How sad but true!!
The moment when a dream is awakened...
鄭丁賢•夢醒時分
你是否和我一樣，發覺身邊的親戚和朋友，似乎少了許多。
I wonder you feel the same as me ; all the sudden I realized friends and relatives around me seems to get less and less.
以往接近過年時，各種聚餐排得滿滿的，而今年，似乎沒聲沒息。
Those years when the New Year drew near, all sorts of gathering appointments almost completely filled the diaries, but this year seems so quiet.
即使是平常日子，電話少了，與大家見面也少了。
Even in normal time, phone calls become less and less, face to face meet up also become much less.
也許，大家各忙各的；或者，目前流行“宅生活”，儘量避免出門。
Perhaps, everybody is busy with their own things, or perhaps, nowadays people prefer to stay in.
也不盡然如此。再想一想，很多老友和親戚，已經不在了。嗟！大吉利是，他們都還好好的，只是離開了馬來西亞。
However, it is not entirely like this, thinking further, actually old friends and relatives are not around any more. God bless, they are still alive and well, they just left the country, Malaysia .
去了中國大陸開工廠；王子不做工程師，移民到澳洲開小食檔；阿風離開本地大學，去香港做講師；青蛙去了台灣，開展事業第二春；還有的到了美國、英國，唔，還有去印尼的……。
They have gone to China to set factory; ah Wang quit his engineer job and migrated to Australia to set up his little food store business, ah Fong left the local University went to Hong Kong as a lecturer. 'Frog' went to Taiwan to pursue his second career life. Others went to Americia , England , even Indonesia ...
起初，以為這只是個別現象，逐漸的，旁人也有同樣發現；原來，這不是個別現象，而是社會現象；這不是少數，而是相當大的數目。
At first, I thought these are individual cases, but gradually, people around me realized the same, these are not individual cases but a general symptom of our society. they are not small numbers but the pretty big indeed.
外交部早前披露了一個數字，說明這個現象是多麼真實，多麼貼近。
Department of Foreign Affairs released the figures earlier, it confirmed the situation is real.
從去年3月到今年9月，已經有30萬大馬人移民他國；其中20萬 人是今年1月到8月出走的數目。
From March 2008 thru September 2009, a total of 300,000 Malaysian migrated to other countries, among them 200,000 left between Jan - Aug 2009. (in 8 months)
累積下來，已經有超過200萬大馬人移民，接近今天印尼外勞在大馬的人口。
Cummulatively, 2 million Malaysians migrated, this figure is close to the number of Indonesian workers in Malaysia today.
不同的是，移居他國的大馬人，多是專業人士、中產階級。
The difference are, those migrated are mostly professional and middle class people.
他們有很多出走的理由，追求事業發展，為了孩子前途，尋找個人更大空間……，概括一句：對馬來西亞失望。
They have many reasons to leave: pursue career development, for the future of their children, in search of better life and environment... In one sentence, they lost hope of Malaysia .
50年前，大家說，馬來西亞真好，好過香港，甚至日本。
50 years ago people said: Malaysia is very good, better than Hong Kong and even Japan .
30年前，大家說，馬來西亞還不錯，比得上韓國、台灣（不提香港和日本了）。
30 years ago people said: Malaysia is not bad, comparable to S. Korea and Taiwan . (No mention of Hong Kong and Japan any more).
20年前，大家說，馬來西亞還可以，至少超越中國、泰國（不能和台、韓比了）。
20 years ago people said: Malaysia can do lah, at least better than China and Thailand (Cannot compare with Taiwan and Korea lah)
10年前，大家說，馬來西亞再差，還不至於像越南、印尼（中國已是不同級別）。
10 years ago people said: No matter how bad Malaysia is, cannot be worse than Vietnam and Indonesia ok-lah. ( China is already in a different category).
今日，越南和印尼的經濟成長率遙遙領先大馬， 社會活力和知識發展也勝過一籌；距離愈來愈近了。
Today, the economic growth rate of Vietnam and Indonesia already far exceeded Malaysia , Social activity and intellectual development of the country is also better, the gap between us and them is closing up.
怕甚麼，還有菲律賓和柬埔寨、緬甸。
Why worry? there are still Philipines , Cambodia and Myanmar behind us.
但是，一位經濟學家最近到菲律賓考察之後，認為再過20年，大馬可以取代菲律賓，出口馬籍女傭到全世界了。
However, according to an economist who recently surveyed Phillipines, he think in 20 years' time, Malaysia can replace Phillipines to become the World exporter of Malaysian maids.
