you think it is about asking the Minister to shut down the national type schools, I think you would need a new law to be passed in the Parliament.

    Something that is acceptable to all is pretty clear to me – consensus, a solution that is acceptanle to all Malaysians.

    As for the Herald case, you are welcomed to peruse the written judgement available.

    Glad to be able to enlighten you. I suppose the groveling is befitting :P.

    1. I think you are belaboring over scraps to prove a nonexistent term. Acceptable to all people (acronym: ATAP) is as far removed to consensus as day is to night. This problem arises when you read for scraps of evidence to support your dubious assertions when the more rational alternative would be to look objectively at the whole thing in its totality.

      If you claim that ATAP is the evidence of consensus, then Razak, Rahman Talib et al have shot their mouth off before they even started as in para 22 of Rahman Talib (and by default Razak) leaving ATAP to collapse under the weight of its own superfluous claims. A case of the roof caving in! or was it premature ejaculation or coitus intteruptus?

      If you care to read para 28 of Rahman Talib, (pg 4), the phrase “we agreed” begins the very paragraph that again alludes to the ultimate objective. If going by your esteemed take, ” consensus” would have fallen apart by now, 5 pages in, trampled underfoot beyond repair!

      And further, ATAP is easily as interchangeable with “the needs of the nation ( refer preamble to Education Act 1996) thus implying that ATAP cannot, ” by any stretch of even your superhuman elastic imagination”, be even a whore to consensus’ lust.

      And if “consensus” is the overriding theme why did the framers of EDA 1996 jettison it in the preamble instead of according it due emphasis. That they did shows that ATAP is mere poli-speak probably referring to “an educational system that meet the minimum standards the public demands ” or adhering to some objective measure/standard the public expects it to.

      These people are not stupid. They knew they were dealing with a sensitive and combustible illegality. They had to frame everything carefully without losing sight of their immediate brief ( maintain an illegality) and the actual goal( all Malay instruction). And they knew that push comes to shove, the Constitutional provisions will kick in. And Razak was a lawyer, to boot.

      So there is no way you can read consensus into the phrases you cherry picked. What a waste of time at Uncle Vanya’s Cherry Orchard. Chekhov must be mighty pissed!

      Another thing I noticed is that you seemed besotted with S28 of the EDA 1996. In your haste you overlooked something pernicious with this piece of legislation, I won’t tell but let you have the fun of finding out with your infinitely superior intellect and superhuman wisdom that will have Spork of Star Trek fame cringe in shame. I highlight this in relation to another of your pet proclivities: confusing Acts of Law and Articles of the Constitution.

      The former can be simply dumped if it is against the provisions of the latter. The latter is an unassailable bedrock (save with a 2/3 majority) of secular nationhood. It is the secularist’s Quran so to speak. Vernacular systems are not provided for in the Constitution as all the evidence overwhelmingly suggests. It is something to argue for the DEB for which there is at least a specific provision ( Art 153) in the Constitution but another thing altogether for vernacular education for which there is virtually nothing in there unless you want to put on your esteemed imaginative cape on and start seeing phantoms, spirits, ghosts and ghouls of mandarins in there as you do slaloms in midair.

      You rant against Ibnu above is indicative of your skewed thinking. Vernacular education ( VE) was a palpable reality in 1957 but the DEB was not. Hence, the provisions of the DEB were of course about addressing contemporary needs arising in 1971, needs that expanded on definitions provided in 1957 and the term Special Position itself is indicative. The polity accepts it so as the 1974 GE outcomes indicate. For VE, there is absolutely nothing to fall back on in the first place, not in 1957, not ever , not since….nil, pujiam, kosong, nada, ling. It is an accepted part of the SC, which explains why the Chingks and Kelings of those era voted overwhelmingly for the Alliance in 1959 and 1964. Even LKY and gang dint bother too much about its absence (not that they were concerned anyway as they were gonna slaughter vernacular education in Spork in any case) They all knew it was a transitory illegality tolerated by realpolitik. Why, even words like ‘ultimate’ in Razak and RT didn’t raise the ire of the Chingks. All these are indicative on the flimsiness of your claims of consensus for there is no consensus anywhere in those documents and Acts, only wisps of speculative dross courtesy of your fevered imagination

      You should quit dropping consenses into your pork trotters soup or into your bah kut teh, oh Wise One for indeed it has conned your senses about truth and thy greatness. So much so, thy speech spits the venom of the forked tongued, thy reason lie cuckolded by thy bigotry, thy cock seduced by the wily charms of HY and thy crown stained with hogshit. For verily, thy are now indeed The Lord of the Flies! Ruler over mounds of s%^#

  13. One final thing I wish to add

    1. the “preserving language and culture thing of the non-Malays” bit in section 3 Ed.Ord 1957

    Everyone knows language and culture are symbiotic entities. You can as easily preserve it in SSS system as in a vernacular system. You don’t need the latter for it, silly.

