Apa lagi Cina mahu? Cina mahu terima rasuah!

The headline above summarises the article which Raja Petra had wrote a couple of weeks earlier.

Only Malays are racists

Raja Petra Kamarudin

So now the Indians are at it again, talking about Indian rights and Indian interests and whatnot. And with P. Waytha Moorthy’s resignation from the government I can anticipate a tug-of-war between MIC and Hindraf as to who is more Indian than the other. Hence MIC and the opposition will be out-bidding each other to convince the Indians that they have more to offer the Indians if the Indians vote for them in the Kajang by-election on 23rd March 2014.

And this is currently going on in the Kajang by-election campaign although campaigning should not start until Nomination Day. MCA and DAP are out-shouting each other as to who is more Chinese and who can better serve Chinese interests and fight for Chinese rights. And the United Chinese Schools Committee Association of Malaysia or Dong Zong is playing one against the other to see who is able to offer the Chinese a better deal.

What I am not too clear about is, what ‘rights’ are they are talking about? The right to vote? The right to citizenship? The right to converse in your mother-tongue? The Chinese and Indians talk as if they have been denied certain rights. But they never really clarify what rights they have been denied. Hence it sounds like mere rhetoric without substance.

At this point, some of you are probably going to say: what about the right of Christians to use Allah in the Malay Bible? Okay, that is one matter, although we can always argue that since it is the law that forbids this are you then saying that the Christians are being denied their right to break the law? Is this not a silly right to fight for, the right to break the law?

The solution to this is not to demand the right to break the law but instead demand that this ‘bad’ law be repealed. And Pakatan Rakyat, with 44 seats in the Selangor State Assembly, has the legal power to repeal this law. Then Christians can legally use Allah in the Malay Bible and they no longer need to demand the right to break the law.

So do that! Repeal that ‘offensive’ law! And this is the job of Pakatan Rakyat, not the job of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak since this is a Selangor law and not a Federal law.

The Indians are asking for the sky and the moon for their votes (Indians make up 10% of the Kajang electorate). The Chinese, who make up 40% of the voters, are doing the same.

In fact, they have already started. The Dong Zong chairman, Yap Sin Tian, said he hopes that “as the by-election is looming”, Anwar and the Selangor state government could help to resolve the issue involving the donation of a 100-acre campus land in Sepang to New Era University College which has been delayed for 14-years.

Yap also hopes that Anwar would allocate at least five acres of Selangor state land for the reinstatement of the Yu Hua Chinese secondary school, and ensure that higher education institutions under the Selangor state government would recognise the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) of Malaysian Independent Chinese secondary schools.


So it is going to be about how much you can give me. Pay me what I want and you get my vote. Don’t pay me what I want and I will vote for the other side — or if the other side can pay me more then they will get my vote.

If the Malays tell Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat the same thing, the non-Malays will say all sorts of nasty things about the Malays. The Malays are corrupted, the Malays are crooked, the Malays can be bought, and whatnot. But it is okay if the Chinese are Indians demand all sorts of goodies as gratuity to support those who are contesting the Kajang by-election.

The Chinese and Indians are not racists. The Chinese and Indians are just fighting for their rights and interests. Sure, and if the Malays also fight for their rights and interests, the Malays are racists. The Chinese and Indians can do this. The Malays cannot. I wonder if this has anything to do with the 10,000 years of Indian civilisation and the 5,000 years of Chinese civilisation?

In the effort to be truly Malaysian, the chinese must not resort in this kind of divisive and racist tactic as propagated by Dong Zong. Its intention to dangle their vote in return for the bribe Anwar Ibrahim should give them in Kajang is indeed unfortunate and devoid of any moral values. For a start, the 100 acre land they requested is not even in Kajang!

Can’t the average Malaysian see that this tactic of blackmailing politicians is just too atrocious and certainly, given that it is racist and divisive in nature, Dong Zong has certainly uncovered their wicked modus operandi.

Raja Petra is correct in reminding these racist chinese of what they have become. If Dong Zong has its way, Malaysia will be truly divided and very much impossible to stand united in harmony.

Although many of these group of chinese are shouting that they had been treated unfairly for the past 56 years, Raja Petra had put them in place and revealed their hypocrisy.

Screen Shot 2014-02-26 at 3.14.12 PM

Playing the victim has always been the ammunition for DAP and Dong Zong and in recent years, this ammunition is sadly, being used by the chinese population at large. Perhaps as a perspective, we should ask these questions:

How many chinese got a place in public universities and received government scholarships since we achieved independence?

Zero? One hundred? Ten thousand? One million? Ten million? Where are they now? And why are they keeping quiet  and not defending government’s policy?

#anwar-ibrahim, #chinese-supremacy, #one-school-system

Towards improving our national education system

The admin at the One School System website were gracious enough to host an article of mine over there. Please have a read at it here. Thank you.

#malaysian-education, #one-school-system, #ppsmi

A plea for common sense

A question allegedly from a Form 3 History workbook

This snapshot is currently making its rounds in Facebook pages. And many people are aghast with this type of question and criticise it as against the spirit of 1Malaysia.

To the masses that feed on sensationalised issue and unable to think beyond the typical knee jerk reaction, this question was deeply riled as a racial and political plot to promote the much maligned ‘Ketuanan Melayu’  dogma.

If people would dare to apply their common sense and step back and breathe for awhile, the question posed was in the context of Malayan Union and the struggle of Malayans against their British oppressors.

Obviously the exploits of Datuk Onn Jaafar was learned by all of us and kids these days are not excluded from learning the history of Malaysia.

Try answer the question please.

Done? What have you answered if you were Onn Jaafar? What would you do in order to maintain the status quo of the Malays at that time in the face of being colonised formally by the British through the Malayan Union?

Don’t know? Are you not Orang Malaysia? Why are you offended with this type of question in the first place?

It is part of history.

The snapshot above is from a History subject. It is not a subject about 1Malaysia or current affairs or current political studies.

This is History education.

I wrote sometime back which greatly emphasised this exact issue:

History as a subject has two pronged objectives. One, to instil patriotism into the heart of every citizen from their childhood stage. Two, as source of knowledge on their surroundings and how they perceive their world.

In America, History was a touchy subject for the people especially with the advent of multiculturism among its people. With the influx of foreigners and the calls for equality among the afro-american movement, history as a subject was a sensitive issue indeed.

For example, how do you reconcile the fact that George Washington, the founding father of United States of America, has many black slaves and treated them harshly?

How can one see Abraham Lincoln as one of the greatest President the United States had ever had but at the same time he ‘supported projects to remove blacks from the United States’ and said that ‘blacks could not be assimilated into white society and rejected the notion of social equality of the races’?

