UMNO DELEGATES MUST READ THIS!! ... An Open Letter to UMNO PAU Delegates: You are barking at the wrong tunggul

UMNO DELEGATES MUST READ THIS!! ... An Open Letter to UMNO PAU Delegates: You are barking at the wrong tunggul

Dear PAU Delegates

I write to you today as a concerned citizen of Malaysia. I'm fully aware of some of your
intentions todebate the existence of Vernacular Education within our National Education
system.

It seems that your top leaders in the party is getting jittery and have put the "moderation"
gear on overdrivethese past 48hours.

Frankly, I would suggest for you to look at the Matahari and Bulan promise made by your
Deputy President,the Malay First Malaysian Second according of Lim Kit Siang

Watch him at minute 1:49 to 2:00 and hear how the Ahbengs do their Ching Chong Clap




His boss your party supremo has gone on record at the recent MCA assembly to say

“Don’t worry about Chinese vernacular schools. Chinese education

has always been a part of the Constitution and its continuity is

          ensured in the national education blueprint,” source here

So we got the current serving Minister of Education promising Matahari dan Bulan and
another doing his interpretation of the Constitution.

On the other side you've got Barking Dogs who goes around saying that questioning
 the existence and advocating closure of Vernacular Education is Seditious


I don't need to name them, berlambak-lambak zombie berkeliaran.

Let me just show you what the Chief Zombie has said

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.   (here)

Worry not people I have written about it multiple times and shall not repeat this
boring subject anymore..

If you don't trust my writings then go to the recent piece in Malay Mail by Faidhur Rahman
Abdul Hadi a lawyer and an activist member of Concerned Lawyers for Justice in
response to the racially biased understanding by another Zombie.

In conclusion it may be said with absolute certainty that with due respect to

Datuk Li Tian Ker, his assertion that Mohamad Azmi committed the offence of

sedition when he called for a debate on the possible closure of Chinese and

Tamil schools at the coming Umno general assembly is wholly without basis

and incorrect, simply because there isn’t a Constitutional right

to the schools as claimed in the first place. Further, the legal precedent set by

Mark Koding’s case is not authority for the notion that questioning the

existence of the schools is sedition.

Quite the contrary, in fact. Thus Mohamad Azmi can safely rest assured

that in raising the status of Chinese and Tamil schools at the said

assembly for whatever deliberation is not sedition but rather is within

his right to freedom of speech protected by no less than Article 10 of the

Federal Constitution of Malaysia. (here)

Remember when your Youth Chief went on record to talk about a Virtual Constitutional
Guarantee, it was me who had to straighten him up in 2011

Go here

Before him in 2010 I had to engage Tun Mahathir (here) when he openly said this

1. Saya ucap terimakasih kerana ramai yang melawat blog saya dan membuat

komen menyokong atau menolak. Ramai juga yang bercakap berkenaan

 bahagian-bahagian Perlembagaan yang tidak boleh dipinda (entrenched). Tetapi
ramai yang tidak ambilkira tentang peruntukan-peruntukan dalam Perlembagaan
yang begitu adil. Tiada perlindungan bagi hak sesuatu kaum yang tidak diimbangi
dengan hak kaum-kaum lain.

2. Demikian apabila agama Islam dijadikan agama rasmi negara Malaysia,

susulan daripada itu perlembagaan memperuntukkan bahawa agama-agama

lain boleh dianuti dan dipraktik oleh penganut-penganut agama berkenaan

tanpa gangguan.

3. Apabila bahasa Melayu diterima sebagai bahasa rasmi negara, tetapi

bahasa-bahasa lain boleh digunakan sebagai bahasa ibunda dan

bahasa pengantar di sekolah-sekolah. 

4. Apabila sekolah kebangsaan ialah sekolah yang mengguna bahasa kebangsaan

sebagaibahasa pengantar, sekolah-sekolah jenis nasional boleh mengguna bahasa

Cina (bahasa kebangsaan China) dan bahasa Tamil (bahasa suku kaum Tamil). (here)

Now in 2014 he goes on record to say this...