半個世紀以來，馬來西亞是在大宅院裡，用封建方式，分配祖宗家業，消耗社會資源，浪費和逼走人才；不談競爭力，忽略生產力，討厭績效制。
Over half a century, Malaysians live in the big old imperial housing complex, closed up and survive on properties left behind by the ancestor; continued to consume up social resources, wasteful, and drove away talents; they never talk about competitiveness, totally neglected productivity, and hated meritocracy.
亞洲金融風暴來襲時，大馬把門關起來，以為避過一劫， 有人還自我陶醉，自以為是天才策略。
When Asia economic storm hit in 1997, Malaysia closed their doors, thinking we beautifully avoided a disaster, they even think of themselves as genius, being able to handle the situation so well.
然而，其它國家面對風暴，走出風暴，進行體質改革，跨步向前，登上另一個水平；大馬卻還在原地踏步。
However, just look at other countries in our neighbourhood ; they stood up, faced the storm, and walked out of the storm. They overhauled their system, improved the processes and marched forward ; they moved up to a new level. And Malaysia , still walking on the spot . . !
馬來西亞，該醒一醒了。
Dear Malaysia , it's time to wake up !
We are very very late now !
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Malay Rights v Special Position
by Stanley Koh
Free Malaysia Today
January 9, 2011
COMMENT
“There are no Malay rights since our Constitution holds dear that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination on the basis of race and religion.”
That was what the late Ghazali Shafie said in a speech at the National Unity Convention in May 2001.
He continued: “What perhaps has come to be regarded as special rights is the special position of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak under Article 153 (of the Federal Constitution). The change from ‘position’ to ‘rights’ is frightening. Who did that, I wonder?
“In a plural society like ours, if the leadership was not bold and sincere enough to take corrective measures so that there would be a level playing field, then the situation would indeed be bleak and our society would be a playground for those who wish us ill.”
Born in Kuala Lipis, Ghazali was 88 at the time of his death in January 2010. He had a distinguished career in politics and government.
Many bigots, opportunists and self-serving leaders of today will probably dismiss those remarks on the New Economic Policy as just one man’s opinion. If they are ignorant of history, they may even question his authority.
If Ghazali were alive and facing these critics, he would probably reply in these words, which were part of the speech at the 2001 convention:
“It was Tun Abdul Razak who asked me to devise the NEP after being inspired by Rukunegara.
“The NEP was the fruit of consultations among the various races in the Consultative Committee and later Parliament, who agreed to the corrective measures by invoking affirmative action.”
In explaining affirmative action, he paraphrased Tun Abdul Razak, who likened it to the handicap system in golf, “so that,” he said, “everyone could play together on a level playing field.”
He added: “Almost ad nauseam, it was explained that the NEP was not to make the Malay community rich but to change vocations through affirmative action. To acquire riches is the privilege of any individual and it would be contrary to the Rukunegara if the only aim was to make the Malays rich.”
When he spoke those words, the greed for riches through the NEP had long taken root. Distortions and misinterpretations of the policy had already divided the nation, and our so-called leaders tossed around the word “unity” only when elections were near, and they still do so today.
But unity, if we take it seriously, is indeed the key to resolving the profound problems that the nation faces.
Is “1Malaysia” a call for such unity? Many Malaysians do not think so. They believe instead that it is a red herring meant to deflect attention from the continuation of discriminatory policies.
The thinking public does not buy all the hype about 1Malaysia that BN is pushing through the media organisations it controls. It remains an empty and meaningless slogan.
And, as if oblivious of what the public is saying, 1Malaysia has become a favourite catchword among BN politicians. They tag the slogan to everything, like a chef sprinkling salt in every dish. Do they really think that Malaysians are stupid enough to believe that mere rhetoric can charm them out of their dissatisfactions?
Ghazali was right when he said that our national problem had become complicated because of the kind of education Malaysians were receiving. And nothing has changed since he made that remark 10 years ago.
“We become argumentative over some words without analysis or a look at the semantics,” he said.
And Ghazali was right too when he said: “We don’t seem to care about the fundamental right to food and clothing.”
Critics accuse the Umno-led regime of spending millions of ringgit on decorative rhetoric and ceremonial reforms without making any real effort towards substantive institutional changes that would bring about compliance with democratic principles and respect for human rights and needs.
Ghazali stressed that there could be no lasting unity unless the playing field was level.