Multi-culturism pose a big threat to the learning of a country’s history because history in the eyes of each community living in a particular country is different from one another.

Was the Great Settlement of the Mid West by the white colonials in America a great human achievement for the whites? Or was it a mass extermination of the native Red Indians and their way of life by the europeans?

So what if George Washington owned slaves? So what if Abraham Lincoln was racist?

Each and every American out there reveres them both as the founding father and a great leader based on their achievements alone and what good they had brought to the Americans even centuries after they had passed away.

In other aspects, the native Americans in the USA are very patriotic regardless what happened to their people in the past.

Back in Malaysia, we hear so many negative opposition from the people who are against the subject of history made compulsory in schools. This is precisely because their views came from the racial angle.

All the prejudice, the stereotyping, the paranoia are the by-products of segregated education they experienced in their early childhood. At the very least, their views were contaminated by the very people that champion the need to segregate our children.

In the end, history is being promoted by these clustered group of people as evil and should not be taught to our children. We see so many unsavoury characters in the cyberspace trying hard to re-write history based on fiction and malicious motives.

In any case, like how the Americans are accepting their history, Malaysians must accept their country’s history from the eyes of Orang Malaysia.

The need for racial posturing when it comes to history must be stopped. Only desperate politicians would look through the racial lense and try to skew history to further their agenda for power. People must not look at history as if it is a disease that must be eradicated.  – Full article here.

You may also like to read this.

#malaysian-education, #one-school-system

One School System – It’s now or never

If you are one of the many people that support the One School system, you can almost feel that this post is coming up.

For the past few weeks, there have been some positive development regarding this issue. After the sense of acute racial polarisation is about to take place here in Malaysia, the importance of a single stream education system, significantly at the primary level has begun to permeate in the psyche of ordinary Malaysians.

It is a simple and logical explanation and also the most profound solution for the problems on the lack of racial integration we have here in Malaysia.

Many hurdles were met along the way. The most disappointing and no less disparaging remark was the accusation from the opposition that those who support the One School system are racists.

In one hand, those who desire to see a more unified and integrated society are labeled as racists while on the other hand, those who support the chinese and tamil schools had labeled themselves as victims. Nevermind the fact that chinese and tamil schools are in fact, schools that were established based fundamentally and historically on racial grounds. But according to these opposition members, vernacular schools are not racist. The One School system is!

Are we racist in trying to get all our children to be together? I am sure we are not.

The opposition should just discontinue playing rhetorical taunts and decide if they want to support a more pertinent issue such as national unity and integration. Obviously, segregating the society into clusters of people instead of governing one seamless mass of people are much easier to do. Divide and conquer is an ageless tactic which had lent a helping hand to so many conquerors in this world.

And vernacular schools contribute greatly towards the segregation and polarisation of our society. This is undeniably the most telling symptom of our society. It is so undeniable that any effort to deny this can only be delivered through arguments incongruous with reason.

Take the reasons brought forth by DAP Youth Chief, Anthony Loke.

He argued that the proficiency of Bahasa Malaysia among the chinese is mainly due to the government’s failure in giving enough emphasis and assistance to those who were weak in the language.

He said:

“I think that probably this is because the learning of the language is not really enhanced in both the primary and secondary levels. 

“I am sure that there will be critics blaming the vernacular schools but I disagree… because even there, BM is a compulsory subject and after that, they go to secondary school where BM is even more prominent. There is just no proper programme in place to help these Chinese primary school students to adopt when in the secondary level,” he added.

We have a solution. That programme that Anthony Loke mentioned will be called the One School system.

A study was made by the National Union of Teaching Profession (NUTP) whereby it was revealed that significant number of secondary school dropouts with Chinese primary vernacular education have little, or zero, command of English or the national language. To be precise, it was found that one-third of students from those schools cannot understand either English or Bahasa Malaysia (BM) when they transfer to national secondary schools.

The inability to communicate in the national language stemmed from the limited interaction with other races. If at the early primary stage the children are handicapped by this social impediment, we can be certain that in later stage of life, prejudice and paranoia will arise and will make it difficult to integrate with one another.

This will happen not only among the children from chinese vernacular schools, but also among children from the tamil vernacular schools and the national schools where the malay students are dominant.

A further study albeit a simpler one was done by The Malaysian Insider recently to gauge the command of the national language among the chinese here in Malaysia.

The most profound data that was gathered revealed that about 26% of respondents do not understand Bahasa Malaysia at all. Close to 19% do not have to use Bahasa Malaysia at all or only use it less than three times in their daily lives.

This suggest that within the Chinese community, there is a significant class whose members only interact with those who speak Chinese.

It is just a matter of time when we have a complete segregation of society where the two main race will not interact with one another in a lifetime. Do we really want this?

Anthony Loke must be delusional if he still want to blame the government for not giving assistance for the students in chinese vernacular schools to increase their proficiency in Bahasa Malaysia. But then again it is not vintage DAP if they do not blame the government for everything.

The most cost effective way is for everyone to enrol in national school where Bahasa Malaysia is the main medium of instruction.

It does not make any sense for the government to pour more resources into vernacular schools just to strengthen  the usage of Bahasa Malaysia in mandarin medium schools.

For every ringgit given to vernacular schools, a ringgit loss for the national schools.

The trick Anthony Loke is playing is for the government to give more money to vernacular schools so that his politics will continue to survive. His racist tactic has always been the bread and butter for his political party.

Too bad the government would always fall for this trick. What the opposition do not want gullible Malaysians to know is that every year, the government is already spending more than RM1.8 billion to pay the salaries of teachers in the chinese and tamil vernacular schools.

That is RM1.8 billion wasted just to produce more polarisation in this country. Not to mention the millions already spent on infrastructures and on by election ‘gifts’.

Another ridiculous statement was issued by the DAP deputy secretary-general, Ngeh Koo Ham when he opined that ‘national integration had nothing to do with a person’s inability to converse in the language and explained that it was likely that many people saw it more beneficial to master English or Mandarin than BM

Ngeh noted the civil service was taken up by at least 80 per cent of Malays, causing the non-Malays to focus their attentions on obtaining jobs that do not require extensive knowledge of BM. 

“We master a language for the betterment of our future, like finding a good job, a good career and so on. So since many non-Malays do not opt for posts in the civil service where BM proficiency is required, their focus on learning the language is almost negligible,” he said.’

Bahasa Malaysia is the national language of Malaysia. The importance and the sanctity of this language is greatly determined by the way it is treated in the national education. If in a school where 90% of the time Bahasa Malaysia was not spoken then naturally, the students will not or cannot see the importance of it. This is a given.

