Statement Released by Dong Zong

September 22, 2018

Tax Exemption for “MICSS Education Blueprint” Fundraising Commended—

Enaction of Tax Exemption for Donors and Beneficiaries Urged

Dong Zong acknowledges the positive response from the Ministry of Finance to exempt an estimated tax of RM853,000.00 on Dong Zong after two tax exemption applications on the fund it raised for the “MICSS Education Blueprint” in 2017. Here being Dong Zong’s statement proper:

1. For the sake of effective execution of MICSS education reform and the continuity of Chinese education in Malaysia, Dong Zong established an ad hoc committee for the “MICSS Education Blueprint” in 2016. It is intended for the comprehensive review of its “MICSS Education Reform Guidelines” launched in 2005. Experts, scholars and Chinese education stakeholders were then ensembled to embark on a rigid survey on the current situation of independent Chinese secondary schools at national level. Later, school boards, principals, teachers, students, parents, alumni and stakeholders were requested to contribute views and comments for the “MICSS Education Blueprint” drafting, with the objective of outlining its next ten years’ direction and vision. After much concerted efforts and hard work, the “MICSS Education Blueprint” was completed and formally launched on 12 August this year as ascribed. Meanwhile, for the settlement of expenses, assurance as well as the practice of its implementation, a fundraising event was staged for the target sum of RM5 million in 2017. The good news is, as of September 30 this year, the target sum was raised successfully.

Unfortunately, an estimated tax of RM853,000.00 was incurred from the raised RM5 million. Dong Zong raised the fund for educational purpose as well as operating expenses as a non-profit academic institution, the surplus of its operating expenses and fund raised should be exempt from taxation such that more private organisations will be willing to partake and contribute in national education. In this train of thought, through much effort and interactions, Dong Zong applied for tax exemption twice in letter (March 23 and June 8 respectively) for the estimated tax of RM853,000.00 from the Ministry of Finance. Finally, on 12 September, Dong Zong received an exemption reply dated August 24 from the Ministry of Finance. To this open and compassionate response from the Ministry of Finance, we express herewith our heartfelt acknowledgement. We believe, the willing dedications of private sectors on education industry owed much to the positive encouragement and understanding of the elected Pakatan Harapan government.

2. Other than the above, in the 91^st joint meeting held between Dong Zong and its state members on 25 August this year, the proposal “urging the government to exempt the surplus of non-profit academic institution operation expenses and fund raised from taxation such that more private organisations or institutions will willingly partake and contribute in national education” was approved.

As it is known, private sectors and non-profit organisations of various sorts have since been voluntarily providing financial contribution and substantial efforts in the nurture of polymaths and professionals in nation building. Their voluntary engagement in education is in essence unconditional; the government in turn should allocate appropriation responsively to render encouragement and support for better outcome and more contributions alike.

We wish, as a last note, the government would exempt taxation of the surplus of non-profit academic institution operation expenses and fund raised on one hand, and regulate a policy which automatically exempts donors and beneficiaries from taxation for education related matters as a proactive encouragement.

Joint Statement Released by Dong Zong and Jiao Zong

September 21, 2018

Of late, the MOE Examination Division pronounced if any one candidate requests during a public examination in a vernacular school, invigilator who knows the candidate’s mother tongue but not the chief invigilator is allowed to explain the examination instructions further; moreover, all state Education Bureaus are also directed to assure invigilators of this sort be assigned to both Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools. Dong Zong and Jiao Zong take this directive uncompromising and urge for further explanation as it justifies the government’s intent to appoint non-Chinese-speaking chief invigilators to Chinese vernacular schools during examination with only one (or at least one) Chinese-versed invigilator accompanies. Dong Zong and Jiao Zong are deeply concerned about this with angst thus calling the Chinese community to respond, believing that it will eventually browse the unique characteristics of Chinese primary schools.