He added: “Let us not shift the goal posts when the field is beginning to level. This exercise at maintaining peace and stability must be kept in constant repair.”
Ghazali, once an Umno supreme council member himself, probably had some faith that the party would eventually come to its senses and start to set things right again. If he were alive today, would he still have such confidence?
by Stanley Koh
Free Malaysia Today
January 9, 2011
COMMENT
“There are no Malay rights since our Constitution holds dear that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination on the basis of race and religion.”
That was what the late Ghazali Shafie said in a speech at the National Unity Convention in May 2001.
He continued: “What perhaps has come to be regarded as special rights is the special position of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak under Article 153 (of the Federal Constitution). The change from ‘position’ to ‘rights’ is frightening. Who did that, I wonder?
“In a plural society like ours, if the leadership was not bold and sincere enough to take corrective measures so that there would be a level playing field, then the situation would indeed be bleak and our society would be a playground for those who wish us ill.”
Born in Kuala Lipis, Ghazali was 88 at the time of his death in January 2010. He had a distinguished career in politics and government.
Many bigots, opportunists and self-serving leaders of today will probably dismiss those remarks on the New Economic Policy as just one man’s opinion. If they are ignorant of history, they may even question his authority.
If Ghazali were alive and facing these critics, he would probably reply in these words, which were part of the speech at the 2001 convention:
“It was Tun Abdul Razak who asked me to devise the NEP after being inspired by Rukunegara.
“The NEP was the fruit of consultations among the various races in the Consultative Committee and later Parliament, who agreed to the corrective measures by invoking affirmative action.”
In explaining affirmative action, he paraphrased Tun Abdul Razak, who likened it to the handicap system in golf, “so that,” he said, “everyone could play together on a level playing field.”
He added: “Almost ad nauseam, it was explained that the NEP was not to make the Malay community rich but to change vocations through affirmative action. To acquire riches is the privilege of any individual and it would be contrary to the Rukunegara if the only aim was to make the Malays rich.”
When he spoke those words, the greed for riches through the NEP had long taken root. Distortions and misinterpretations of the policy had already divided the nation, and our so-called leaders tossed around the word “unity” only when elections were near, and they still do so today.
But unity, if we take it seriously, is indeed the key to resolving the profound problems that the nation faces.
Is “1Malaysia” a call for such unity? Many Malaysians do not think so. They believe instead that it is a red herring meant to deflect attention from the continuation of discriminatory policies.
The thinking public does not buy all the hype about 1Malaysia that BN is pushing through the media organisations it controls. It remains an empty and meaningless slogan.
And, as if oblivious of what the public is saying, 1Malaysia has become a favourite catchword among BN politicians. They tag the slogan to everything, like a chef sprinkling salt in every dish. Do they really think that Malaysians are stupid enough to believe that mere rhetoric can charm them out of their dissatisfactions?
Ghazali was right when he said that our national problem had become complicated because of the kind of education Malaysians were receiving. And nothing has changed since he made that remark 10 years ago.
“We become argumentative over some words without analysis or a look at the semantics,” he said.
And Ghazali was right too when he said: “We don’t seem to care about the fundamental right to food and clothing.”
Critics accuse the Umno-led regime of spending millions of ringgit on decorative rhetoric and ceremonial reforms without making any real effort towards substantive institutional changes that would bring about compliance with democratic principles and respect for human rights and needs.
Ghazali stressed that there could be no lasting unity unless the playing field was level.
He added: “Let us not shift the goal posts when the field is beginning to level. This exercise at maintaining peace and stability must be kept in constant repair.”
Ghazali, once an Umno supreme council member himself, probably had some faith that the party would eventually come to its senses and start to set things right again. If he were alive today, would he still have such confidence?