If the students do not lay importance to it, coupled with the fact that there are minimal or zero interaction with students of other races, then almost certainly they will not master the national language. If you are unable to master the national language, you cannot join the civil service.

Therefore Ngeh Koo Ham made a malicious assumption where he asserted that because the civil service has 80% Malays, the non-Malays will not join it due to the fact that proficiency in Bahasa Malaysia is required.

Logically, the argument should be the other way around – due to the inability to converse well in Bahasa Malaysia, the non Malays failed the tests to enter the civil service leading to the burgeoning of Malays in the civil service.

This can again be traced to the existence of vernacular schools. The opposition especially the DAP frequently lamented about the unfair policies of the government and tried to colour their arguments with racial undertones when we can observe that the very core of their existence if to perpetuate their own racist politics. Working within the sphere of racism (whether playing the victim or in any other multiple levels of racial rhetorics) is the simplest and quickest way to gain prominence in national politics.

The DAP national vice-chairman Chong Chieng Jen joined this absurdity by strongly disagreeing  to the fact that national unity are affected by the Chinese community’s lack of proficiency in BM.

‘He pointed out that 30 years back, racial polarisation and segregation were less rampant than it is today despite the widespread lack of understanding of the BM language among the community. 

“Less people understood BM then but there was less segregation. People mingled better than they do today. “So at the end of the day, national unity and integration is more about fairer policies…. Barisan Nasional politicians should stop playing racial politics,” he said.’

I am not sure from which abyss he excavated this kind of logic. If there were less segregation and polarisation 30 years ago and yet the people back then understood Bahasa Malaysia even less than today, how on earth did we communicate with each other 30 years ago? Through sign languages?!

We had better national education system back then. There were less people that went to vernacular schools back then. That was why the society were less segregated. But in recent decades, the emergence of extremism in politics of both divide had destroyed our education system. The only way to go now is through a comprehensive and well coordinated effort to standardise the education system. We should start at primary level as the first phase.

The government recently announced that they are looking into the One School system to promote unity and harmony. It is high time that we should look into this.

Summarily, it was proposed that:

1) The first phase will be a co-ordinated exchange of programmes between vernacular and national schools

2) The second phase will be the introduction of a third language in both schools.

3) The third phase will be co-locating of schools and,

4) The final phase is the implementation of the 1School system.

Frankly, do we want our children to be segregated like this:

chinese vernacular school

tamil vernacular school

national school (mainly malays)

Or do we want to see like this:

Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua

Support Satu Sekolah Untuk Semua. Thank you everyone.


#malaysian-education, #one-school-system, #ppsmi

Straigthening out YB Khairy Jamaluddin’s column

Below is an excellent article by blogger SatD of Pure Shiite. It is to reinforce the MPs into doing the right thing instead of skirting over the problem and sweeping the mess under the carpet. This mess, if left untreated, will torment your own children and grandchildren in the future. Although some of YB Khairy’s points are valid, he had completely misread the wordings in the Constitution as pointed out by the blogger SatD. I am copying the first half of his article. The juicier parts can be further digested here. You can also give your comments there. Thank you.


YB Khairy, what “Virtual Constitutional Guarantee” are you talking about?

Dear YB Khairy.

I was recently notified of your recent column published in the Edge, thank you for having the guts to venture into the subject matter.

Allow me to reproduce your full piece for my readers.

Engage multiculturalism early on

I think the biggest elephant in the 1Malaysia room is the societal behaviour of Malaysians themselves. I do not deny that national unity suffers from politics, political parties and politicians.

People in my profession – from all parties (even those that claim to be multiracial) – are routinely guilty of ethnocentric politics, reaching out to different communities at the expense of others. Politics is also a reflection of the society that we live in. And the fact of the matter is many Malaysians still live in silos with a heightened sense of suspicion towards other ethnic communities.

But rather than philosophising about this fundamental question in generalities, I attempted to address the policy-making behind the often ephemeral question of national unity during the debate on the Agong’s Royal Address in Parliament recently.

It is often said that the reason why racial polarisation is worse today than a few generations back is simply because there is less contact and interaction now. Those who attended local universities in the 1960s and 70s will regale you with stories of how students of different ethnicity hung out together, in marked contrast to the scenes at our varsities today where posses of friends are usually mono-ethnic.

Some have pointed out that the problem starts much earlier, during the formative years of young Malaysians. The fact that today more Malaysian kids of Chinese ethnicity attend vernacular schools rather than national schools contributes to the drastic reduction in contact hours between our children.

Although many of these students end up in national secondary schools, there is already a psychological perspective that has been formed during the earlier (and arguably most impressionable) years of their education in which they grew up in largely mono-ethnic environments. Of course, there are non-Chinese students who attend Chinese vernacular schools but for the most part, the overwhelming majority of children there are from one ethnic group.

One solution to address this polarity that has been brought about by the existence of different types of schools in Malaysia has been to just have one school – the national school. Advocates for this argument say that for as long as vernacular schools exist, our kids will be separated during their formative years and will carry with them a ‘silo-ed’ worldview into their teenage years and beyond.

While there are great merits to this argument, principally the notion that all Malaysian children will be educated under one roof and all the wonderful consequences that this might have on national unity, I doubt there would be any government that would commit themselves to this. Vernacular schools are a virtually sacrosanct institution for many members of the Chinese and Indian communities for which they have a virtual constitutional guarantee for it’s continued existence.

So, rather than pursuing something well near impossible, we are left with trying to find ways towards greater unity while acknowledging the continued existence of different systems in our education system. For a few years, the government’s flagship program to break down the walls that separate our kids has been the national service stint in which SPM leaders are selected at random to spend three months in a quasi-bootcamp where they are taught leadership, teamwork, civic virtue, nation-building in a contained environment.

The architects of the program believed that this could be the magic panacea to cure racial polarisation, social ills and instill a much needed “Malaysia Boleh” sense of pride and patriotism which is apparently not pronounced enough among our youth.

As someone who served on the first national service training council (the body tasked with overseeing the implementation of the programme), I was able to visit some of the camps during the training period. It goes without saying that most participants have fun during their stint. For most young people, the opportunity for adventure and to bond with others of the same age is something that they would naturally be attracted to.

Hence, when the government releases surveys done on national service participants, it is no big surprise that most of them enjoyed their three months. But beyond a superficial analysis of feedback from national service participants, we need to ask whether or not the program has succeeded in making young Malaysians mix around better with one another and, more importantly, believe that the national interest always trumps sectarian or communal considerations.

Anecdotal evidence suggests the situation is less encouraging than one might hope, for the simple reason that many participants enter the program having grown up in relative ethnic isolation. Formative years do not begin at age 17 or 18, when perspectives – including those regarding communal identities – have most likely hardened. I dare say it has never been clear how three months after SPM can possibly overcome years of polarisation. There is of course nothing inherently wrong with the national service programme; but we need to take a step back and face the very real probability that we asking far too much of it – it is not the magic panacea.