1. Dong Zong and Jiao Zong posit, based on the inherence that mother tongue is the medium of instruction for all vernacular schools, chief invigilators posted to vernacular schools should be able to speak in that particular tongue; take for instance, the medium of instruction in Chinese vernacular schools is Chinese, thus the chief invigilator as the accountable figure in the examination should by right be able to speak in Chinese for better handling of various matters, including explaining examination instructions to the candidates. This is believed to be the correct and necessary way. In fact, chief invigilator using Chinese for explanation in examination accords the characteristics of Chinese vernacular schools and also is the persistent request of Dong Zong and Jiao Zong over the years.

2. All this while, the MOE appointed chief invigilators in a compromising way, viz., sending Chinese speaking chief invigilators to Chinese primary schools during public examinations. But unfortunately, due to the mishandling of certain officials of the MOE, the mentioned incident happened sporadically. With the strident opposition raised by Chinese community, some incidents were resolved while others are still pending for solution. Frankly, the unsolved cases make things inconvenient for the schools involved, so to speak. The appointment this year worsened the dispute and aroused angst among the Chinese community. Eventually, the Deputy Minister of Education Teo Nie Ching was appealed to address the problem.

3. To our regret, notwithstanding the ongoing disputes and worries, the MOE Examination Division directed that “if any one candidate requests during an examination taking place in a vernacular school, invigilator who knows the candidate’s mother tongue but not the chief invigilator is allowed to explain the examination instructions further”. As the directive did not request the chief invigilator to be Chinese-speaking, but only that at least one invigilator who knows the candidate’s mother tongue be present, the intention of deliberate justification of the ongoing practice in certain states—sending non-Chinese-speaking chief invigilators to Chinese primary schools in public examinations which is deemed inappropriate—is evident. Dong Zong and Jiao Zong found it worrying and uncompromising. The act, if not curbed, is worried to gradually browse Chinese vernacular schools’ unique characteristic of using Chinese as their medium of instruction.

4. Further, “if any one candidate requests during an examination taking place in a vernacular school, invigilator who knows the candidate’s mother tongue but not the chief invigilator is allowed to explain the examination instructions further” as pronounced is reckoned unreasonable. In Chinese primary school public examination, the chief invigilators are expected to explain the instructions in Chinese to the Chinese candidates directly and not when they are requested. We believe this improper practice needs to be rectified as it not only is detrimental to the candidates but also incurs negative impact seminally. Nonetheless, in the said examinations, let alone the chief invigilators being Chinese-speaking, sufficient Chinese-speaking invigilators need to be sent to such schools to facilitate and assure the smooth running of the examinations.

5. Dong Zong and Jiao Zong insist, Chinese-speaking invigilators to be sent to Chinese primary schools for assured handling of all matters during the examinations and it is persisted by Chinese community and believed to be the right and reasonable approach unanimously. The strident opposition against the said measure from the Chinese community shows both inherent and deep concern to safeguard the continuity of Chinese education in this country. The Deputy Minister of Education Teo Nie Ching thus should not take it as an overreaction of the Chinese community, instead, she needs to listen to the voices attentively and address the worries appropriately, including withdrawing the relevant pronouncement and regulate it on paper that “chief-invigilators appointed should be Chinese-speaking” for the non-deterioration assurance of Chinese vernacular schools.

6. On that score, Dong Zong and Jiao Zong urge the Deputy Minister of Education Teo Nie Ching to schedule a meet-up for the exchanges of pent up Chinese issues, including the UPSR (Primary School Achievement Test) chief invigilator appointment for a long-term solution.

Joint Statement Released by Dong Zong and Jiao Zong

September 16, 2018

Dong Zong and Jiao Zong are deeply concerned about the position of vernacular School Inspector and its possible eventual abolishment attributed to the latest released state Education Bureau administrative structure which leaves the power and status of School Inspector and Chinese Subject Inspector of national-type Chinese primary schools undefined.

1. Dong Zong and Jiao Zong reckon, notwithstanding the Deputy Education Minister Teo Nie Ching had pronounced in the reformed administration structure of state Education Bureau, the School Inspector and Chinese Subject Inspector of national-type Chinese primary schools would not be deleted, her comments could not eliminate doubts and worries of the Chinese community. It is noticed in the new administrative structure of the state Education Bureau, the words “Chinese Subject” are omitted from the existing “Chinese Subject Inspector” and it is instead re-termed as “Language Assistant Director” thus understood as “applicable for all languages”. On the other hand, the words “Chinese Primary Schools” are omitted from “Chinese Primary Schools School Inspector” and re-termed as “Primary School Assistant Director” thus “to be responsible for all vernacular schools”. Since the two positions are not defined precisely, viz., not clearly stated to be responsible for Chinese subject and Chinese primary schools only, it makes their power and status ambiguous and likely to generate deficiencies, or more perturbed, certain vernacular schools as well as subjects can be excluded unnoticeably.