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
各族同意马来人特权的说法不准确 须了解历史过程
时间：2010-09-30 13:24:40 来源：本报报道 作者：记者
（吉隆坡30日讯）本月6日马新社（Bernama）摘录了马大历史系教授邱家金表示质疑或提问有关联邦宪法第153条文（有关土著特权）的大马各族人民都是历史的文盲或不了解宪法的言论。根据邱家金的说法，如今的社会人士都是历史文盲，因为他们不了解以下几项史实：
1. 马来人特权早在1948年2月1日，当马来亚联合邦被成立的时候就已经被定下来了。
2. 马来人特权是根据自1895就存在于马来亚的政府机制所定的，当时的9个州政府被沿用至今。
3. 在1957年联邦宪法中的马来人特权是延续1948年所定下的马来人地位而设。
4. 当时的非马来人都同意把马来人特权加入联邦宪法里。
来自政策倡议中心（CPI）的加耶纳（Jayanath Appudurai）表示马来人特权的确是在1948年被纳入马来亚联合邦协议里的，因为当时的英国是负责照顾马来人的特别地位以及其他种族的权益的。至于英国政府沿用自1895年就存在的马来亚州政府机制，加耶纳认为我们也应该记得英国政府似乎忽略了这项共识，尤其是在1946年欲成立马来亚联邦（Malayan Union）的时候。
“英国政府是故意忘记了这一点？还是他们比较注重在这个即将独立的国家建立一致的公民制度？不管当时的原因是什么，马来亚联邦并没有把这个所谓自1895年就存在的传统纳入计划里。但是，英国政府最后被逼就范，因为受到了来自马来人方面的大力反抗。”也是“我是马来西亚之子”（Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia）成员加耶纳这样表示。
加耶纳表示，对于其他种族答应把马来人特权列入联邦宪法的部份，邱家金并没有给予全面的解释。当时的共识并不是那么轻易就达到的，我们必须了解当时的谈判过程。从1956年至1957年之间，巫统、马华和国大党为了准备联盟的备忘录而曾经就“马来人特权”的课题辩论。
“虽然最终的共识是这一项条文必须被纳入，但是当时的联盟成员党并不认为这是永久的条文，相反地他们认为这项条文应该维持一段时间而已。为了不让其他激进组织继续反对，联盟领袖最终并没有把马来人特权的期限列入他们的备忘录。无论如何，当联盟向里德制宪委员会（Suruhanjaya Reid）呈现他们的备忘录时，阿都拉萨曾经建议在独立后的15年重新检讨马来人特权的条文。因此，里德报告书也纳入了这项建议。”
加耶纳表示，当里德报告书于1957年2月21日面世后，得到了来自不同种族人民的不同反应。一些马来人群体不同意15年期限的设定，而其他种族则表示担心这样的条文将会导致这个国家出现两种公民。最后，在各方面的压力下，统治者决定把15年的期限抽出，并且把重新检讨马来人特权条文的权力交给了最高元首。因此，各族代表一直同意马来人特权的说法在历史的角度是不准确的。
加耶纳质疑，邱家金把人民形容为历史文盲，但这是不是阻止人民继续讨论的好借口呢？比起50年代的社会，今天的我们更成熟以及更有能力去讨论土著固打制。也许现在是时候让我们开始以理性的态度来讨论如何公平地实行联邦宪法第153条文了。
（吉隆坡30日讯）本月6日马新社（Bernama）摘录了马大历史系教授邱家金表示质疑或提问有关联邦宪法第153条文（有关土著特权）的大马各族人民都是历史的文盲或不了解宪法的言论。根据邱家金的说法，如今的社会人士都是历史文盲，因为他们不了解以下几项史实：
1. 马来人特权早在1948年2月1日，当马来亚联合邦被成立的时候就已经被定下来了。
2. 马来人特权是根据自1895就存在于马来亚的政府机制所定的，当时的9个州政府被沿用至今。
3. 在1957年联邦宪法中的马来人特权是延续1948年所定下的马来人地位而设。
4. 当时的非马来人都同意把马来人特权加入联邦宪法里。
来自政策倡议中心（CPI）的加耶纳（Jayanath Appudurai）表示马来人特权的确是在1948年被纳入马来亚联合邦协议里的，因为当时的英国是负责照顾马来人的特别地位以及其他种族的权益的。至于英国政府沿用自1895年就存在的马来亚州政府机制，加耶纳认为我们也应该记得英国政府似乎忽略了这项共识，尤其是在1946年欲成立马来亚联邦（Malayan Union）的时候。