Now, if our goal is inculcating a sense of national identity over and above communal persuasions, why not begin at precisely those formative years of a child’s life? During my speech, I touched on the Student Integration Plan for Unity (RIMUP).

Initially introduced in 1986 but never gained a foothold until its revival as a key initiative under the National Education Blueprint 2006-2010. It has since withered away once again. Involving primary school students of different races from national and national-type, vernacular schools to regularly engage in a range of usually co-curricular activities, we have in RIMUP a practical and actionable initiative to encourage early inter-ethnic interaction.

It is actionable in as much as it does not require us venturing into the constitutional and political labyrinth of arguing for a single school system or sidestepping political landmines associated with the Vision School proposal (putting one national school, one Chinese school and one Tamil school in the same compound). It is practical because its nature as an activity-based program on school grounds means RIMUP does not involve extensive infrastructural commitments.

The potential and relative ease of implementation thus makes it rather curious that, across the levels of policymaking and discourse, RIMUP is not given anywhere near the attention it deserves. A study conducted by school inspectors in 2007 revealed that only 27% of schools were extensively and regularly involved in RIMUP activities. Further, only 12% of them conducted post mortems or discussions on how to improve activities organized under RIMUP.

The figures on fiscal expenditure are not much more flattering. RIMUP was allocated only RM25.8 million in 2007. Compare this to the public spending on the national service programme, which stands at an average of RM595.7 million per year from 2009 to 2011 – twenty times more than RIMUP. The glaring asymmetry is further illustrated by the fact that no details on RIMUP were provided in the Federal Government Spending Estimates for 2011.

When I finally received an answer from the Deputy Minister of Education on how much the Government has allocated for RIMUP in 2011, I almost couldn’t believe my ears when he said RM2.4 million. National service will receive RM564 million this year. You do the maths.

I urge the Government to immediately remedy the situation by revitalising RIMUP as a central initiative of promoting national unity organically, as it were. The national service has its many advantages but why pin the entire unity project on it when it can be supplemented by a rather understated program that is so readily incorporated into a child’s everyday life at school?

At stake is no less than the viability of this nation’s multicultural and multiracial character. For too long we have taken a disengaged stance about multiculturalism, self-enchanted by the rhetorical allure of ‘unity in diversity’ without necessarily promoting cross-cultural and cross-communal engagement.

This approach, I believe, is mistaken. A multiculturalism that is satisfied with leaving each other to live in parallel lives is inherently self-destructive; it engenders precisely the prejudices and paranoia that ‘unity in diversity’ is meant to displace.

1Malaysia implores us to move beyond tolerance for good reason – tolerance of the alien is never enough. Rather, a Malaysian identity requires, first, an empathic recognition of each other’s cultural particularities, and then an embrace of the ways in which cross-cultural contact may enrich our own lives. Postponing this project to age 17 or 18 will not do. Source here.

As a strong advocate of the Single School, allow me present to you our side of the story more clearly so that going forward you may have a better bearing in navigating the “constitutional and political labyrinth” with regards to this issue.

First of all there is No such thing as a Virtual Constitutional Guarantee with regards to the Continued existence of Vernacular School.

In fact it is actually against the Constitution of Malaysia and the National Language Act. Allow me to refer to two court judgements where the issue of medium of instruction in a Foreign Language have been put to test.

Case 1 Mark Koding

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

Case 2 Merdeka University

Reading Article 152 together with the National Language Act, in our judgment, the law may be stated as follows:

* Bahasa is the national language;

  • Bahasa is the official language;

A person is prohibited from using any other language for official purposes — subject to exceptions as regards the continued use of the English language allowed by s 4 and of other languages by other provisions of the National Language Act;

* No person shall be prohibited or prevented from using (to be specific) Chinese for unofficial purposes;

  • No person shall be prohibited or prevented from teaching Chinese;
  • No person shall be prohibited or prevented from learning Chinese;

The Federal or a State Government has the right to preserve and sustain the use and study of the language of any non-Malay community — as indeed the Federal Government is doing in school and at the Institute of Technology, Mara, and in the Departments of Chinese and Indian Studies and in some other departments at the University of Malaya where even Arabic, Japanese, Thai and other languages are taught. (This right belongs to Government).

Government cannot legally prohibit or prevent MU from teaching and offering courses to enable students to learn Chinese.

But the crucial question is: would MU be prohibited from teaching in Chinese as the sole or major medium of instruction? It certainly would if it is a public authority, for then the use of Chinese there would be use for an official purpose which the Constitution read together with the National Language Act says is prohibited.

And this is their decision

In any event, bearing in mind the history of education in this country and the divisive results of allowing separate language schools and the lesson learned from the experience of our neighbour with a private university and the determination of Parliament to so regulate schools and universities and education generally as an instrument for bringing about one nation out of the disparate ethnic elements in our population, we have no choice but to hold, as we have already held, that MU if established would be a public authority within Article 160(2) of the Constitution and that accordingly teaching in Chinese there would be use of that language for an official purpose, which use may be prohibited under Article 152.

As there is no right to use the Chinese language for an official purpose, accordingly in our judgment it was not unconstitutional and unlawful of Government to reject the plaintiff’s petition to establish MU.

We would therefore dismiss this appeal with costs.
For more details on the Legal Basis go here

To be completely honest with you YB Khairy, I’m bored of writing about this subject, especially to address the misconception with regards to the “Constitutional Guarantee”, too many people are walking around like zombies believing in this “Virtual” non existence guarantees.

If you don’t mind me asking, which part of the Constitution says that there is a “Virtual Guarantee”? As an MP you of all people should have studied the document better and to actually look at Article 152 and our National Language Act and perhaps inquire further how they have been interpreted in the court of law.

How did you come up with such strong conclusions that it is impossible and you actually use the words ” I doubt that any Government would commit themselves to this….” YB Khairy, is it not the objective of the Government and the Members of the Parliament to ensure that all the provisions of our Constitution and the National Language Act is adhered to?



Similar articles to this subject can be read here and here.

#malaysian-education, #one-school-system

The aftermath of PPSMI policy

Anak desa masih di pekan
Mencari bunga buat kalungan
Terima kasih saya ucapkan
Budi tuan menjadi kenangan

First and foremost, I would like to thank YOU for all the kind compliments and words of wisdom I received in the previous article.

Obviously I am very appreciative towards any feedback be it positive of negative. But the sincerity I read within the lines gave me a lot of courage to continue doing what I have done for the past 3 years.