    Hence putting it there and re-quoting it here doesn’t help the case of establishing the legality of Vernacular Education, one iota.

  14. IHN’S

    Just FYI

    1. The Mukarramah paper’s data was used SOLELY to show the impact of the DEB, and nothing else in this thread.

    2. In another blog, I have used the same paper plus ancillary data to show that the widening GINI in the 1990s is due to a series of cumulative factors NOT looting as you simplistically opine. The proof is incontrovertible but I will not go into specifics here as the blog owner has grown weary of my drivebys (proof:she has left some of my innocent comments in limbo). I have read Roslan’s paper (have a copy of it) but disagree with his polemical reasoning.

    2. Intra ethnic Gini notwithstanding, one of the reasons for Chingk fear was the relative narrowing of the gap between them and the Malays which they largely attribute to post 98 policies n discrimination. Again this is flawed reasoning. There is a series of factors that could account for this and latest census data shows the gap between the Malays and the Chingks have rewidened. An error everyone makes when looking at the Gini is overlooking the maxim that wealth begets wealth. It holds true generally. There is a need to move away from thie solely income mode and several papers have illustrated this reality ( I have the links but can’t supply them offhand). Even, the notion of the normal Gini is open to debate as illustrated here:

    No, Helen the above link not to a porn or nudity site ; p I swear!

    2. Like most transplanted species, you evince a total ignorance of what is ketuanan Melayu. It is not a hegemonistic construct as you aver but a socio-cultural paradigm transcending eras. The invasive species define it as hegemonic because it comes from a simplistic ‘us vs Other’ socio-historical frame underpinned by a collective inferiority complexedpsyche. Again, I will elucidate in my blog, save to say, that KM has become a filthy thing due to its politicization, often traceable to Dollah Ahmad’s speech in Spork. In actuality, KM as construct precedes all that by eons.

    1. Dear Warrior231,

      I don’t know where did you learn your English, but it is apparent to you that when something IS mentioned in Laporan Razak and Laporan Rahman Talib that you dislike, it becomes realpolitik and poli-speak and scraps of evidence.

      On the other hand, when something is NOT mentioned in the Constitution and the Education Act 1996, it becomes your “evidence” that it is against vernacular schools.

      How very convenient. Are you delusional?

      It was written in black and white and in front of your face and every education law passed in the Parliament (as well as the education reports) have reiterated the fact that vernacular schools are part of the national education system.

      If DEB, a policy derived from contemporary needs as you said, cannot be wrong since it “expanded” on definitions under the Constitution, isn’t it even more obvious that vernacular schools, which fulfil a real and actual need of the Chinese community even before Independence, can be something illegal? Your argument that if something cannot trace its legality via explicit mention under the Constitution, it is AGAINST the Constitution. Yet, you can accept a derivative version of Article 153 for DEB, but you don’t accept a derivative version of Article 152. The existence of vernacular schools has been recognized and undisputed for decades, streamlined and funded by the government. If we run into problems with its development, we should roll back the problematic areas and this applies to DEB as well.

      The Reid Commission spelled out clearly what Article 153 is supposed to be. The Article itself also outlined the measures that could be taken. I know what cumulative factors you are alluding to, but you must remember that it is not just Roslan and economists who is suggesting the existence of rent economy and patronage politics. Of course, like I have said, GINI coefficients have its limitations, but you are most interesting when you claimed that “wealth begets wealth”. Doesn’t that answer the question of top 10 billionaires in Malaysia?

      I am aware what Ketuanan Melayu refers to in its original coining, but the phrase has been used to mean quite a different animal altogether, and I think you know which people I am talking about, both Malays or Chinese.

      You can keep lacing it up with all the expletives you want, it still doesn’t cover the sink hole-sized flaws in in your arguments. I welcome any discussion on S28 of the Education Act 1996. It says to establish and to maintain, both implying creation and responsibility to take care of vernacular schools, not its abolishment. We shall see if the exception provided under this clause will justify your argument that makes vernacular schools illegal or ultra vires. As long as the Chinese community wants it, their wishes still count and no Minister will want to try their luck in the Parliament, simple majority or 2/3 majority notwithstanding.

