by Parliament Opposition Leader and DAP Secretary-General, Lim Kit Siang, on Friday, 14.10.1977:
The Kajang Yoke Hwa Chinese primary school affair:why did Chian Siang Sun allowed the Education Ministry to refuse the permission to build another six classroom?
The refusal of the Ministry of Education to allow the Kajang Yoke Hwa Chinese primary school to build another six classroom is the latest in an endless series of Ministry of Education actions prejudicial and detrimental to the growth and development of mother-tongue education in Malaysia, as guaranteed by the Malaysian Constitution.
The MCA and MCA Youth claim endlessly that they represent the 5 million Chinese in Malaysia. If that is the case, I want to ask Chan Siang Sun whether as Deputy Education Minister, he is representing the interest of 5 million Chinese or merely representing his own xx interest?
If he is a leader of a party which claims to represent 5 million Chinese, then every Ministry action and decision which affects the 5 million Chinese should first come up to him for his prior approval.
In this particular case of the refusal by the Ministry of Education to allow the building of another six classroom in Yoke Hwa Chinese primary school in Kajang at the people’s own expense was the Deputy Minister of Education consulted or his approval sought? If he was not consulted, or his approval sought, then can he let the five million Chinese when his party claims to represent know what actually are his duties and powers in the Ministry of Education?
The MCA xxx National Secretary, Lee Kim Sai, said that he would be leading a MCA Youth team to see the Deputy Minister, Chan Siang Sum. This is ridiculous. Chan Siang Sum is MCA Youth Leader. If he is responsible and really concerned, he should have immediately come out publicly to state his stand. The sending of a Mca Youth delegation to call on the Deputy Minister of Education, who is also MCA Youuth Leader, is just play-xxx acting, to get cheap publicity.
I am still waiting for explanation from Dr Chan Siang Sum as Deputy Minister of Education why his Ministry refused to allow Yoke Hwa Chinese primary school permission to build another six classrooms. The people of Malaysia are not interested in his private views. We want his view as Deputy Education Minister and as National MCA Youth Leader.
In this connection, the DAP is concerned at reports about the meeting which the Tsun Jin Chinese primary school chairman of board of government mr.Ng …… and the chairman of the parents-teachers association Mr. Chew …… had with the Chief education officer of Selangor, mr. tan teik beng in connection with the refusal of the education ministry to permit tsun jin chinese primary school (II) to form a board of governor of their own.
I am even more concerned about complaints by Mr. Ng and Mr. Chew that Mr. Tan treated them like employees, with lack of courtesy. This, if true, must be deplored and condemned. Members of borads of governors and parent-teachers associations of chinese primary schools are not employees or subordinates of ministry of education, and must xx always be treated with great civility and politeness. The DAP had right from the beginning opposed the amendment to the Education Act to abolish the boards of xxxx managements of Chinese.
I want to know why on this matter, the Deputy Minister of Education, Mr. Chan Siang Sum, allegedly representing the 5 million Chinese, have disappeared from view.
The DAP is very concerned about the Tsun Jin matter, and this is why I have given notice to ask an oral question on the second day of the Parliamentary meeting xx on Tuesday, Oct. 25. The question, directed at Minister of Education, Dr. Mahathir bin Mohd. reads:
“To ask the Minister of Education:
(a) whether he is aware that the Board of Management Sekolah Rendah Jenis Kebangsaan (China) Tsun Jin had submitted an application to the Director of Education Selangor/Federal Territory on 10th May 1977 to allow Sekolah Tsun Jin Two to have a fully constituted Board of Management;
(b) whether he has reviewed the rejection by the Director of Education of the application whose reasons was that “sekolah yang kedua itu disalah dianggap sebagai sekolah baru dan oleh itu tidak akan ada satu lembaga pengurus penuh sebab tiadah ‘Instrument of Management’, akan tetapi sekolah itu akan ada dibawah jagaan Ahli-Ahli Pengawal Kewangan’;
(c) whether he has recieved copy of a letter addressed to the Prime Minister by United Chinese School Committees’ Association of the Federation of Malaya dated 11hb. Ogos 1977 protesting against the rejection as contrary to undertaking given by the Prime Minister when he was Education Minister in 1972 that the 1972 (Education (Amendment) Act was not intended to abolish Boards of Managements of Schools; and
(d) the final decision of the Government on this matter.