Therefore, again, for the millionth time, Thank you.

This time, I would like to add something about the recent announcement of our government leaders and a recent announcement by EF EPI, an international organsation that had recently measured the English proficiency ranking of non native speaking countries.

Back in 2009, the Government had made their decision to reverse PPSMI and gradually abolish it. Starting from 2012, the subjects on Mathematics and Science in all schools will revert to Bahasa Malaysia and Mandarin and Tamil in respective schools. By the year 2017 in primary and 2016 in secondary, all children in both primary and secondary will learn all the subjects in Bahasa Malaysia, with the exception of the English subject of course.

And, with the exception of children in vernacular schools too.

All children in national schools will learn mathematics and science in Bahasa Malaysia again, while all children in mandarin and tamil schools will learn those subjects in their respective mother tongues.

That is the outcome of the opposition’s relentless pursuit to oppose anything just for the sake of opposing. I mentioned the opposition because Pakatan Rakyat leaders were involved in the various platforms conducted by the Gerakan Mansuhkan PPSMI (GMP) which incidentally headed by A. Samad Said, an iconic ‘pejuang bahasa kebangsaan’.

Much is left to be desired when this so called pejuang bahasa kebangsaan stopped short in asking the vernacular schools to switch its medium of teaching language to Bahasa Malaysia. Hence I find it really hypocritical of him when he assumed that GMP will bring dignity to Bahasa Malaysia among Malaysians.

In fact, his foray in politicising the national language will further alienate the races between each other.

I believe the PPSMI would be one of the factor that would attract Malaysia parents to send their children to the national schools. The other main factor is the lessening of Islamic /Arabic influence in the daily routine of activities of the school. But that is another matter altogether.

At that time, if GMP and the Minister in Education said that Bahasa Malaysia has finally and correctly ‘dimartabatkan’, then so be it.

The aftermath of the decision has led to various lobby groups being set up to lobby for the return of PPSMI. The most prominent is called Parent Action Group for Education (PAGE).

The stark contrast between GMP and PAGE is the absence of street demonstrations. We all remember the pretentious street demonstrations organised by GMP and led by several opposition leaders back in early 2009. It was pretentious because Bahasa Malaysia now became the domain of the Malays; not the rest of Malaysians.

Only the Malays should dignify the national language. The non-Malays can continue strengthen their own mother tongue. Only the Malays are chastised if they use English as their main language to converse. Non-Malays can use English with impunity.

Nevermind the fact that Bahasa Malaysia should be used by all Malaysians. GMP forgot to support the one stream education system which suggested the use of Bahasa Malaysia as the main medium of learning in most of the subjects.

GMP, if they were serious, should make Bahasa Malaysia the mother tongue of all Malaysians.

To me, it doesn’t make sense to chastise Malays who wanted to learn mathematics and science in English when Bahasa Malaysia is already their mother tongue. Being the mother tongue of approximately 17 million of the population is already a dignified accomplishment of Malaysia. What they should have pursued is the usage of Bahasa Malaysia as the mother tongue of 100% of the population.

Hence the one stream education system is the way to go. But GMP seemed more interested in looking at narrower view i.e., looking only at the Malays and not the overall populace.

That is why they are labeled as pretentious and not serious enough in their battles for Bahasa Malaysia’s survival.

Fortunately and finally, PAGE’s objectives had been heard by the Government. Last week, the Minister of Education, announced the possibility of a dual medium of instruction in schools.

Although the details are sketchy, I believe the MOE will give schools the power to decide which language to teach mathematics and science. The Parent-Teacher Associations of  each school will undoubtedly be given the voting power to decide on this matter.

But what is unclear is whether this will cover vernacular schools as well. Those  powerful vernacular cartels such as Dong Jiao Zong will almost certainly and vehemently defend their racial turf.

We all know a lost cause when we see one. The only way for them to see beyond racial lenses is to have a strong national leader that can make them see the benefits of having one stream national education system.

All things considered, I think this is the best time to propagate PPSMI. In 2009, the MOE made a good decision to limit the number of subjects in Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) to 10 subjects.

With smaller number of subjects for the students to study, all the excess energy that was used to gain 15As, 18As and even 20As  in the previous years can be channeled into learning mathematics and science in English. Also, extra co curricular activities will automatically be emphasised more by the students as they would certainly want to make their curriculum vitae more marketable than their peers.

Being in sports, clubs, societies and uniformed groups will enhance their social skills and leadership qualities.

Those are a couple of great assets for an aspiring student to venture into the realm of tertiary education and beyond.

The recent survey made by Malaysian Employers Federation (MEF) listed the ability of good written and spoken English as the main criteria to employ new employees.  Out of ten traits, 68% of employers listed that as the most sought after attribute of a prospective employees.

Good academic results came out 7th at 37.9% while 56.2% of employers valued interpersonal skills as the 3rd most sought after trait.

Bottomline, your paper results will not be nearly as important as your social interactivity skills. And the ability to write a nice business letter and to speak English with confidence top everything else.

You will be a star employee if you can master scientific or business terminologies with ease.

Anyhow, we hope the Ministry of Education will not forget to improve the overall standard of education in our national schools and continue to produce more positive news and good results in order to promote the national education to the masses.

It is enlightening to read about the news that among the non native English speaking country in this world, Malaysia is ranked at 9th position and the 1st among Asian countries with population that has high proficiency in English.

It is ironic to note that Singapore which has Bahasa Melayu, Mandarin and Tamil as their official languages  is not considered non native English speaking country anymore. In other words, Singapore is now considered an anglophile state according to international standards.

They do speak good Singaporean English.

But Malaysia, that had laid so much importance towards her national language, can strive to be among the best English speaking country in the world, speaks a lot about our education system.

We want to be global. Yet, we retain our identity as Malaysian.

Orang Malaysia bukan sahaja mesti pandai berbahasa Malaysia tapi mesti pandai berbahasa Inggeris juga. Baru boleh duduk sama rendah, berdiri sama tinggi. Boleh mengharung globalisasi tapi tak hilang jati diri.

Terima kasih. Thank you.

#malaysian-education, #one-school-system, #ppsmi

Inclusive history in our children’s education


History subject is one of the most vital medium in schools to turn our children into becoming Malaysians. During my schooling years, History was taught to children as young as 7 years old. These days, I learnt that history lessons are only learned by secondary children and even then, it is an elective subject.

Who came up with the idea that History is not an important subject to be learned by young children? After a few years, we now have young adults who do not even know the history of their own country.

Ask them what is the name of the 1st Agong of this country? How did Raja  James Brooke become the King of Sarawak? How did Francis Light take over Pulau Pinang from Kedah?  Who was the first Deputy Prime Minister? And who designed our Malaysian flag? Most will not even score 2 out of 5.

