Tsu Na Mie: The Boring Debate on Vernacular Education

Hey folks....this will be a quickie copy paste recycle posting from Kiramland

BTW I loved the outcome of PRU13...all the things I've been talking about for years are now being discussed on a National Level....layan doe

Check out the latest Vernacubeng in town...

PR And DAP Will Fight Legally In Courts And Seek Support From All Malaysians Malay, Chinese, Indian, Iban And Kadazan To Protect Chinese And Tamil Vernacular Schools From Being Abolished By UMNO Supporters Like Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Arshad

Press Statement By DAP Secretary-General And MP for Bagan Lim Guan Eng In Kuala Lumpur On 14.5.2013. Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Arshad dares to call for the abolition of Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools because with assured UMNO support behind him, he knows he will neither be sacked as pro-Chancellor Of Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) nor charged for making such seditious remarks. Abdul Rahman’s call for the abolition of Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools in favour of a single stream school is seditious and a BN MP Mark Koding was even convicted of sedition in 1982 for making the very same suggestion in Parliament in 1978. 

Rahman blamed vernacular schools as the barrier towards racial unity in the country, and causing increasing racial polarisation that led to BN losing the popular vote 47% to PR’s 51% in the recent general elections. Clearly BN supporters are choosing easy victims to blame by targeting the Chinese community, vernacular schools and the DAP. Why were vernacular schools not blamed when the Chinese community saved BN government from defeat in the 1999 general elections and voted for BN in 1995 and 2004 general elections? BN should not behave hypocritically by taking out its frustrations on schools but work to save them. BN supporters are so untrustworthy that they are willing to abandon education and our young’s future instead of protecting educational opportunities for all. BN and UMNO continues to insult the voters by claiming that PR’s victory in the general elections is due to a “Chinese tsunami” and ignored the huge numbers of Malays Indians, Kadazans and Iban who made up the 51% popular vote majority for PR. By ignoring a Malaysian tsunami, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has chosen to attack DAP as racist without showing any proof what are the DAP policies that are racist?

I doubt that Najib can show any proof when DAP upholds the Federal Constitution on the queston of:- • Islam as the religion of the Federation whilst other religions have freedom to practice their faith, • Bahasa Malaysia as the official language whilst other mother-tongue languages can be used and promoted, and • safeguarding the special position of Malays and bumis whilst protecting the legitimate interests of other races in Malaysia under Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.

Najib’s attack on DAP as racist is to hide BN’s failure to wipe out corruption, cronyism and abuse of power. Now BN is picking on vernacular Tamil and Chinese primary schools as easy targets. As far back as December 2008, Jerlun member of parliament Datuk Mukhriz Mahathir had made the same suggeston of one Malaysian or National Education System, using Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of instruction except for Mathematics and Science. Now we shall see whether as Kedah Menteri Besar, Mukhriz will press for all vernacular Chinese and Tamil schools to be closed down in Kedah? Such sentiments from a racist UMNO leader is not surprising. However I feel sad that an academician can make such seditious remarks that are against the very concept of education to seek knowledge without borders or language constraints. Just because Abdul Rahman supports UMNO, does not mean he should betray his academic soul for a racial cloak? I urge all Malaysians to remain calm and not be provoked by such race-baiting and hatred by BN and UMNO’s supporters.

I urge all Malaysians to remain calm and not be provoked by such race-baiting and hatred by BN and UMNO’s supporters. Mother tongue education and vernacular schools are protected under Article 152(1)(a) and (b) of the Federal Constitution. For this reason, PR and DAP are ready to fight legally in courts and seek support from all Malaysians Malay, Chinese, Indian, Iban And Kadazan to protect Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools from being abolished by UMNO supporters like Tan Sri Abdul Rahman Arshad. Lim Guan Eng (here)

Don't this people know how to read???

Lu mana skolah Beng?

Let us look at the Mark Koding case

This is what he said in Parliament

Tuan Yang di-Pertua, masanya sudah tiba bagi Dewan yang mulia ini untuk memutuskan samada kita akan terus membenarkan sekolah-sekolah China dan Tamil dan bahasabahasa tersebut di papan-papan tanda di jalan-jalan raya di negeri itu. Saya, seratus peratus berpendapat bahawa kita harus menutup sekolah-sekolah jenis tersebut dan menyekat sama sekali penulisan papan-papan tanda dalam bahasabahasa itu. Sekiranya tindakan-tindakan ini kelak bertentangan dengan Artikal 152 Perlembagaan maka kita harus merombak Perlembagaan tersebut demi kepentingan rakyat dan negara. Kalau kita gagal melakukan hakikat ini bermakna kita menghampakan amanah yang diamanatkan oleh rakyat dan juga melenyapkan harapan dan aspirasi generasi baru kita yang tidak mahu melihat negara mereka dicap oleh identiti orang asing. Adakah kita mahu mengwujudkan identiti kita atas asas kemelayuan, kechinaan atau keindiaan. Saya rasa sudah pasti kemelayuan atau kebumiputeraan kerana tidak ada alternatif yang lain demi survival negara kita.