2. We believe, due to the uniqueness of secondary school Chinese subject and Chinese primary schools, the person who assumes either “Chinese Subject Inspector” or “Chinese Primary Schools School Inspector” must meet specific requirements and qualifications, that is, to have a degree of command in the Chinese language. In this vein, Dong Zong and Jiao Zong earnestly urge the Deputy Education Minister Teo Nie Ching to ensure the preservation of “Chinese Primary Schools School Inspector” (or Chinese Primary School Assistant Director) and “Chinese Subject Inspector” (or Chinese Subject Assistant Director) as well as assigning qualified persons for the said posts so that Chinese education in Chinese primary schools and national secondary schools are not affected.

3. Dong Zong and Jiao Zong understand all the state “Chinese Primary Schools School Inspector” and “Chinese Subject Inspector” are playing critical role in Chinese education. Take “Chinese Subject Inspector” for example, since the post was first launched in 2000 by the MOE nationwide, the Chinese classes scheduled in the national schools have been improved profusely. It not only helps in Chinese learning but is also proven the correct approach. In fact, more efforts are needed for better results. Likewise, in matter like Chinese primary schools’ development, more endeavour should be consolidated for gratifying results through the posting of teachers, appropriation, teaching and implementation of measures; and they need the coordination and concerted effort of School Inspector. Nonetheless, apart from being amenable towards the national education policy, Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools have their own operational characteristics and the existence of the Board of Directors is one of them. In fact, supervision from informed “School Inspector” is constantly sought on projects like “Charity Project”, nutritious meals and the dissemination of Chinese culture and values. That said, it is unwise to abolish these two posts or it can seriously affect the normal progress of Chinese education.

4. Dong Zong and Jiao zong reiterate, in the new administration structure of state Education Bureau, the preservation of the posts and status of “Chinese Primary Schools School Inspector” and “Chinese Subject Inspector” should be assured and a Division is expected to be established to handle all related affairs for the interests of Chinese primary schools and Secondary level Chinese subject in national schools. Due to the imminency and seriousness of the matter, Dong Zong and Jiao Zong had approached the Deputy Education Minister Teo Nie Ching for a meeting to seek consensus and resolve the contentious matter for the advancement of Chinese education on this soil.

Statement Released by Dong Zong

September 5, 2018

Statement Jointly Made by Ten Chinese Associations on Vernacular

School History Subject

A. Foreword

Under the MOE directive, the KBSR (New Primary Curriculum Standards) was replaced by KSSR (Primary School Curriculum Standards) since 2011. In the KSSR, the History subject was accorded a core subject for the Second stage (Grade 4 to 6) and this measure was put into practice in 2014 and would be rolled forward to Grade Five and Six successively.

Malaysia is a multi-racial, multi-linguistic, multi-cultural and multi-religious nation. Under this inherence, it is imperative for all vernacular school students to know about the history of the country, particularly how the races strove for independence and worked cohesively for the advancement of the country; all these are helpful in nurturing the spirit of mutual understanding, respect and concerted corporation for harmonious integration and national unity.

Unfortunately, immediately after the release of the History coursebook for primary schools, many deficiencies were noted and they generated disputes and controversies. The major problems among them are that the contents of the coursebooks are way too unitary and partial which discord the country’s plurality as well as reality and thus authenticity is not taught to students and learned comprehensively. As the whole gamut of the reality is not imparted in History subject, students will be misled and in long term it is harmful towards national unity and harmonious integration.

Moreover, since the History coursebooks used for all vernacular schools are translated versions from Bahasa Melayu, the stories and quotations were merely daily cases of a particular race (ethnic Malay). Moreover, they are irrelevant to Chinese students and do not reflect the truth of racial integration. In matters of teaching and learning, they are perplexing and not in consonant with the educational needs of Chinese students at large.