When I first learned that History were to make a compulsory pass subject in SPM, I think this is a very good move. What is more important is to make this subject a must learned subject from the primary stages. The recent announcement from the Ministry of Education was a welcome relief.

Back in primary school, I learned Bahasa Malaysia, English, Agama Islam, Geography, History, Science, Mathematics, Health, Civics, Arts and Music. Students from other faiths took Moral Education instead of Islamic Studies.

In the afternoon about twice a week, I had to go to ‘kelas mengaji’ to study and recite the Quran and learn the Jawi.

In the Penilaian Darjah Lima, we took 5 subjects  in the exams – Bahasa Malaysia, English, Mathematics, Science and a paper that combines Geography and History.

We must get 5As in order to enter a good secondary school. It was simple. It was not complicated. It was workable.

But when KBSR and KBSM came about in the late 80’s, the education ministry changed the whole dynamics of the system and began to shift the focus of education to be more results oriented than to focus on the learning experience itself.

Students began chasing results. Parents began to be more competitive in order to bring the best out of their children. Students with 12As, 15As and even 20As began to appear. Teachers became lethargic. Students with good results couldn’t handle the more demanding, independent world of tertiary education because during their primary and secondary years, they were not focused in human interaction much due to the fact that their entire lives till then were spent in front of books and computers. Coupled with the flip flopping education policies in the recent years, the whole education system is down-spiraling out of control.

Going against the tide of the ministry of education is the noisy opposition movements  that are motivated by ulterior motives.

PPSMI was reversed after the ministry of education bent over backwards to pacify the Anti PPSMI Movement or GAP (Gerakan Anti PPSMI) for short. Nevermind the fact that PPSMI was only introduced 6 years earlier.

Even before that, the Education Act 1996 was adopted to sanctify the existence of vernacular schools after the then minister of education succumbed to political pressure from racial pressure groups. Nevermind that the very existence of the Education Act 1996 runs contrary to a couple of acts in the Constitution.

It is amazing that everytime there is a change of minister in the education ministry, our education policies would change as well.

All the policy changes regardless whether it is a reversal of previous policies or mere improvements from the current ones will have severe affect on to the students. It is worse if these changes are not substantiated with indepth studies by the relevant ministry.

The last time we had a comprehensive, 360 degrees study of our education policy was in the 60s through the Penyata Razak.

It is high time we have a similar study after nearly half a century had lapsed. Anybody from the cabinet dared to suggest this? Or is everyone up there is just looking after their own interests (instead of the nation’s)?

Anyway, I digress.

The History subject must be made compulsory from the early stages of education. Those who have seen the Tv Show – ‘Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader’ would immediately realise that kids in America as young as 6 years old are taught about the history of their country with such zest and pride.

But what kind of history are we suppose to teach our children?

History as a subject has two pronged objectives. One, to instil patriotism into the heart of every citizen from their childhood stage. Two, as source of knowledge on their surroundings and how they perceive their world.

In America, History was a touchy subject for the people especially with the advent of multiculturism among its people. With the influx of foreigners and the calls for equality among the afro-american movement, history as a subject was a sensitive issue indeed.

Abraham Lincoln and George Washington

For example, how do you reconcile the fact that George Washington, the founding father of United States of America, has many black slaves and treated them harshly?

How can one see Abraham Lincoln as one of the greatest President the United States had ever had but at the same time he ‘supported projects to remove blacks from the United States’ and said that ‘blacks could not be assimilated into white society and rejected the notion of social equality of the races’?

Multi-culturism pose a big threat to the learning of a country’s history because history in the eyes of each community living in a particular country is different from one another.

Was the Great Settlement of the Mid West by the white colonials in America a great human achievement for the whites? Or was it a mass extermination of the native Red Indians and their way of life by the europeans?

All this needs to be addressed by the policy makers of the United States of America. Their solution?

Assimilation of their citizens through schools.

Schools became the pillars of nation building.

With thousands of ethnicities coming in to America on daily basis, schools are the places where they transform immigrants into Americans.

The need to transform each and every people living in the USA as a person that live and breathe as an American came about 200 years ago when it’s 6th President, John Quincy Adams wrote that immigrants ‘must cast off their European skin, never to resume it’.

An American education reformer, Horace Mann stated that ‘a foreign people cannot be transformed into the full stature of American citizens merely by a voyage across the Atlantic’.

Very poignant and astute observation indeed.

Hence, the education system must be streamlined in order for the students to see themselves as Americans so that history is viewed without any racial stereotyping attached to it.

So what if George Washington owned slaves? So what if Abraham Lincoln was racist?

Each and every American out there reveres them both as the founding father and a great leader based on their achievements alone and what good they had brought to the Americans even centuries after they had passed away.

In other aspects, the native Americans in the USA are very patriotic regardless what happened to their people in the past.

Back in Malaysia, we hear so many negative opposition from the people who are against the subject of history made compulsory in schools. This is precisely because their views came from the racial angle.

All the prejudice, the stereotyping, the paranoia are the by-products of segregated education they experienced in their early childhood. At the very least, their views were contaminated by the very people that champion the need to segregate our children.

In the end, history is being promoted by these clustered group of people as evil and should not be taught to our children. We see so many unsavoury characters in the cyberspace trying hard to re-write history based on fiction and malicious motives.

We know that this country has a history that spanned thousands of years. We learned that this land was populated by people more than 2 thousand years ago. There were, in existence, great kingdoms and dynasties.

I learned a great deal about Langkasuka, Gangga Nagara and Patani in my primary schools. Everyone then knew about the establishment of Melaka Sultanate as well. We learned about the centuries of struggle for independence from foreign conquerors ever since Sultan Mahmud was defeated by Alfonso D’Albuquerque.

Names like Sultan Abdul Jalil Riayat Shah, Raja Haji, Datuk Maharajalela, Datuk Bahaman, Tok Janggut, Mat Kilau, Datuk Dol Naning were remembered in history alongside  Mustapha Hussain, Datuk Onn Jaafar, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Tan Cheng Lock and Tun V.T. Sambathan.

Cheng Lock, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Sambathan

The pillars of the nation are addressed in the History lessons by teachers to our children on weekly basis. They learn Negaraku, the national symbols and the basic history of our country. This is the seed of patriotism that is sown in the hearts of every Malaysian.

It amazes me how some people find this irrelevant and that history must not be a compulsory subject to be learned.

The problem with this simple issue is that we are a segregated society. The existence of vernacular schools made it impossible to even discuss this very beneficial thing in a positive manner.

Suddenly, there are quarters that said that immigrants coming to this land in the 19th and early 20th centuries must be given due recognition in the history textbooks. This is actually a political problem.

