By Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary-General and MP for Tanjung, Lim Kit Siang, in Petaling Jaya on Friday, November 15, 1991:
Lee Kim Sai’s clarification has fully comfirmed that the CMA leadership has made the greatest concession in its 42-year party history in declaring that the existence of Chinese primary schools has no constitutional basis or guarantee.
MCA Deputy President, Datuk Lee Kim Sai accuses me of ‘breaking paragraphs and distortion’ when I pointed out that his speech in Bukit Mertajam early this week was the greatest concession of the MCA leadership in its 42-year party history when he declared that the existence of the Chinese primary schools has no constitutional basis or guarantee.
Can Lee Kim Sai pinpoint how I had ‘breaking paragraphs and distortion’ what he said in Bukit Mertajam, when in fact, I had quoted him in full what he said in Bukit Mertajam.
In Bukit Mertajam, Lee Kim Sai said that “ensuring that the over a thousand Chinese primary schools can continue to use Chinese as a medium of instruction is not because of the Constitutional stipulation that each community could have free use and study of its mother tongue, but because of the provision of the Barisan Nasional government under the Education Act.”
He also said that “the Chinese community should understand that the constitution guarantee the free study and use of mother tongue but this does not mean that Mandarin must be the medium of instruction in Chinese primary schools.”
He further stated that “Chinese primary schools can have Mandarin as the major medium of instruction is because of the provisions of the law made by the Barisan Nasional government comprising MCA, Gerakan, MIC and UMNO.”
I have studied Lee Kim Sai’s clarification yesterday of his Bukit Mertajam speech many times, and I want to thank him for this clarification, for it has fully confirmed that the MCA leadership has made its greatest concession in its 42-year party history in declaring that the existence of chiense primary schools has no constitutional basis or guarantee.
The one and only one question at issue here is: Does Article 152 of the Constitutional provide a constitutional guarantee and basis for the existence of Chinese primary schools in Malaysia?
If the answer of the MCA leadership is ‘yes’, then I had somehow ‘broken paragraphs and distorted’ the stand of the MCA leadership.
But from the clarification of Lee Kim Sai of what he said in Bukit Mertajam, Lee Kim Sai has maintained on behalf of the MCA leadership that Article 152 of the Constitution does not provide a constitutional guarantee and basis for the existence of the Chinese primary schools.
I am prepared to publicly apologise to the MCA leadership if it could be proved that I had ‘broken paragraphs and distortion’ Lee Kim Sai’s speech in Bukit Mertajam.
Until early this week, the MCA leadership has given the Chinese community the full impression and belief that the Constitutional gives constitutional basis and guarantee to the existence of the Chinese primary schools.
Can the present MCA leadership led by MCA President, Datuk Ling Liong Sik, state when and explain why it had renounced the constitutional basis and guarantee for the existence of the Chinese primary schools?
Lee Kim Sai argues that Chinese primary schools are presently allowed to exist because of the education policy of the Barisan Nasional government. But education policy of a government can change any time especially as we bear in mind that the long-term objective of the Barisan Nasional is to have only one type of schools.
It is different if the existence of Chinese primary schools is based on a constitutional foundation and guarantee – for when education policy of any government changes which involve the closure of Chinese primary schools, it would be an unconstitutional act.
The question now is why for the first time in 42 years, the MCA leadership is now publicly declaring that the existence of Chinese primary schools has no constitutional right, basis or guarantee?
Isn’t it true that no top UMNO leader has as yet publicly stated that the existence of Chinese primary schools has no Constitutional basis or guarantee?
Why then has the Ling Liong Sik MCA leadership open the ‘floodgates’ for extremist UMNO leaders to question the existence and development of Chinese primary schools by openly declaring that they do not have Constitutional basis or guarantee?
If the MCA leadership can convince me that I had ‘broken paragraphs and distortion’ the new policy announcement of the MCA leadership revealed by Lee Kim Sai in Bukit Mertajam, I am prepared to publicly apologies to Lee Kim Sai and the MCA leadership.