Due to the severity of the matter, ever since the use of the said History coursebook from 2014 onwards, Jiao Zong and the Malaysia Chinese Language Council had consulted academics to scrutinise the coursebooks and reflect the problems found through accessible channels to the MOE for reviews and amendments. To our regret, notwithstanding the reflections submitted, only technical errors such as translation, illustration and syntax related matters were rectified but not the core problem of unitary mindset and partial values embedded.

Having known that the MOE is currently reviewing and amending the History coursebooks for vernacular schools, and proposes to release the amended coursebooks for Grade Four, Five and Six in 2020, 2021 and 2022 successively, ten associations from the Chinese communities including Jiao Zong, the Malaysia Chinese Language Council, Dong Zong, the Chinese Assembly Hall, the Federation of Alumni Associations of Taiwan Universities (Malaysia), Lim Lian Geok Foundation, the Association of Graduates from the Universities and Colleges in China (Malaysia),  the United Chinese School Alumni Association of Malaysia, Centre for Malaysian Chinese Studies and Merdeka University Berhad, together with historians at large unanimously deemed it necessary to forward a memorandum for a conscientious consideration. In this memorandum, recommendation for amendment in curriculum standards will be raised hoping that the to-be-rectified contents are amenable to historical truth for the sole objectives of historical education.

B. Problems Found in Vernacular School History Coursebooks

1. Over simplified and defy the multi-racial, multi-linguistic and multi-cultural reality

Notwithstanding that the core value of the History coursebooks is oriented towards moral practice, patriotism, civic elements and civic awareness to help students learn about the plurality of our country for later build-up of patriotism while nurturing unity, friendliness and democratic spirit, in the published coursebooks, the above core elements as societal reality were not incorporated impartially.

To take the Grade Four coursebook for example, in the unit Topic One: Future Learning, the illustrations for individuals, family, school, living context as well as learning context are entirely the Malay’s. As it does not present the reality of the country, it cannot reflect the multiplicity and plurality of the country. As such, we believe units such as this will impart wrong concepts and do not reflect the truth and thus demand rectification and amendment.

Apart from that, in the unit Topic One: Our Heritage in Grade Five coursebook, the heritage of the country is focused on Islam and Bahasa Melayu which are originated from the Malacca Sultanate. This definition is incorrect as long before the rise of the Malacca Sultanate and the entry of Islam into Malaysia, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sanskrit had played seminal role in our composite culture, religion and language. Hinduism, Buddhism and Sanskrit not only enrich our multiplicity and plurality but also are our precious heritage.

We believe, for the authentic historical knowledge of the country, the coursebooks should not intentionally downplay and efface these historical truths, rather, keep them as they are. In matters of religions and faiths, anything missing out will end up partial learning thus other than the contents of Islam and Bahasa Melayu, “other major religions and faith” as well as “the use and learning of mother tongue” should not be neglected. With the reality of races and coexistence at play, students will learn mutual respect and friendly corporation subsequently.

2. Part of the contents are irrelevant to history

One of the objectives of history learning is to help students grasp and learn historical knowledge, but the extant History coursebooks are essentially not genuine history as some parts of the contents deviated from historical knowledge and mingled with too much civic education and moral education values and elements; this confuses the primary students’ cognition.

For instance, in Grade Four coursebook, irrelevant topics such as “time appreciation”, “know about oneself”, “my core family”, “how to address our family members”, “happy family”, “the importance of environment” and “ideal environment” are presented. Meticulously, these topics are morally inclined and have been included in the contents of Moral Education and therefore redundant.

Further, the units Topic Seven: Achievement in Sports and Topic Eight: Economical Activities in Grade Six coursebook are in nature irrelevant to history and thus should be omitted.

3. Biased and selective in compilation and redaction

Primary school History coursebooks need to be compiled and redacted in accordance with the reality of the country which includes the assurance and glorification of devotions made by all ethnic groups since the birth of the nation but not subjective and prejudicial comments or arbitrary orientation in favour of anyone race. The deficiency and inappropriateness will result in partial historical knowledge learning which is detrimental to national unity and harmonious integration.