      For BN to do it, they need a perfect storm, i.e. DAP being kicked out of PR and the Malay polity will ram this through the Parliament. Even then, I doubt it will be done under the pretext of national unity. Oh the irony.

      1. Part 1 : The Illegal Vernacular School

        You are working yourself into a lather for no reason.

        Delusional? Look at the mirror. As I said, your frivolous contention about Chingkie vernacular system always rested on quicksand.

        I have provided evidence via Razak, Rahman Talib, Ed. Act 1996 that your reading of ‘consensus’ ‘ATAP’ ‘agree’ are all phantoms of your imagination.

        I have scoured the Constituion and there is no shred of evidence for vernacular schools. I have argued that 153 provides the basis for the DEB and both historical and electoral evidence back that up.

        In plain speak, apa lagi Cina ini mahu rgdg an illegality, albeit a tolerated one? Remember government largesse, maintenance does not automatically sustain an illegality in a court of law irrespective of feelings in the court of public opinion.

        In short, everything you have thrown here are just figments of an over active imagination desirous of proving a fallacy true. You can nurse that delusion on your own. I desire no part of it.

        Part 2: About the GINI
        I am not getting into another bog about the Gini. I have had exchanges with many economists who can see the validity of my contentions. Roslan and co. may be right about rentier, patronage systems etc. But one needs to see where they are coming from and assess their assertions dispassionately. And why don’t talk about things like the neoliberal policies back then, of hot money inflows and exits, on speculative bubbles allowed to boom and bust, about public sector crimped to the detriment of the rural sector where the poor Malays languish et etcetc. I got the data on all that so I make my judgements based on reasoned analysis of data, of testing the econometrics etcetc. My desire for empirical truth flows naturally from my engineering background( I am not an economist) but my analysis match theirs as they themselves affirm. I am not bragging, just highlighting the fact that I am driven by empirical data not half baked hokey.

        So don’t throw me instant mee answers for the Gini. Rentierism and patronage are just two convenient scapegoats. They do have an impact but not as much as had been exaggerated by many partisan or sectarian idiots and bigots,. They serve as convenient excuses for other shortcomings and they make good clubs to bash the Malays with.

        Part 3 : General observations about economists, democrazy and other crazies

        FYI, the whole world operates on rentierism and patronage in one form or another.

        Check out Christian Lagarde the current IMF boss and her involvement in the Credit Lyonnaise affair

        That’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Secularism and capitalismi are teeming with contradictions. There is nothing clean about them, only maximization of power n profits matter, ethics be damned, the proles are expendables in the bigger scheme of things, mere collateral victims of greed.

        To give you the extent of hypocrisy in economics, many hollered when Mahathir helped out corporate Malaysia back in 1998 but the same wankers shut their gobs when Clinton bailed out LTCM the same year and 10 years later when Bernanke launched the bailouts of corporate America.

        Adam Smith hinted the imperfections of the market in his Wealth of Nations. Stigler has this to say about the need to test ethics vis a vis utility maximizing behavior

        He makes an apt conclusion about leaders in his closing remarks. You can contemplate on his observations in the link above.

        Democracy is just a fledgling chick in Malaysia. Despite affectations to the contrary, a vast majority of the wealthy and the middle class are ignorant self centered idiots when it comes to the tenets of democracy. . I would define Malaysia, an illiterate, unenlightened confrontational democracy. Many of us have the temerity to pride ourselves as a two party democracy. I say F u , what two party democracy? We are not even past the stage of objectively and rationally processing information, and we are yapping about two party scenarios and other effing stuff! And we want to crap about justice, equitability, liberty etc when we don’t even know or understand the basic concepts of a dynamic functional democracy. In fact I opine that Malaysia is a classic case of democrazy. More on this and stuff above in my blog…for I am digressing.

        Which brings to the rahrah boys and gals of justice, freedom and equity – the Chingks. The same Chingk who will preach equity here inMalaysia would be the same Chingk who would not raise a whisper about illegalities in Spork

        Morgan Stanley’s Xie quit Singapore after email

        I can give you tonnes of those sort of things to prove that what you see is not what it seems. That is why I give short shrift to virtually all Chingks. Because they love oinking platitudes than practicing them! And they love condescending put me downs, to give their superiority outer core a free massage while their inner core skulks about in guilt ridden inferiority. Plus they have this feeling of being masters of the universe – their own puny universes, I suppose.

