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:
- 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 61st 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streams, religions and not to continuously discriminate, suppress and marginalise on one hand and abandon narrow and outdated mindset on the other.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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”.