Posted in #NotMyGomen

Guan Eng “bukan Cina”, jadi buat apa DAP mau sekolah vernakular?

Syor yang dibuat Muslimat PAS baru-baru ini agar sekolah vernakular dihapuskan sebenarnya betul dan bersandarkan logik.

Lim Guan Eng sendiri sudah laungkan yang dia “bukan orang Cina” (rujuk laporan berita di bawah). 

Rakan kabinetnya Hannah Yeoh pula cakap DAP tidak mempunyai ahli Cina — “zero Chinese” … “all Malaysians” (lihat tweet beliau). Pemimpin-pemimpin evangelista DAP yang lain turut lantang bersuara menyatakan bahawa mereka bukan kaum Cina tetapi bergelar “bangsa Malaysia”.

Para ahli DAP sememangnya semua berketurunan bangsa Malaysia. Maka tiada alasan untuk rasis DAP pertahankan sekolah vernakular SJK (C) yang bertujuan menampung keperluan masyarakat Cina.

Bukankah hakikatnya di dunia Malaysia Baru tiadapun penghuni Cina — no Chinese … all Malaysians! Justeru itu, tak payahlah ada sekolah vernakular Cina.

Bangsa Malaysia ini perlu bersekolah di Malaysian school yang bahasa pengantarnya “bahasa Malaysia”. Mengikut Perkara 152 perlembagaan persekutuan, bahasa kebangsaan ialah bahasa Malaysia (bukan bahasa Cina mahupun bahasa Tamil).

Wajar juga bahasa Arab, yakni bahasa kitab suci al-Quran, dijadikan bahasa kedua negara sepertimana yang telah dicadangkan PAS. Wakil-wakil Yang Berhormat DAP yang gemar bertudung, suka masuk masjid serta cintakan Islam tentu setuju dan sokong saranan PAS untuk memperkasakan bahasa Arab.

Author:

I have no Faceook or Twitter.

5 thoughts on “Guan Eng “bukan Cina”, jadi buat apa DAP mau sekolah vernakular?

  1. Bukan semua, tapi majority Cina yg datang ke Nanyang, south east asia ialah pelarian, buruh survival dan penjenayah buruan..
    Ada juga keturunan baik2 mcm tabib, tok guru buddha, pengusaha, petani yg berbudi pekerti mulia..

    Begitu juga yg menjadi perompak geng terancang, bapa ayam, dan manipulator kepada kerajaan..
    Semua benda ini mereka biasa buat di negara asal sejak turun temurun..ilmu cukup mereka banyak dan gagal dibaca oleh orang yg hidup berkampung.

    Thai berusaha halang spesis negative Cina ini dari membiak sejak beratus tahun dulu.

    Pendidikan, Nama cina diharamkan namun ia gagal menghalang dari golongan ini melacurkan wanita dan bangsa mereka..

    Baca sejarah cina di thai..dan sekarang ini sesiapa yg hitam dianggap mundur atau alat..

    Di Nusantara warna kulit bukan masalah..

    Sekarang Raja Thai sudah campur tangan untuk menghalang PM Cina mengetuai negara…kerana menganggap calon tersebut seorang pemanipulasi..

  2. Here comes again the polemic on vernacular schools. I would like to challenge the detractors to respond to my points below:

    a) Not everything in Malaysia must be provided in Federal Constitution (Fed Con) in order to be legitimate. Can you imagine how thick the Fed Con will be if it has to list down all the things? We have Parliamentary Acts and State Enactments to legitimize things. Just like the existence of Genting, Toto, Magnum, Carlsberg and Heineken businesses in Malaysia. None of them are provided in the Fed Con. But all of them are legal under the relevant laws.

    b) Vernacular schools are provided in the Education Act. It is from here they derive their legitimacy. Did anyone challenge the constitutionality of the provisions in the Act with respect to vernacular schools?

    c) If vernacular schools are indeed unconstitutional or illegal, why government allowed or even funded their existence from Merdeka? Why no one sued at court to declare them as illegal? Why didn’t the government cut the funding? Isn’t the fact that government funded (both fully and partially) the vernacular schools affirmed their legitimacy?

    d) For Chinese schools in Malaysia, we have 3 categories. (i) Chinese independent high schools (UEC syllabus by Dong Zhong and privately funded), (ii) SJKC (Ministry of Education syllabus and publicly funded) and (iii) SMJK (same as (ii) above).

    The legitimacy of (ii) and (iii) have been explained in my points (a), (b) and (c) above. For (i), how is this different from Tenby, Sri KL, Beacon House, REAL, Oasis etc? All of them are privately funded without government assistance. Why should government ban entities which are privately funded and able to reduce the overcrowding in public schools?

    It is time for detractors understand. No doubt vernacular schools are not provided or protected under the Fed Con. But they are perfectly legal under the relevant laws.

    1. re: “No doubt vernacular schools are not provided or protected under the Fed Con.”

      As Shad Saleem Faruqi also says.

      re: “But they are perfectly legal under the relevant laws.”

      Yet DAP wants the Muslimat PAS leader charged under the Sedition Act, a law which Harapan promised to abolish. What a despotic party. And the ‘manifesto’ is not worth the toilet paper it’s printed on.

Comments are closed.