“英国政府是故意忘记了这一点？还是他们比较注重在这个即将独立的国家建立一致的公民制度？不管当时的原因是什么，马来亚联邦并没有把这个所谓自1895年就存在的传统纳入计划里。但是，英国政府最后被逼就范，因为受到了来自马来人方面的大力反抗。”也是“我是马来西亚之子”（Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia）成员加耶纳这样表示。
加耶纳表示，对于其他种族答应把马来人特权列入联邦宪法的部份，邱家金并没有给予全面的解释。当时的共识并不是那么轻易就达到的，我们必须了解当时的谈判过程。从1956年至1957年之间，巫统、马华和国大党为了准备联盟的备忘录而曾经就“马来人特权”的课题辩论。
“虽然最终的共识是这一项条文必须被纳入，但是当时的联盟成员党并不认为这是永久的条文，相反地他们认为这项条文应该维持一段时间而已。为了不让其他激进组织继续反对，联盟领袖最终并没有把马来人特权的期限列入他们的备忘录。无论如何，当联盟向里德制宪委员会（Suruhanjaya Reid）呈现他们的备忘录时，阿都拉萨曾经建议在独立后的15年重新检讨马来人特权的条文。因此，里德报告书也纳入了这项建议。”
加耶纳表示，当里德报告书于1957年2月21日面世后，得到了来自不同种族人民的不同反应。一些马来人群体不同意15年期限的设定，而其他种族则表示担心这样的条文将会导致这个国家出现两种公民。最后，在各方面的压力下，统治者决定把15年的期限抽出，并且把重新检讨马来人特权条文的权力交给了最高元首。因此，各族代表一直同意马来人特权的说法在历史的角度是不准确的。
加耶纳质疑，邱家金把人民形容为历史文盲，但这是不是阻止人民继续讨论的好借口呢？比起50年代的社会，今天的我们更成熟以及更有能力去讨论土著固打制。也许现在是时候让我们开始以理性的态度来讨论如何公平地实行联邦宪法第153条文了。
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
教总与教师渐行渐远
作者／郑美芬 Jun 08, 2010 04:36:20 pm
【郑美芬】教总的宗旨为：一、联络马来西亚各地华校教师感情，谋求教师福利及发扬中华文化； 二、研究及促进教育； 三、争取华文教育以至华裔国民的平等地位。
教总为了配合该会与6月8日召开的会员代表大会，教总特别整理多份数据，其中包括2010年各源流小学统计数据（学生人数、学校人数、男女教师比例、微型学校及学前班等数据），《南洋商报》、《当今大马》、《独立新闻在线》均有刊载。
另外，教总也发表了关于《华小师资培训课程问题面面观》的文告，提及了教总一直通过各种管道鼓励华裔子弟加入教师行列，并为申请者提供种种的资讯和支援。同时，教总也谴责当局擅自把华小华文组申请者调到国小华文组及中文系毕业生不被录取参加大学毕业生师范课程（KPLI）的面试等问题。因此，教总提出了几项建议，希望能解决华小师资短缺的问题，以免打击这些老师要为教育贡献力量的热诚与理想。
教总难以让同道苟同
无论如何，笔者看了有关文告及数据等发现教总依然十年如一日，文告及呼吁毫无新意，更没为身在华小受苦得的教师申冤，显示教总已经与教师渐行渐远，难以让同道苟同。教总必须谨记教总成立的第一个宗旨为谋求教师的福利，这包括了为教师们争取最好的待遇、给予教师们鼓励、支持教师们为了家庭申请调职、维护教师们的尊严等等。教总并不能只是专注在广招大家加入教育界前的工作而已，反之教总更应该继续帮助在华小面对问题的教育工作者。
很多在籍华小教师在面对问题时，从不会想到教总，而另寻其他管道如教专（NUTP）或其他政党，因为教总在维护在籍教师的权利及权益时往往令人大失所望。这一次，闹得热烘烘的教师周六回校服务的课题，教专就站着教师的立场，劝教师向教专投诉，对付校方。可是，教总主席王超群却不是站在教师的立场，反指出教师们并非每个星期六都需要回校办活动，并说什么家长与教师在星期六见面较方便，显示教总没有坚持教师们休息的权利，不适合再成为全国华小教师的代表。
华小校方刁难教师
教育是良心工作，不是纸张工作，可是教师却把时间浪费在纸张工作，写了一大堆的数据及报告后，却已经身心疲累。教师没有特定的工作时间，挤出应该与家人相聚的时间准备教学后，教师们的假期还要被剥削去参与课程、露营、带队比赛或回到学校补习。