This is how the Judge interpreted what he said

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

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

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

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

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

 The question therefore arises as to the true interpretation of proviso (a) to Article 152(1). Having regard to the words used in the proviso, viz. “teaching or learning any other language” as opposed to “teaching or learning in any other language”, I tend to agree with the restricted meaning enunciated by Abdoolcader J when dealing with schools or other educational institutions. In my view, under proviso (a), although the National Language shall be the Malay language, the usage of any other language other than for official purposes, is guaranteed; so is the teaching or learning of any other language in schools, be it Chinese, Tamil, Arabic or English. 

 But there is nothing in proviso (a) to justify the extension of the protection to the operation of schools where the medium of instruction is Chinese, Tamil, Arabic or English. This strict interpretation is consistent with proviso (b) which guarantees the right of the Federal Government or any State Government to preserve and sustain the use and study of the language of any other community in the Federation. Thus, the preservation and sustenance of usage of language of any other community is guaranteed. So is the preservation and sustenance of study of any other community’s language, but again there is no justification in extending the guarantee to the preservation and sustenance of study in the language of any other community in the absence of specific words to that effect. Any other interpretation of proviso (a) would result in abusing the words used in the proviso. It is absurd for instance to think that the proviso gives constitutional protection to teaching or learning in school where the medium of instruction is Russian or Japanese. To my mind, the protection only extends to language but not to medium of instruction in schools. In other words, no person shall be prohibited or prevented from teaching or learning Chinese or Tamil or, for that matter, any language which is not the national language in any school as a language subject, but such protection does not extend to the teaching or learning in a school where the teaching or learning is in any other language. As correctly stated by Abdoolcader J the omission of the preposition “in” after the words “teaching or learning” in proviso (a) makes the distinction necessary. In the event, it is my finding that the Accused is not guilty of sedition when he advocates for the closure of Tamil or Chinese schools.

And this is what he decided on the Sign Boards

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

So what was he guilty of then?

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

Court Case Reference Material (here)

How now Beng???

Not only it is PERFECTLY OK TO ADVOCATE CLOSURE....

The Current Education Act is clearly against the Spirit of our Constitution and the National Language Act....



To be more specific...

Refer the Judgement by Lord President Suffian, Raja Azlan Shah the CJ and two Federal court judges Salleh Abas and Abdul Hamid on the Merdeka University Case (here)

In any event, bearing in mind the history of education in this country and the divisive results of allowing separate language schools and the lesson learned from the experience of our neighbour with a private university and the determination of Parliament to so regulate schools and universities and education generally as an instrument for bringing about one nation out of the disparate ethnic elements in our population, we have no choice but to hold, as we have already held, that MU if established would be a public authority within Article 160(2) of the Constitution and that accordingly teaching in Chinese there would be use of that language for an official purpose, which use may be prohibited under Article 152. As there is no right to use the Chinese language for an official purpose, accordingly in our judgment it was not unconstitutional and unlawful of Government to reject the plaintiff’s petition to establish MU. We would therefore dismiss this appeal with costs.

This was his point of view

Since a university incorporated under the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 would not be exercising governmental or quasi-governmental powers vested in it by Federal law it follows that such a university would not be a public authority. In my opinion, the proposed Merdeka University if established under the 1971 Act would not be a public authority within the meaning of the definition in Article 160(2) of the Constitution of Malaysia, the proposed use of the Chinese language as a medium of instruction in the said university would not be use for an official purpose and such use would not be unconstitutional but is expressly protected and guaranteed by Article 152(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution.

What is the "Official Purpose" of a Public Authority?

The controversy around this Article is this: Mr. Beloff contends that the Article prohibits the use of Chinese for official purposes, but not for unofficial purposes, that as “official purpose” is defined by cl (6) of Article 152 as meaning — any purpose of the Government, whether Federal or State, and includes any purpose of a public authority; and as public authority is defined by Article 160 (2) as follows: [It] means the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, the Ruler of Yang di-Pertua Negara of a State, the Federal Government, the Government of a State, a local authority, a statutory authority exercising powers vested in it by federal or State law, any court or tribunal other than the Federal Court and High Courts or any officer or authority appointed or acting on behalf of any of those persons, courts, tribunals or authorities;

Now look at the current Education Act

Source Act 550 here

To sum this up folks

The Legal Basis is pretty clear cut

Betul lu mau pergi court to defend this ka? Macam lu Federal Government....lu ingat dapat > 50% vote lu jadi Federal Govt ka?

You got no locus standi la Beng.....

Tara skola ke Pek?

Anyway in case you all missed it ....this myth on Constitutional Protection was commented by someone in the know....maybe I should use him as my lawyer eh....

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- Constitutional law expert Prof Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi (here)

What you gonna do Beng...call another Press Conference and label this guy an UMNO Member...

Jamban Rosak ....UMNO

Kereta Accident .....UMNO

Bodoh la lu Pek....

Oh before gua lupe Beng

You said that DAP upholds the Constitution and wanting to SAFEGUARD THE SPECIAL POSITION OF MALAYS AND BUMI

How do you plan to do that when your Party Vision and Mission are as follows:

Abolition of the division of "bumiputra" and "non-bumiputra" and the implementation of ethnic equality and replacement of the ethnic quota system with a policy of "merits and needs" (here)

Boleh kasi pencerahan sikit tak?