DAP calls on Anwar Ibrahim to stop separating and differentiating Chinese primary schools into ‘fullyaided’ and ‘partially-aided’ but to give equal treatment to both

by Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and MP for Tanjung, Lim Kit Siang, in Penang on Friday, May 25, 1990:

DAP calls on Anwar Ibrahim to stop separating and differentiating Chinese primary schools into ‘fullyaided’ and ‘partially-aided’ but to give equal treatment to both

Education Minister, Anwar Ibrahim, said yesterday that the provision to abolish the Boards of Management of ‘fully-aided’ Chinese primary schools is necessary as they have posed problems.

DAP calls on the Barisan Nasional government to stop sepa¬rating and differentiating Chinese primary schools into two classes of so-called ‘fully-aided’ and ‘partially-aided’ Chinese primary schools, but to give equal treatment to both.

In 1971, the government gave a promise that it would not abolish the Boards of Management of the Chinese primary schools, and there was no distinction and division of Chinese primary schools into ‘fully-aided’ and ‘partially-aided’ Chinese primary schools, but 18 years later, as a price for the repeal of Section 21(2) of the 1961 Education Act, it is now demanded the Boards of Management of 432 Chinese primary schools should he abolished.

This is unacceptable. Equally unacceptable is the charge by the Education Minister that those who oppose the abolition of the Boards of Management of the 432 Chinese primary schools are ‘racialis¬tic’.

It is those who are not prepared to accept the multi-¬racial, multi-lingual and multi-cultural character of Malaysia, and the rightful place of Chinese education and Chinese primary schools in Malaysia, who are being racialistic.

The preservation of the character of Chinese primary schools should be one of the primary functions of Boards of Management of ‘fully-aided’ and ‘partially-¬aided’ Chinese primary schools

Anwar should stop using labels like ‘racialistic’ in order to suppress legitimate protest and opposition to the proposal to abolish the Board of Management of Chinese primary schools. He will not be contributing to a healthy and democratic debate about the future of the educational system in Malaysia, but only generate charges and counter-charges of racialism and chauvinism.

Anwar should not touch the Boards of Management of the Chinese primary schools. On the contrary, Anwar should concede that the aspirations and demands of the Chinese community that the character of Chinese primary schools should be preserved and not undermined is a legitimate and highly justifiable one.

For this reason, the Boards of Management in both ‘fully-aided’ and ‘partially-aided’ Chinese primary schools should be main¬tained, and one of the primary functions of the Boards of Management in all Chinese primary schools should be the preservation of the character of Chinese primary schools.

Yesterday, Anwar said that it was not possible to meet the demands of any one community, and that the Malay community are also not happy with certain provisions in the Education Bill 1990.

What I cannot understand is how there could be such ‘unhap¬piness’ when nobody is supposed to know what is in the Education Bill 1990, as it is still treated as a top secret document under the Offi¬cial Secrets Act. The question of the abolition of the Boards of Management of 432 Chinese primary schools was disclosed by the Deputy Education Minister, Woon See Chin, or the Chinese community would not have known about it.

But Woon See Chin has now changed his tune. He said yesterday that apart from the Boards of Management issue, all the other provisions of the Education Bill will not threaten the existence of Chinese primary schools. (Sin Chew 25/5 p.3)

Woon See Chin was clearly replying to my call yesterday to MCA, Gerakan and SUPP Ministers to list out all the provisions in the Education Bill which are detrimental to Chinese education and Chinese primary schools.

If what Woon See Chin is right, then why is the Cabinet Committee so hesitant and reluctant to make public all the other provisions to prove that they ‘would not threaten the existence of Chinese primary schools’?