by Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary – General and MP for Tanjung, Lim Kit Siang, in Petaling Jaya on Wednesday, 27.11. 1991:
It is the MCA which should call an extraordinary general Meeting to amend its Party Constitution to specify As one of its objects “to defend, protect and uphold The Constitutional right, basis, status and guarantee for Chinese primary schools”
At my press conference yesterday, I was asked to comment on the MCA leaders attacks that the DAP leaders are not fit to talk about Chinese education issues, and their claim that the MCA Constitution is better than the DAP Constitution with regard to mother – tongue education.
In my response, I made three points:
Firstly, these are just ‘red herrings’ of the MCA leaders to distract public attention from their greatest concession in 42 years in now declaring that there is no constitutional right, basis, status or guarantee for Chinese primary schools;
Secondly, that I wanted to focus on this single issue on the new MCA policy stand that there is no constitutional right or status for Chinese primary schools and I would not fall into the ‘MCA propaganda trap’ by responding to the various issues yesterday; and
Thirdly, that I am prepared to respond to the ‘red herring’ issues of the MCA – eg, That the MCA Constitution is superior to DAP Constitution on the protection of Chinese education – from today onwards because the claims of the MCA leaders are baseless and cannot stand scrutiny.
In the initial stage of the MCA-DAP controversy, many people could not grasp the issue involved, because they were distracted by the thousand and one ‘red herrings’ thrown up by the MCA propaganda campaign, accusing the DAP and myself of thousand and one crimes.
Now more people know the important issue involved, which is simply this: why the MCA leadership made the greatest concession in its 42-year history in declaring that there is no constitutional right and status for Chinese primary schools and can recognise the ‘red herrings’ for what they are worth.
All Malaysians who are concerned about Chinese primary schools and mother – tongue education must have this common question: why the MCA leaders talk about one hundred different things except to answer one simple question why it renounced and denied that there is constitutional protection for Chinese primary schools?
With this issue in the MCA-DAP controversy becoming clearer to more people, I am prepared to address the ‘red herring’ issues which had been used by the MCA leadership to run away from the central question.
The MCA leaders claimed that the MCA Constitution specifies that one of its aims and object is to “preserve and sustain the use and study of the Chinese language” while the DAP Constitution is silent on it.
Arising from this, the MCA leaders claim that the MCA Constitution is superior to the DAP Constitution, and unless the DAP Constitution is amended to incorporate Objective 6.15 of the MCA Constitution, DAP leaders are not fit or qualified to talk about Chinese education issues.
I have studied the MCA Constitution and its Section 6 on its aims and objects, and it is very clear that it is the MCA which should call an extraordinary general meeting to specify that one of its objectives is to defend, protect and uphold the Constitutional right, basis, status and guarantee for Chinese primary schools.
Section 6.15 of the MCA Constitution is against the interest of Chinese primary schools by depriving them of their constitutional right and status
Section 6.15 of MCA Constitution on its aims and objects states: “ To preserve and sustain the use and study of the Chinese language, and to ensure that its use, teaching or learning shall not be prohibited or prevented in the context of Article 152 of the Malaysian Constitution”.
Clearly Section 6.15 of the MCA Constitution is not good or adequate if the present MCA leadership could misinterpret and narrow it to mean that the Malaysian Constitution guarantees only the study of Chinese as one subject in the schools, but does not guarantee the use of Chinese as a medium of instruction or the existence of Chinese primary schools?
In fact, we can declare that Section 6.15 of the MCA Constitution is against the interest of Chinese primary schools when it is interpreted to deprive them of their constitutional right, status and guarantee.
Surely, when Section 6.15 of the MCA Constitution was adopted by the MCA delegates, all MCA delegates understood it to mean that it would be the basis for the MCA leadership to defend, protect and uphold the constitutional right, basis, status and guarantee for Chinese primary schools and not to deny that the existence of Chinese primary schools has any protection under the Malaysian Constitution.
This is why I say that it is the MCA which should summon an extraordinary general meeting to amend Section 6.15 to add the words “and to defend, protect and uphold the Constitutional right, basis, status and guarantee for Chinese primary schools.”
All MCA delegates and MCA’s claimed 530,000 members should get a copy each of the Party Constitution and study Section 6.15 whether they agree that this section allows the present MCA leadership to make the greatest concession in the 42 – year MCA history in renouncing and denying that there is any constitutional right, basis, status or guarantee for Chinese primary schools.
DAP ‘s party objectives can stand the test of time and there is no need for amendment
DAP’s objective as stated in the DAP constitution, however, can stand the test of time and there is no need for any amendment as is urgently required in the case of the MCA Constitution,
Thus, Clause 2.1 the DAP Constitution on its Objects states: “To strive by constitutional means for the establishment of a democratic socialist pattern of society in Malaysia.”
In the last 25 years, the DAP had issued various Declarations to spell out what the DAP means by a democratic socialist Malaysia, including the important Declaration on ‘Cultural Democracy’ and the Kepayang Declaration opposing the ‘One Language, One Cultural’ Policy of the Barisan Nasional Government.
It is precisely because of Clause 2.1 of the DAP Constitution why in past 25 years, the DAP was the most important political force to defend, protect and uphold the constitutional right, basis, status and guarantee for Chinese primary.
In contrast, the MCA Constitution’s Clause 6.15 is now being used as a justification by the MCA leadership for its greatest concession in MCA history in repudiating and denying that there is constitutional right, basis, status and guarantee for Chinese primary schools.