        Part 4 : In discord do we depart

        Let me finish by saying, simply put, there is no possibility of consensus here pertaining to vernacular schools nor the cause of inequality, or the validity of the DEB for that matter. For me in situations like this, it is best to move on rather than waste our time hurling barbs and expletives at one another. It is the mature and gentlemanly thing to do.

        Let the matter rest, shall we? I am game for that.

        1. One last thing I just noticed. You have a tendency to misinterpret my comments.

          Case in point being the DEB and vernacular school.

          My comment ( no 77 at I.55pm) states VE as a palpable reality meaning it was real and existent when the Constitution was drafted in1957)

          I DID NOT say the DEB was a contemporary need then. You skewed it to make it sound as if the DEB was around in1957!

          Do read it again. I said ” contemporary needs arising in 1971, needs that expanded upon definitions provided in 1957″ (1.55pm)

          Everyone can see that. Maybe you didn’t understand and that brought about your subsequent absurd derivative claims about the DEB.

          This example gives an insight as to why you misrepresent a lot of things. Whether it is deliberate or not, i don’t know but I sure wont mention anything about English teachers or learning English ;p

          I rest my case. The readers can be the impartial judges.

          1. Dear Warrior231,

            Dude, Razak, Rahman Talib, Education Act 1996 all RECOGNIZES AND REAFFIRMS the existence of vernacular schools. Again, you said that the Constitution mentioned NOTHING about vernacular schools. Even if I concur with your argument that vernacular schools cannot derive its legitimacy from Article 152, that does not make it illegal. Policies and laws have moorings in constitutional text, structure, history, consensus or other legitimate sources. Which part of my previous argument on the principle of legality that you did not understand?

            To quote:

            There are five sources that have guided interpretation of the Constitution: (1) the text and structure of the Constitution, (2) intentions of those who drafted, voted to propose, or voted to ratify the provision in question, (3) prior precedents (usually judicial), (4) the social, political, and economic consequences of alternative interpretations, and (5) natural law.

            – UMKC School of Law, Prof. Linder

            US Supreme Court Justice Scalia once stated that “a law can be both economic folly and constitutional.” Hence we say that the DEB has been perversed, not that the constitutionality of its origin is in doubt. Similarly, the specific omission of any Article on vernacular education in the Malaysian Constitution does not imply its illegality, merely a lack of guarantee. To put it in simple terms for simpletons like yourself, tiada jaminan tidak bererti haram – unless there is a law passed in Parliament to that effect.

            “They serve as convenient excuses for other shortcomings and they make good clubs to bash the Malays with.”

            – Warrior231

            Why is the GINI pointing out rent economy and patronage politics a “club to bash Malays”? Isn’t the collusion of a multiracial elite obvious? Kenapa terasa? Why deny unethical and corrupt behaviour because it is potentially embarassing to the Malays when all Malaysians should be incensed over the systematic looting? That’s the problem with some people, they don’t mind being raped and sodomized as long as it is done by their own kind. Good for you!

            If we believe that oppression and victimisation of the masses are unavoidable under a capitalist system, and thus we shouldn’t make any hue and cry about it, then I suppose there is nothing to talk about. Some of you might enjoy being given the shaft, but I believe that there is always space for sustainable development and ethical development, including the justice of redistributive policies like what the DEB proposed.

            I totally agree with you that the masses are ignoramus, but even the kampung farmer and the hawker traders know something can’t be right when the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer. The only difference is that idiots are more easily manipulated and controlled by the spectre of a boogeyman rather than abstract concepts. Of course, this does not exclude the so called liberated few who subscribe to a position because it is popular with the in-crowd.

            I would like to correct a misperception that I enjoy putting you down because I am a Chingk. I just enjoy running down morons because it is fun. And by the way, you are an idiot because you are an idiot, not because you are Malay (I have no idea how to verify that). Similarly, I am condescending and smart because I am so, not because I am Chinese. Big difference, but that’s not something everyone can grasp.

            On the contrary, I don’t think we are wasting our time. I enjoy the exchanges very much, I genuinely do. Where’s the fun in engaging someone who agrees with you or who are unable to comprehend the finer points raised? We both share the same position on the transitionality of the vernacular schools, but we disagree on its historical legality. We both share the same position on multiracial elite looting, but we disagree if it could be pinned down to the perverted DEB and/or identify other possible causes. I totally understand that the Malays in general are caught between a rock and a hard place with the DEB – do well through them or don’t, they are condemned both ways. The same goes for secularism and Islam in the Constitution. We all have our takes on what the situation is like, but of greater importance is how we take it forward. If we cannot find a way to move ahead, we will be heading towards a journey filled with conflict and chaos. I believe you are prepared to scorch this earth for your ends, but I think many other Malaysians prefer to compromise and find a point of consensus which they can all agree, to give and take.