Grade Four Topic Five: Prominent Figures in the Malacca Sultanate has four units relevant to the Malacca Sultanate. Though it occupies one third of the Grade Four coursebook, only Parameswara, Tun Perak and Hang Tuah are dwelled into. That made the rest of the other historical figures and events untouched: such as the achievement of Sultan Mansur, the relationship between Malacca sultanate and the Ming dynasty as well as the maritime expeditions of Zheng He (to Malacca), etc.

In addition to this, Topic Four: Early Malay Sultanate in Grade Four History coursebook also deliberately downplays the influence of Indian civilisation towards the earlier Malay sultanates.

The purpose of Topic Two: The Struggle for Independence in Grade Five textbook is to inform how the great figures of the nation struggled and strove for independence from the colonisers so as to nurture and enlighten civic awareness and patriotism. But surprisingly, its contents focus merely on the resistance of the British colonisation and there is not a word on how all ethnic groups resisted the Japanese invasion.

History coursebook, we believe, needs to record the devotions of all ethnic groups authentically. Untrue descriptions, if done intentionally, will instill incorrect values towards students and result in incorrect historical views. Eventually, unnecessary conflicts, suspicions and doubts will be generated, worse still, it will pose harm to social unity and national integration.

4. Errors in contents, grammar, wording and resource use

There are some historical errors made in the History coursebook for vernacular schools needed to be rectified accordingly. Since the Chinese version is directly translated from the original Malay text, there are plenty of errors in grammar and wording which bring about confusion in teaching and learning.

Take for instance, in Topic Five: Prominent Figures in the Malacca Sultanate of Grade Four coursebook, the illustration of Chinese merchants doing business in Malacca Sultanate are presented incorrectly: the dress code of Qing dynasty was used for Ming dynasty. We take it a serious mistake as it misleads students conceptually.

Other than this, in Grade Five coursebook, the national flag for Burma presented is an abandoned one; Portuguese (1511 to 1641) is mistakenly reported to colonise for the sake of spice monopoly and the dissemination of “Christianity” rather than spice monopoly and the dissemination of “Catholic”.

The errors found in the said coursebooks indicate one of imprudence in the course of redaction and compilation and that inevitably ensues doubts and confusion. That said, if anything needs to be done to regain trust, that would be the MOE’s determination to confront the problem and readiness to review and avoid the recommittal of similar errors.

C. Recommendations and Wishes

The following recommendations and wishes are forwarded to the MOE for serious consideration not only to simply look into them but also rectify the mentioned errors and mistakes found in vernacular school History coursebooks:

1. Review the contents and curriculum standards of History coursebook

Both the curriculum standards and coursebook of History as a subject need to correspond with the objectives of historical education and be relevant to all vernacular schools to ensure the dissemination of complete and correct concept of our country’s history. Simply put, the MOE should review the curriculum standards and coursebooks of vernacular schools from the aspect of education and historical profession as well as history per se, including the realisation of multiplicity and plurality.

History as an individual subject should reflect our country’s multiracial, multicultural and multi religious reality. On that score, to attune with the reality, the existing unitary oriented contents which emphasise merely any one ethnic group need to be adjusted and rectified. Besides, sections which are irrelevant to history learning should be avoided.

Our recommendations are thus as follows:

a. Early Malay sultanate was profoundly influenced by the Indian culture in religion, scripts and festivals. Therefore, for reality restoration, the Indian cultural elements engrained in the sultanate should be restored in Topic Four: Early Malay Sultanate.

b. Likewise, Topic Six: Our Cultural Heritage in Grade Five History coursebook, supplementary contents like “constitutional monarchy”, “other major religions and faiths” as well as “Mother tongue use and learning” need to be included.

Moreover, the damages and fatalities brought in by the Japanese occupation and brave resistance against the Japanese rendered by all ethnic groups when our nation was resisting colonisation need to be added into Topic Seven: National sovereignty of Grade Five coursebook.

c. The athletic achievement and economical activities found in Topic Twelve: Our Achievement and Kudos in Grade Six coursebook are irrelevant to history and thus they are recommended to be deleted accordingly.