3. When Minister Aziz Ishak as acting Education Minister decided that all schools

must be converted to national schools with the national language as the teaching

medium, the Chinese  raised a big row. Cabinet then decided that the vernacular

language schools would be allowed.

They were re-designated “Jenis Kebangsaan” or National Type. The national type 
primary vernacular schools would receive Government aid but the national 
type secondary schools were not to be supported by Government. The decision 
was political. Nothing in the Constitution provided for this. Then another Education
Minister in 1971 decided to abolish Government secondary schools which teach in
English. (here)

THE DECISION WAS POLITICAL  

How sweet

Anyway folks this issue of being in the Constitution was already identified way back in 1953

The demand to recognize Chinese as an official language was officially adopted

by the UCSTA when Lim Lian Geok was appointed its President on 19 December

1953. Lim was noted for his “unwavering stand and fearless struggle” (Yen, 2008:252)

to safeguard the cause of Chinese education on the grounds of equality and

justice throughout his tenure as the President of the UCSTA.

He strongly believed that the only way to legitimize the position of the

Chinese schools in the national education system was through the

recognition of Chinese as an

official language. This conviction was the result of a meeting with Sir Donald

Charles

MacGillivray, the Deputy High Commissioner, on 8 November 1952. The meeting

was called by the Deputy High Commissioner to assure the Chinese educationists

that the government had no intention to eliminate the Chinese schools.

Lim was more interested to find out as to why the Chinese could be accepted

as the citizens of the country, but their schools could not be accepted into the

nationaleducation system. He was referring to the proposal of the British to

establish national schools which excluded Chinese as

a medium of instruction. MacGillivray‟s answer to the question

was that national schools could not use Chinese as a medium of

instruction as it was not an official language. This was an awakening

call for Lim. Lim came to realize that efforts to legitimize the position of

Chineseschools within the ambit of the national education system must

invariably include therecognition of Chinese as an official language

CHINESE LANGUAGE MOVEMENT IN MALAYSIA, 1952-1967:THE NEXUS OF

LANGUAGE AND ETHNICITY IN A PLURAL SOCIETY Source (here)

The late Mark Koding was absolutely right on the money when he said

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.

By asking for Article 152 to be changed he was deemed seditious....

So from the 70's keluar la semua zombies duk jual Constitutional Guarantee

Remember folks it is your current Party leader who WENT AGAINST THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS with his Education Act

You seriously think that he wants this CONSTITUTIONALLY FLAWED POLITICAL
DECISION to be exposed ?

Yeah rite

Don't waste your time debating this during PAU

Like I said dah bertahun tahun

Take this matter to the Court of Law and ask these simple questions (details here)

If you wanna make it more interesting and add another dimension to this..try to selit this
as well

As you all may be aware there is a growing number of Private Islamic Schools in
Malaysia

Ask the question why are they not receiving the proper support from our Federal and
State Government as per Article 12 (2)

Ada brani ka geng merah putih yg perasan nak pertahankan Agama, Bangsa dan
Negara?

Tell me which one legally deserves funding from our Government

SKJs or Private Islamic Schools?

Stop wasting you time trying to convince the top echelons that WE NEED TO ERADICATE
THIS ILLEGALLY FUNDED INSTITUTION

STOP THE FUNDING AND LET THEM BE PRIVATE 

Remember wahai Pejuang Melayu wannabes the fact remains they see NO VALUE in
our NATIONAL LANGUAGE

Asmah (1985:22) said “though the national language is the language of the nation

and hence everyone should feel it is his language, time has shown that this idea

has not really pervaded the Malaysian society, particularly the non-bumiputras

[non-indigenous peoples, i.e., the Chinese and Indians]. Asmah (1985:22)

provides the following illustrative example from the scholar Tan Chee Beng: 

“two Chinese of different dialect groups would rather communicate in

English or break off contact altogether than speak in Malay which both

can use.” (here)

Linkwithin