  15. “Case in point being the DEB and vernacular school.

    My comment ( no 77 at I.55pm) states VE as a palpable reality meaning it was real and existent when the Constitution was drafted in1957)

    I DID NOT say the DEB was a contemporary need then. You skewed it to make it sound as if the DEB was around in1957!

    Do read it again. I said ” contemporary needs arising in 1971, needs that expanded upon definitions provided in 1957″ (1.55pm)

    Everyone can see that. Maybe you didn’t understand and that brought about your subsequent absurd derivative claims about the DEB.”
    Warrior231 | Jun 17, 2013 at 2:05 am

    Reply: It doesn’t matter if you call me an idiot, moron or worse in jest or otherwise. Its no skin off my nose as I have been called worse.It doesnt faze me an iota

    But it amuses me that a smart aleck like you:

    1. can misinterpret that the DEB was existent in 1957 via misreading of a simple sentence.

    2. cannot cogently rationalise as to why an immediate concern, namely, the status of Vernacular education was not addressed immediately and left ignored when the Constitution was being drafted when already a controversy was brewing with Barnes (1951), Fenn Wu (1955) and Razak (1956):

    That willful decision to ignore any mention of VS by the drafters of the Constitution says much, doesnt it?

    3. cannot fathom the gulf in difference between ” consensus’ and ATAP or ‘agreed’ for that matter.

    4. choose to remain conveniently silent about the construction of Paras 22 ( a restatement from razak), 61, 133 of Rahman Talib, 1960 whenever they talk about the main medium of instruction plus the preamble to Education Act 1996. Paras that clearly rejects your “ATAP, consensus, agreed” contentions.

    5. cannot cogently explain the total absence of any expressed affirmation of VS legality either in the Constitution itself or the Reports or Education Act related to education save for a flimsy mention in s28, 1996.

    6. can ignore the fact that the Chinese community for much of 1980s and 1990s were calling for rescinding a clause in the Education Act 1961, that empowered the Minister to de-gazette a vernacular school

    Come on, it a simple challenge to a wise man like you and you dont have to bring in Linder to show off your knowledge for it is just a simple question of law, just like any questions of law raised vis-a-vis the Constitution raised by Botak Chin,Malai Chai, Che Soh or even Lina Joy. And I am pretty sure not all 5 principles are applicable in all those cases.

    I would even venture to opine that, leaving out principle 3 (no precedent yet) 1, 2 4 and 5, even if applied, are overwhelmingly in favour of declaring VS the illegality it has been all along.


    Apart from your misrepresentations of the DEB’s origins and legality, you seem to have a penchant for attributing everything wrong with the GINI to rent seeking and patronage ad nauseum as if there no other causes whatsoever.

    I reckon that is the easy thing to do then analyse the other reasons I raised at 1.41am. For it sits well with your worldview of Malay bashing, which is pretty obvious. Otherwise you wouldn’t take the trouble to extract the “club bashing’ bit and use that in your 9.59am riposte against me.

    But then again, analysing all your comments I am not in the least surprised by your methods. So I will leave it at that.


    I am rather bemused that on one hand you call me an idiot but you are in agreement with an idiot which sounds a bit schizophrenic to me. Read your last paragraph.

    And scorched earth? Yeah I got a paramilitary bristling in the wings. Give us all a break of your fevered imagination, will yah?

    I dont want to say anything on that as I said exchanging barbs is just a pure waste of time and using ad hominems is not my provenance. As I said earlier I am not going down that road, so I will let the readers decide on you. Suffice to say, a little bit of knowledge is even more dangerous than total ignorance and as Einstein would say ” we cannot legislate away stupidity”. In any case, thank you for the conversations.


    I know you have made an exemption with regard to IHN’S. I thank you for that. I respect your decision to ban me but am/will not regret my stance.

    I regret coming back here after the first time round but I came with a purpose and glad that I have said my piece. Excepting this comment hopefully, you can delete those in limbo. Rest assured, that I am done with this blog.

    I thank you for the space. Wish you all the best.

    1. Dear Warrior231,

      I don’t know why you go round and round that I am unaware that DEB was a post 1971 animal. The DEB was a policy implemented over a decade after Independence since the early growth model was unacceptable to the majority. It was an attempt to broaden the provisions first stated under Article 153, and it was accepted by the elites AND IT HAD A DEADLINE. The subsequent permutations and perversions not only extended the experiment ad infinitum but also turn a protective measure into one of dominance.