2. Inviting historians from different ethnic groups, representatives of associations and vernacular schools to form “Vernacular Schools History Curriculum Standards and Coursebook Committee”

We herewith appeal the MOE to form a “Vernacular Schools History Curriculum Standards and Coursebook Committee” comprising historians from different ethnic groups, representatives of associations and vernacular schools. It is for mooting engagement in the above matter to seek constructive views for consummate curriculum standards and coursebooks so that students can really grasp history knowledge and command learning.

3. “One Curriculum Diverse Coursebooks” approach for primary History coursebooks

For the time being, the History coursebooks used in vernacular schools are published by the Malaysian Institute of Language and Literature (Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Malaysia). Of which, the Malay version is the original version thus History coursebooks used in national-type Chinese or Tamil primary schools are unmodified translated versions including their illustrations. Since the vernacular schools have their own characteristics and needs, using the same coursebooks., viz., unmodified translated version, is inappropriate.

In matters of coursebooks used in vernacular schools, including Mathematics, Science, Moral Education and other subjects, the general practice is to assign out-source publishers to compile and redact based on the curriculum standards issued by the MOE. These coursebooks are not translated directly from Bahasa Melayu for the interests and genuine needs of the vernacular schools. As all these coursebooks are compiled and redacted separately based on the unified curriculum standards, students verily learn and acquire the same knowledge and values which conform the demand of the MOE.

In light of this, we suggest that the MOE should allow the History coursebooks to-be-used in vernacular schools to follow suit., that is, allow them to be compiled and redacted separately based on the unified curriculum standards. The MOE can then assess and appraise the published coursebooks for suitability and appropriateness.

D. Conclusion

The many deficiencies revealed in the History coursebooks currently used in vernacular schools reflect they cannot in any way disseminate correct historical view to our next generations but also are seriously misleading. These disastrous outcomes, we believe, were not anticipated by the MOE for the objectives of mutual understanding and friendly unity among the ethnic groups in the country.

Correspondingly, a memorandum will be furnished shortly to the MOE to appeal for serious attention to the many doubts and problems generated from the History coursebooks used currently in vernacular schools. We earnestly hope the MOE will see to it and make successive amendment to ensure the contents taught in the coursebooks accord with historical truth, in particular the embodiment of multiracial, multi-linguistic and multi-cultural elements.

Joint Statement Released by Dong Zong and Jiao Zong

September 3, 2018

Dong Zong and Jiao Zong are transfixed and forward this joint statement in response to the many agendas approved in the Congress on the Future of Bumiputeras & the Nation (KBN 2018), including taking the national education vision as yardstick to reform the existing education system aiming to eventually consolidate unitary education system.

1. The Pakatan Harapan has always been criticising the unfair education system imposed by the former government and claimed that just treatment towards all ethnic groups would be practiced once they received the mandate to govern. As such, with the advent of Pakatan Harapan sovereign, Chinese communities in general, including Dong Zong and Jiao Zong were exalted with expectations, hoping that broader leeway for education development and fair education treatment would be granted. Yet Dong Zong and Jiao Zong were dumbfounded by the unitary education proposal approved in the Congress on the Future of Bumiputeras & the Nation organised by the KBN themed “Addressing the Challenges Faced by Bumiputeras in the New Malaysia”. The re-raised Vision School model which “uses Bahasa Melayu as the sole medium of instruction” in particular, coupled with the approved unitary education proposal echoing is indeed repugnant towards other ethnic communities. We wish that the government would abandon the unitary education system implemented by the former government to realise party alteration that occurred only after 61 years of independence but to advance the country in a positive, open, pluralistic track accordingly.

2. Dong Zong and Jiao Zong understand that Malaysia is a multi-racial and multi-cultural nation; she has since been practicing pluralistic education system and established vernacular schools using mother tongue as medium of instruction at the elementary level for Malay, Chinese and Indian responsive to their mother tongue education needs. In fact, it is the right of the ethnic groups to enjoy mother togue education granted by the Institution. Based on this understanding, we believe the effort to push forward unitary education system not only goes against the spirit of the Institution and independence, but also infringes the rights of the races and it is therefore uncompromising.

