Is the new MCA policy concession that there is no Constitutional status and protection for Chinese primary schools and mother – tongue education the most ‘practical action’ of the MCA leadership in 42 years

by Parliamentary Opposition Leader, DAP Secretary – General and MP for Tanjung, Lim Kit Siang, in Petaling Jaya on Thursday, November 28, 1991:

Is the new MCA policy concession that there is no Constitutional status and protection for Chinese primary schools and mother – tongue education the most ‘practical action’ of the MCA leadership in 42 years

MCA Deputy president Datuk Lee Kim Sai said yesterday there is no need for any further discussion on the question of the MCA’s greatest concession in 42 years and said that it is better to do ‘practical work’.

I had said two days ago that I am prepared to meet Kim Sai on the issue if he has the authority to represent the MCA President, Datuk Ling Liong Sik and the ‘mainstream’ MCA leadership.

I had always suspected that Kim Sai does not have such authority and this has now been confirmed by Kim Sai himself.

I have no doubt that Kim Sai must have been severely criticised by MCA ‘mainstream’ leadership in the past two weeks for his Bukit Mertajam speech – not that what Kim Sai said did not represent the new MCA policy, but for making it public resulting in the MCA – DAP controversy over the MCA’s greatest concession in 42 years.

At the MCA Presidential Council meeting, the ‘mainstream’ MCA leadership must have told Kim Sai that as he was responsible for allowing the DAP to expose the MCA for making its greatest concession in 42 years. Kim Sai should try to deflect the whole issue from the ‘mainstream’ leadership.

This was the reason for Kim Sai’s offer to discuss the issue with me – not to deny the MCA’s policy concession but to deflect public attention that the entire MCA leadership which must take responsibility for such a concession.

At this moment, there is nothing which would frighten the MCA ‘mainstream’ MCA leadership more than to allow Kim Sai to meet me over the issue.

Kim Sai is now faithfully following the line laid down by the ‘mainstream’ MCA leadership in propounding the ‘practical theory’ – which has even influenced certain Chinese organisations leaders.

I want to ask Kim Sai and the ‘mainstream’ MCA leadership whether in accordance with their ‘practical theory’, the most ‘practical action’ the MCA has done in the past 42 years is to make the concession that the existence and development of Chinese primary schools has no constitutional right, basis, status or guarantee?

I also want to ask the Chinese community leaders who have been converted to the MCA’s ‘practical theory’, whether to defend, uphold and protect the constitutional right, basis, status and guarantee of Chinese primary schools and mother – tongue education is ‘impractical’!

Call on Chinese organisations leaders who echo the MCA’s ‘practical theory’ to declare their stand on three matters

Do these Chinese organisations leaders who are now echoing the MCA ‘mainstream’ leadership’s ‘practical theory’ also agree with the MCA leaders that the DAP should amend the DAP Constitution and incorporate Section 6.15 object of the MCA Constitution?

Are they aware of the improper motive of the MCA leaders in wanting the DAP to amend the DAP Constitution to incorporate the MCA’s Section 6.15?

MCA leaders want the DAP to amend its Party Constitution to incorporate the Section 6.15 object of the MCA, so that the DAP will also follow the present example of the MCA leadership and renounce and deny the constitutional right, status and guarantee of Chinese primary schools.

I call on the Chinese community leaders who have been converted to the MCA’s ‘practical theory’ to declare their stand on the following three matters:

Firstly, whether they want the DAP Constitution to be amended to incorporate the MCA’s Section 6.15; and

Secondly, whether they want the DAP to follow the MCA and make a similar concession with the DAP declaring that we also accept that Chinese primary schools and mother – tongue education do not enjoy constitutional right, status, protection or guarantee;

Thirdly, whether in pursuit of the ‘practical theory’, they want the DAP whether in Parliament or outside, to stop defending, protecting and upholding the constitutional right, basis, status and guarantee of Chinese primary schools and mother – tongue education.