Several decades before this, when history is learned as a subject in schools, we learned about the immigrants coming in to our country and started a new life here. Nobody ever protested about this bit of information. Apart from this being the true historical fact, it has also recognised the fact that Malaysia now, is made up of many cultures plainly due to economic problems and the migration of the immigrats here was how the colonial masters solved those problems.

This is nothing new and so, the demands of the these quarters are at best, redundant.

And yes, the immigrants had made the country livelier and what we are today is partly due to their existence. But we must also remember, this country is far older than 1957. History of this country does not start in 1957. Due recognition must also be given to those who had lived in before that. In fact, if not for the achievements of the great civilisations especially the Melaka sultanate, we might be left in obscurity.

The quote – “He who is lord of Malacca has his hand on the throat of Venice” will not exist. Other civilisations would have not looked our way.

Therefore, the current contention on the issue of history in schools are merely political tools to further the agenda for power using racist means. It stemmed from being schooled in vernacular education; where the feeling of being sieged and lack of inter-racial mingling had urged them to play the one-upmanship game.

In any case, like how the Americans are accepting their history, Malaysians must accept their country’s history from the eyes of Orang Malaysia.

The need for racial posturing when it comes to history must be stopped. Only desperate politicians would look through the racial lense and try to skew history to further their agenda for power. People must not look at history as if it is a disease that must be eradicated. A person would not want to learn history only if he has a terrible past that needs to be hidden.

Academician never think twice when analysing history. They see it as it is. They do not wear the racial ‘hat’ whenever the subject of history is raised.

It is suggested that history must be inclusive, honest and without malice. But what is more important, history must be taught in classrooms of a single stream education system to eradicate any deviation from its set objectives.

Only then this subject will not be maligned by unscrupulous, characters populating our political platforms. If one follows the slogan 1Malaysia carefully, there is no need for vernacular schools at all.

Muhyiddin with (from left) Khoo, Rosli, Freida, Adi Badiozaman, Ibrahim, Sidek and Wan Mohd Zahid

The newly set up Education Advisory Council must look into this matter diligently. I hope it has a strong mandate to steer this subject into the correct path and once and for all, Malaysia will produce Orang Malaysia who are patriotic enough not to disgrace his/her own country.

Because, at the end of the day, regardless whether you are the 4th generation chinese whose great grandfather came to Malaya in a junk, or your ancestors were from South India, or some of your ancestors came from Siam, Sulu or Acheh, everyone now is Orang Malaysia.

You must have the characteristics of an Orang Malaysia, not the characteristics of the people from your ancestral land. To be otherwise only proves that some of us have not integrated well with the rest and are not inclusive in nature.

Thank you.

#malaysian-education, #one-school-system, #ppsmi

An honest opinion on YB Khairy’s speech

In his closing speech just now YB Khairy Jamaluddin called for his Pemuda members to “cakap yang benar biarpun pahit”.

With that in mind, I would like to take this opportunity to review his policy address which he made this morning. It won’t be a pleasant read for some people but since we are in the spirit of telling the truth and in the spirit of improving ourselves for the better, we shall dissect and make some sense to what he was trying to say.

First off, his speech was entitled “MAQASID DAN MANHAJ PERJUANGAN”.

Why do we have to Arabicize Malay words?

Maqasid means ‘matlamat’ while Manhaj means ‘pendekatan’. Please don’t do an Anwar Ibrahim and try to substitute proper Malay words with Arabic words. It makes you sound phony and trying too hard; just like Anwar Ibrahim.

Somebody told me that instead of dismissing his speech outright, I must give credit to where it’s due. That is fair enough. In all 73 paragraphs of his speech, not all needs to be criticised. Some have good arguments and there are a few that I can relate to. But there are a few paragraphs that I do not agree with and this is where I vent my frustrations towards this Ketua Pemuda of United Malay National Organisation.

Some of these paragraphs are:

As UMNO Youth Leader, I meet many young Malays from all levels of society. When I speak of the NEP and the Malay struggle, they retort: “Pardon me, but what have I ever received from the NEP?” Their incomes are below the poverty line, many of them have migrated to cities where the cost of living rises faster than what they earn. These are Malays, Bumiputeras, but they have never enjoyed the fruits of the NEP. Their perception is that the NEP only enriches a few elite Bumiputeras with strong political links. For these youths, the 30 percent equity target does not mean anything because most of them never have and never will be able to purchase shares. This is yet another example of leakages where the NEP, which was rooted on the notion of prosperity for all, ended up being seen as an elitist policy resulting in many Malays sidelined and not looked after.

I find this very alarming coming from the Ketua Pemuda himself. Is he saying that his understanding of the NEP is limited to the number of shares and equity holding of the Malays? How sad that he cannot rebuke those young Malays that he met using arguments that the NEP had given them access to a lot of opportunities that did not exist before NEP was created?

All the many universities that were built, all the funds that were set up to  pull the Malays out from hardcore poverty, all the many schools that was built when not many were built before 1970; all these were part of the NEP that these young Malays are given privilege to enjoy. All these are direct benefits that come from the NEP. These are only a few examples that Khairy could give to them. He could even say that business opportunities are given to them if they work hard. In the days before the NEP an ordinary Malay could not have access to these opportunities even if they had worked hard because no opportunities were given to them. Access was limited.

If Pemuda Umno cannot rebut a simple retort from the simple young Malays he met all these while, then he therefore does not know what NEP is and certainly do not know the history of Umno’s struggle. Yet, he made a highly rhetorical statement in one of his paragraphs:

What is required today is a politics based on thoughts and ideas. The current political sphere is no longer entirely about the struggle for power, but a competiton of minds, a battle of ideas. Like it or not, those who challenge our political ideology must be defeated through the sharpness of our intellect and the superiority of our arguments, not by relying on executive power.

What sharpness of intellect can we really see here when he could not even properly explain to the young people the successes and the benefits NEP had brought to the Malays? Instead, he had used the raw, unprocessed thinking of those young ones (who really should have been educated further by Umno Youth) as the justification to condemn the NEP further.

I am further inclined to believe that Umno Youth is not focusing on the ‘software’ of the youth generation. Instead, they are focusing on the hard figures. Yes, you have gained new members. Yes you got new voters. But what kind of members and new voters do you have? Ones that do not know why, how and what the objectives of Umno are?

Does all the Umno youth members know the history of its ‘matlamat’ and ‘pendekatan’? Even the Ketua Pemuda doesn’t seem to know it. If not, he could have easily swayed the youth not to be too critical of the NEP. You do not have to offer them shares or business contracts  just to make them love the NEP mind you.