3. History informs us that the existence of multi-stream education has helped many a nation to foster polymaths and contributed profusely towards prosperity. This unique inherence is our country’s heritage and our competitiveness owed it to a great extent. In this vein, we hope the new government will safeguard and enhance multi-stream education for the upward mobility of the nation. The proposal raised in the Congress on the Future of Bumiputeras & the Nation is in reality an obsolete unitary mindset of the 50’s. This ideology aiming to subsequently terminate multi-stream education system is feudal and outdated, not to mention its extreme essence and thus should be reprimanded and curbed as it seriously poses harm towards national unity and harmony and is totally unhealthy towards nation advancement.

4. The Prime Minister Tun Mahathir promised on the National Day that the new government would be fair in treatment on all areas towards the many ethnic groups in the country. It is undoubtedly the longing expectation of the nation. Therefore, Dong Zong and Jiao Zong wish the Prime Minister would walk his talk and honour his promises, including the many promises made for Chinese education stated in Pakatan Harapan’s election manifesto. Simultaneously, Dong Zong and Jiao Zong also urge the new government to reformulate a much more pluralistic, open and fairer education policy for the nation thus acknowledging the contribution and value of multi-stream education as well as busting the besetting stereotyped opinion of not being fair towards Chinese education in one thrust.

Statement Released by Dong Zong

September 1, 2018

The Adherence of Pluralistic Notions in Governance is the Key to Ethnic Unity

Of late, the feature interview of our Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir reprinted in Chinese media from The Malaysian Insight on the reactivation of Vision School policy has aroused heated discussion among the Chinese communities. Herewith, Dong Zong forwards its position as follows:

1. According to the reprint on Sinchew Daily, “Tun Mahathir reiterated the Vision School policy in The Malaysian Insight and believed that by putting students of different ethnic groups under one roof for studies will help to attain the ultimate goal of racial unity and national integration”, and he “recommended to put students of disparate stream together for education but it was strongly opposed by extremist educators.”

We noticed that while Malaysia is celebrating her 61^st independence anniversary, the country’s racial disunity owed partially to intentional comments made by unscrupulous politicians putting the blame on the extant multi-stream education system which may readily be reckoned by uncritical individuals. Suffice to say, the literary culprit for racial disunity and extremist ramifications, if any, can be attributed mainly to the unjust, non-open, non-pluralistic vision and governance of the former government.

We are convinced, there are various approaches to national unity and harmonious integration. These pertain administration, in particular the implementation of measures embracing open, pluralistic and advanced thinking and guidance, let alone being fair to all ethnic groups on all domains, showing respect and support for the development of mother tongues, culture, streams, religions and not to continuously discriminate, suppress and marginalise on one hand and abandon narrow and outdated mindset on the other.

2. Our stern position being, it is arbitrary to practice the “ultimate goal” of the government by implementing Vision School policy in the name of national unity. To us, Vision School translates “interim school”, its approach is to firstly house two or three disparate stream schools into one, viz., Vision School, and secondly realise the employment of Bahasa Melayu as its medium of instruction.

The disparaging comment we made towards Vision school policy is everything but not alarmist talk and thus it is necessary to review its historical background for the undisclosed agenda.

On 26 August 1995, the Minister of Education of the day Najib Razak pronounced under the Seventh Malaysian Plan (1996-2000), the Vision Schools project congregating all streams of primary schools in one school would be established nationwide. In December that year, the Educational Planning and Research Division of the MOE raised the Vision School project and guidelines on its committee meeting for the very first time publicly and it was termed “Vision School: Concept and Practice”.

Chapter 4.2 of the 1995 “Vision School: Concept and Practice” goes as follows:

“4.2: Dalam usaha mencapai matlamat perpaduan negara, Pendidikan memainkan peranan yang amat penting. Dasar Pelajaran Kebangsaan yang berteraskan Penyata Razak 1956 jelas menegaskan tujuan dasar Pendidikan sebagai alat perpaduan bagu rakyat negara ini, kuususnya di kalangan kanak-kanak sekolah, Bahasa Kebangsaan sebagai Bahasa pengantar yang seragam bagi semua jenis sekolah dilihat sebagai satu ciri yang paling penting dan perlu dilaksanakan sepenuhnya secara beransur-ansur.”