      The framers of the Constitution did not put forth anything specific for the vernacular schools because they could not come to an agreement and the matter was best thought to be resolved as we proceed along the road towards Independence – lest the issue becomes a major obstacle. Its omission in the Constitution means just that, a silent treatment which is non-committal nor a judgement on its legitimacy.

      All the education reports represent a effort to move the matter forward – the ultimate objective where all schools will be taught in the national language. Education Act 1961 managed to convert or expunge some vernacular secondary schools, while showing others the private alternative, with several exceptions. However, it could not move the primary vernacular schools, Clause 21(2) or not (or they did not try). I for one thought that Clause 21(2) was needed at that time to get the vernacular schools in line. By 1996, this explicit mention of the Minister’s power was no longer retained.

      You claimed that there is a “TOTAL absence of any expressed afformation of VS legality either in the Constitution itself OR THE REPORTS OR EDUCATION ACT related to education save for a flimsy mention in S28, 1996”. You cannot read? Didn’t Laporan Razak specifically say that we AGREED that there shall be a variety of Primary Schools? Didn’t both the Education Acts 1961 and 1996 specifically stated that the medium of instruction for National Type Schools is Mandarin or Tamil? How can you say that there is TOTAL absence? What convoluted versions are you using? Every year the government funds those damn schools to the tune of millions. You mean kerajaan Malaysia bodoh sakan sampai disuapkan sekolah haram buat sebegitu lamanya?

      I do thank you for your efforts to make your points too, however inadequate they are. It serves to instruct the rest of us on how to address similar claims, I’m sure. It is because of people like you that DJZ is able to continue playing the victim card.

  16. Sorry, just one last comment for the road:

    In relation point 6 above and the constant carping of so called “acceptable to all people”; “consensus” “agreed” blahblah:

    (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 by order direct that the school shall become a National primary school.”

    Clause 21(2) Education Act, 1961

    So much for consensus about an illegality

  17. If the courts ruled in Merdeka University case that as a Public Authority it could not use other languages in its “official purpose”, now imagine the Minister of Education using Chinese or Tamil in fulfilling its duty under Sec 27 or the Education Act?

    Sila baca ulasan blogger satD

    Apakah masih halal dari sisi perlembagaan wahai Saudara Saudari sekalian?

    1. Excuse me SuratKabarLama, Merdeka University’s issue hinges on whether it is a “Public Authority” because PRIOR to Education Act 1996, there are technically NO private universities.

      With all the current private universities using English and Mandarin as its medium of instruction, any clamp down on “Chinese” schools would raise the spectre on the legality of the private and international schools (both primary and secondary), ESPECIALLY since the government removed any barriers of entry by Malaysians to those elite circles.

      The problem with some people is that they miscontrue that an absence of guarantee under the Constitution makes something illegal. That is clearly untrue. The omission of a protective clause doesn’t render something illegal, just indefensible. We cannot say that vernacular schools are expressively guaranteed under the Constitution, but we can debate if it is allowed to exist (or continue).

      1. Are you implying that Minister of Education is not a Public Authority?

        To me they should be allowed to continue as a Private Institution but not as a Publicly funded educational institution. Too much money have gone to waste so that kids could learn Geography in another language. If it is language that is important then learn it as a dedicated subject rather than a medium.

        Public funds should be used to fund National Interest rather than private interest of a particular ethic group. The Government has set up various Language Departments in our Public University, this is more than enough to ensure the sustainability of these immigrant languages.

        Read back what the court says about Public Authority using other languages

        ” 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.” Para 37

        1. You get no argument from me whether the government should continue funding Mandarin-based secondary and tertiary education. As for SRJKs, I can still reasonably see some justification for it.

          As for the Minister of Education being a “Public Authority”, I urge you to try and figure out what the phrase means and what your proposed definition in turn will render. Are you claiming that private universities are also Public Authorities because the Minister of Education allowed or approved them? I think you have no clue what “Public Authority” means.

          If Malaysians are such sticklers and purists about the national language, please start with Pemandu and other REAL Public Authorities in Malaysia who seems obsessed in using English as the official language.

          1. Public Authority is clearly defined in Article 160(2) go read that up and “explain” to me what you understand by it. Specifically please back up your comment that MOE is not a Public Authority.

            If not then i suggest you accept the fact

Comments are closed.