There is a paragraph that I do not understand due to the underlying contradiction:

The new manhaj must be guided by merit and needs. Merit stresses on staying power and competitiveness. Merit means the Malay who has the ability, talent and high potential will be discovered, assisted along the way and given ample room to succeed. Merit also demands a level playing field so that the most innovative of farmers, the most diligent of traders, the most knowledgeable of professors and the most competent of contractors are provided with all the encouragement necessary without barriers in the form of political interests or the lack political connections. God-willing, with the inculcation of these new values and culture in the manhaj of empowerment for our people, the Malays will be better equipped to compete on the world stage, without the need for ‘crutches’ anymore.

So, a Malay who has the ability and talent will be discovered and helped and encouraged along the way to be successful. That is what he call ‘merit based system’. Isn’t all these ‘help’ and ‘encouragement’ can be termed as ‘crutches’?

Or in other words, one of the many policies in the affirmative actions of the NEP?

I am confused with Khairy’s definition of meritocracy. It contradicts itself. It is certainly not the same with the meritocracy concept which Lim Kit Siang proposes.

Plus, Khairy should be the last person to talk about meritocracy because all the years he has been in politics, he gained prominence through sheer nepotism. If he had not married into Tun Abdullah Badawi’s family, where do you think he could be now? Certainly not as Ketua Pemuda because he could have never won the Deputy Umno Youth Chief unchallenged in 2004. He won it because he was the infamous son in law of the current Umno President at that time.

He then spoke at length on the Malay unity. When the Deputy President last night touched on the importance of Malay unity, Khairy seemed to think that there is nothing we can do about in unifying the Malays for the sake of greater good. He even resigned to state that:

“saya juga sedar bahawa telah terpahat dalam sejarah yang Melayu itu jarang sekali bersatu. Dalam lipatan sejarah moden, kecuali dalam penentangan terhadap Malayan Union dan perjuangan kemerdekaan, orang Melayu acap berpecah terutama dalam pemahaman dan ideologi politik.”

Although he did not reject the possibility of Malay unity, he stated that:

We must accept the reality that today the Malay vote is split. There is no Malay party – be it UMNO or PAS – that can secure a hundred percent of Malay votes. In many areas, the Malay political split is such that 50 percent are on one side and 50 percent on the other. This means that any side wanting to win, must win with the support of all Malaysians, regardless of race and religion. If we hope to rely on the Malay vote alone, we should be mindful that there are only 73 Parliamentary seats with a dominant Malay majority of 70 percent and above. Such is the reality.

We must learn from the results of the last General Elections where we almost relinquished power due to the loss of support from non-Malays. If we still subscribe to the illusion that we can win without their support, then 50 seats currently held by BN are in grave danger. If there is no concerted effort to practise an inclusive and moderate leadership, UMNO’s Malay leadership will disappear come the next election.

Most assuredly the main responsibility of winning over support from non-Malays lies on the shoulders of certain component parties. Whatever weaknesses they have must be overcome immediately and the responsibilities entrusted upon them must be vigorously carried out. But in the current state of politics – moreoever with the concept of 1Malaysia being our collective compass – Malaysians want to see a BN that can practise the values of camaraderie, justice and fairness.

Those are the words that kept niggling in my conscience. I stated in my previous article that Umno must understand their role in Barisan Nasional. Umno must be at the forefront of the Malay struggle. Obviously when Umno is fighting for Malay empowerment and rights, it doesn’t contradict the Constitution. So there is nothing to be afraid of.

Barisan Nasional is the multiracial party that governs the government.

Umno, MCA, MIC and a dozen of other component parties must perform their roles for each of their community or groups of the same political idealogy.

If MCA and MIC have not been inclusive in their own party conventions, and have not shown us the values of camaraderie, justice and fairness, why should Umno subrogate the roles of those two parties in wooing their voters?

Isn’t it easier to be find ways to unify the Malays in Umno and Pas rather than Umno putting on multiple caps just to please others?

Unification of the Malays will make make the Malays even stronger. Is this not the ‘matlamat’ of Umno Youth?

I have said many times, the easiest way for the component parties to win any voters is to stick to the Constitution. All BN parties must ‘perjuangkan Perlembagaan Malaysia’. The spirit of the Constitution must be upheld. No parties will feel left out if everyone of them stick to what our founding fathers had laid out for us. We are all guided by it.

And for everything that is holy in the universe, Barisan Nasional lost support in General Elections 2008 was not solely because Umno lost support of the non-malays. People of all races did not vote Barisan Nasional because the leadership at that time was corrupt, arrogant, too flamboyant and did not manage the economy well. If you identified wrongly the causes of the losses, you will administer the wrong prescriptions to the problem. Hence, the wrong diagnosis and prognosis of the Ketua Pemuda in the paragraphs mentioned above.

Therefore, I am disappointed with the way Pemuda Umno is going.

I was further left disappointed when he said this:

When we fail to understand and appreciate the feelings of other races, the barriers that separate us become higher and thicker. Young Malaysians live within the confines of their own ethnic communities. The young Malay who attends religious school, a Middle Eastern university and watches Malay programs on Astro Ria is alien to the young Chinese attending a vernacular school, a Taiwanese university and entertained by Wah Lai Toi. Each perpetuates mutual prejudices because of these barriers that exist.

Stopping short of calling for a single stream education for Malaysia, he recognised the barriers but dared not say any viable solution for these problems. Instead he added on:

The 1Malaysia concept needs to be held as a shared aspiration amongst all races. Community life in a multi-ethnic country certainly demands much patience and courtesy from everyone. We should not hastily pointing fingers at each other in the face of any issue, big or small. We need to understand the feelings of other people if we want them to understand ours. We all need to imagine ourselves in each other’s shoes, assume we swap places, switch fortunes, only then can we appreciate the universal truth that our shared humanity unites us more than it divides. Malaysians need to give and take between one another and this by no means entails one side only taking and the other only giving. Let the fate and future of this country, whether we fail or succeed, be determined together by us all.

Please tell us how all those above can be achieved after the paragraph before it had exposed the huge problem of our society? How can Malaysians understand the feelings of one another if they live in a segregated society? It easy for him to say rhetorical things like this but coming way short on the substance. The solution is staring straight in our face yet the Ketua Pemuda, the one who tried to be inclusive and propagating collective interest of the nation seemed to be too timid to even mention this.

Those above are the things that irritate me the most during his speech this morning. I also do not agree when he said something about the May 13, 1969 incident. But the sharp among us can see the shortcomings of that particular paragraph without me elaborating it further.

Other than the things I mentioned above, the speech was commendable. I apologise if this is a bitter pill to swallow. But I must for the sake of Agama, Bangsa and Negara. Thank you.