“4.2: In the efforts of reaching national unity, education plays a central role. The education policy taking “Razak Report 1956” as the core directive prominently emphasises using education as an asset for national unity and integration, particularly for children (i.e. at primary level). Thus, using the national language (Bahasa Melayu) as the mere medium of instruction is its important characteristic and this goal will be gradually attained thoroughly”.

Unfortunately, it was not until the beginning of 2000 then the contents of Vision School policy were explicitly introduced. On 25 July 2000, the central committee of the Barisan Nasional approved the policy and was unanimously agreed upon by its 14 member parties to set up Vision schools nationwide. Forcibly thereafter, the Barisan Nasional government constructed five Vision schools; yet the agenda of eventual abolishment of all vernacular schools aiming to practice the unitary education aim of “Razak Report 1956” by virtual of Vision School policy was called to a halt due to strong opposition raised nationally.

3. We repeat, it is only under the prerequisite of equal, open support and fair treatment in terms of welfare and rights towards all vernacular schools, then can we willingly and resolutely support any interactions which foster national unity and integration between the vernacular schools.

But, if any party, including the Pakatan Harapan, intended to take advantage of the interactions between the vernacular schools under the name of national unity and integration for the malicious purpose of achieving its unitary education agenda—take for instance, to finalise the “ultimate goal” of Vision School congruent with “Razak Report 1956”—we would oppose firmly by joining hands with like-minded parties explicitly.

We also like to clarify, we are neither against national unity and integration nor “isolate” students of different ethnic groups, let alone against student interactions; it is mainly due to the fact that the Vision School policy is merely used as a tool to practice the “ultimate goal” of the government consequently.

4. As a matter of fact, the School Division of the MOE proposed a “Comprehensive School” project way back on 28 July 1985 and announced it to be implemented in 1986. The “Comprehensive School” project was introduced aiming to merge all vernacular schools into one thus to house all vernacular school students under one roof by using Bahasa Melayu as its medium of instruction in the name of national unity and integration. It was, if not mistaken, the predecessor of Vision School policy.

As known, the “Comprehensive School” project aroused strident opposition and led to a meeting between the MOE and Dong Jiao Zong on 7 November 1985. At the end of the day, a consensus which replaced “Comprehensive School” project with “Student Integration Programmes” for national unity, solidarity and cohesion was reached. Under this “Student Integration Programmes” (RIMUP, Rancangan Integrasi Murid untuk Parpaduan), all vernacular schools would set up a committee formed by members from the Board of Directors, Parent Teacher Association, headmasters, deputy headmasters and teachers. They are invited voluntarily to partake in the eight co-curricular activities (cross country marathon, walkathon, football, basketball, netball, handball, children sports meet, school compound beautification) but cannot in any way get involved in the

schools’ medium of instruction, curriculum, administration, religion and academics. They also must not harm the characteristic and status of the schools for concerted cooperation and mutual benefits. In the “Guidelines of Student Integration Programmes” published by the MOE in 1986, 18 categories were selected out of fifty-five vernacular schools for initial implementation in early 1986.

Documentation shows the “Student Integration Programmes for Unity, Solidarity and Cohesion” project was carried out for several years in relevant schools and achieved fruitful results until it was revoked by the MOE. In 2010, the MOE once again imposed the suspended programmes. Interactive activities were organised in vernacular schools thereafter, students from different vernacular schools were housed together for integrative activities and marked results were obtained in terms of the promotion of national unity, solidarity, cohesion and integration. Unfortunately, the deficiency was that operational funds were not put into proactively as it ought to be.

Our firm stance is, if only the relevant Division fairly and openly supported the development of vernacular schools as ascribed, we would be delighted to show our full support for any unity promotion activities which enhance vernacular schools interactions, especially in the fulfillment of the memorandum agreed upon in the 1986 “Guidelines of Student Integration Programmes”.

As a last note, we wish the government would be seriously engaged in allocating sufficient budget for the promotion of “Student Integration Programmes”.