MEDIA STATEMENT BY PROF DR P.RAMASAMY,
CHAIRMAN, URMAI PARTY
Is it funding or the existence of vernacular schools as source of opposition?
I am not sure whether the Malay nationalists both in the ruling coalition and the opposition will ever accept the legitimate existence of Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools in the country.
It is the non-acceptance of the vernacular schools that constitutes the primary source of discontent among the Malay nationalists.
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim defended the concept of social contract when it comes to the defence of the rights of the Malays.
However, he never invoked the social contact to defend the legitimate rights of the non-Malays such as the right to their mother tongue education. Anwar is too much of a political chameleon to take a firm stand on the legitimate rights of the non-Malays in the country.
The question of financial assistance to Chinese vernacular schools from private companies especially the breweries would not have cropped up if the government is fair to the vernacular schools.
Rather than touching on the unfairness of the government towards the vernacular schools in terms of funding, there was hue and cry about breweries funding vernacular schools especially the Chinese ones.
Unfortunately, since the government provides limited funding to vernacular schools, these schools have to rely on private funding including the breweries. It appears that the nature of funding seems not to be the primary problem but the very existence of the vernacular schools in the country. But unfortunately, the breweries funding of the Chinese schools was used as an excuse to criticise these schools.
For the ultra-nationalists, the real issue is not so much the sources of funding but rather the existence of vernacular schools. For them, the existence of these schools contradicts with the national education policy of the use Malay language and one-single system of education.
The more the Malay nationalists oppose the existence of vernacular schools, the more seems to be the desire to preserve these schools. Funding of these schools is a secondary matter, Chinese schools have been receiving funding from a variety of companies including the breweries over the years. Why suddenly this became an issue remains uncertain.
The guidelines on the funding defended by the education minister Fadlina doesn’t make any sense because the Cabinet made the decision to allow for private funding.
The breweries especially Tiger Beer have been funding Chinese schools in the past. So, what is the big issue? Does such kind of funding turn school children into immoral citizens?
Whether funding comes from the breweries or not, Chinese vernacular schools have the tradition of turning out well-educated and morally upright students.
The quality of education in the Chinese schools is excellent so much so that more than 20 percent of the student enrollment comes from the Malay community.
Malay parents who send their children to these schools do not care about the nature of funding, all they care is about the quality of education. Indian parents are also increasingly sending their children to Chinese schools, for them the quality of education that matters.
Apart from the quality of education especially in science and mathematics, the deteriorating quality of national schools is another reason why Chinese, Malay and Indian parents want their children to be educated in the Chinese schools.
The Malay nationalists who are opposed to the existence of the vernacular schools should focus their attention on improving the quality of the national schools. This is one way to attract students away from vernacular schools. At the end of the day, it is the quality of education that determines the interests of students and parents.
In this respect, the opposition to breweries funding Chinese schools is not so much about funding per se but rather the continued existence of vernacular schools in the country.
There is a constitutional basis for the existence of the vernacular schools. Even the quid pro quo nature of the social contract between the Malays and non-Malays provides for the existence of the vernacular schools.
While Anwar defended the racial quota of the matriculation programme as in keeping with the social contract between the races, he should also have defended the vernacular schools as an integral aspect of the social contract.
However, being an appeaser of the nationalists, he has failed to defend the vernacular schools as an integral component of the national educational system.
Unfortunately, the DAP, once a great defender of the vernacular schools, seems to rely on the good faith of Malay leaders in the ruling government to support the vernacular schools system.
As a political party with the highest number of parliamentary seats, it could not even remove the guidelines imposed by the government on receiving donations from the private companies including the breweries.
The DAP’s secretary general Anthony Loke had to seek the intervention of the Cabinet to set aside the guidelines. Yet, the party leaders always find it convenient to blame the MCA for the woes of the Chinese vernacular schools.
The Chinese community is slowly coming to the realisation that the DAP having accommodated too much with the present government for power, positions and perks is not in a position to defend the legitimate rights of the community including the existence of the vernacular schools.