我们华小不只面对教育部招生过程欠缺透明的问题，更不明白华小教师不能被派到自己所要的地方执教，我们华小不像国小，我们处处都缺教师。可是，华小教师就被从北派到南或从南派到北，教育部就是不让华小教师回去，直接打击教师对教育的热诚。奈何，华小校方很少体谅教师，在申请调职时大多不支持，甚至刁难教师；与国小校方支持教师调职相比，华小校方就显得没有协助同道的精神。
教总的领导人是校长
笔者无意抨击教总领导人，但是从教总的常务理事名单中，我们可以知道教总的领导人大部分都是华小的校长。华小的校长在学校是最高领导人，通常都是发下指令让教师执行任务，虽然大家同是公务员，但是校长是上司，教师是下属，所以他们职务立场是对立的。
因此，校长根本不可能维护教师们的权利及权益，相反的还可能压迫及剥削教师的待遇。冰山一角，威南爆发校长体罚教师丑闻后，教总没有放过任何文告，显示出教总必须严禁校长成为理事，以还教总能维护全国华小教师的公信力，毕竟校长们已经有了华小教师职工会的组织平台。
众所周知，以往一些校长在学校买卖作业簿或学校用具等滥权舞弊事件，事情被揭发后只调往其他学校继续做校长的惩罚行动，不止不能阻吓校长，甚至涉嫌包庇他们。很多校长发现惩罚微不足道后，便越来越大胆进行滥权舞弊事件，以致牵涉的校长越来越多，让杏坛蒙羞。教总非但没有监督底下理事或会员，反而默许校长们在买卖作业及收取电脑费时取得回扣，以职权换取额外收入是为贪污，教总为帮凶。
教总应是教师组织
笔者赞扬教总在政策上作出争取，要求政府给予华文小学公平的待遇，同时也长期主办各项华文小学和幼教教师在职培训课程和工作坊。教总也积极推展教育改革的工作，以带领华文教育迎向资讯时代和知识经济时代的需求。这当中，所进行的工作包括主办父母教育课程、巡回教育讲座和研讨会及出 版相关的刊物。
无论如何，教总号称是全马各地区华校教师公会以及州级华校教师公会联合会组成的教师组织，可是发布的统计数据显示教总其实是代表华小的组织而已。身为教师组织，教总理应收集及整理各源流学校教师的级别及薪金（大学资格及非大学资格）以让更多的华小教师能够修读大学文凭或硕士文凭，取得升级及加薪。教总更应该收集申请调职多年都不成功的教师资料，反映予教育部，让华小教师能够回到家乡。此外，着手处理会员们权利及权益之争更是教总的责任。
教总成变相校长职工会
2010年6月8日的教总会员代表大会如果依旧讨论华教的旧课题，实际上并不能为华教带来什么巨大的改变，毕竟这种课题已讨论多次而毫无效果，政府的政策依然故我。在捍卫华教的同时，教总在这次的会员代表大会更应该改革，动议修改章程，拒绝校长成为理事，好让普通的教师们能够拿下责任，成为真正的教师组织。
为了彰显校长们都有维护华教及教育工作者的理想，校长们应该避嫌地离开有利益冲突的理事层，退位让贤。没有改革的教总是另一个校长职工会，这将与教师们渐行渐远，失去其代表性。如果教总一意孤行，笔者大胆建议全国华小教师开始组成的州、区域或县级“华校教师职工会”，最后成立“全国华小教师职工会”以继续争取华小在籍教师的权利及权益。
【郑美芬】教总的宗旨为：一、联络马来西亚各地华校教师感情，谋求教师福利及发扬中华文化； 二、研究及促进教育； 三、争取华文教育以至华裔国民的平等地位。
教总为了配合该会与6月8日召开的会员代表大会，教总特别整理多份数据，其中包括2010年各源流小学统计数据（学生人数、学校人数、男女教师比例、微型学校及学前班等数据），《南洋商报》、《当今大马》、《独立新闻在线》均有刊载。
另外，教总也发表了关于《华小师资培训课程问题面面观》的文告，提及了教总一直通过各种管道鼓励华裔子弟加入教师行列，并为申请者提供种种的资讯和支援。同时，教总也谴责当局擅自把华小华文组申请者调到国小华文组及中文系毕业生不被录取参加大学毕业生师范课程（KPLI）的面试等问题。因此，教总提出了几项建议，希望能解决华小师资短缺的问题，以免打击这些老师要为教育贡献力量的热诚与理想。
教总难以让同道苟同
无论如何，笔者看了有关文告及数据等发现教总依然十年如一日，文告及呼吁毫无新意，更没为身在华小受苦得的教师申冤，显示教总已经与教师渐行渐远，难以让同道苟同。教总必须谨记教总成立的第一个宗旨为谋求教师的福利，这包括了为教师们争取最好的待遇、给予教师们鼓励、支持教师们为了家庭申请调职、维护教师们的尊严等等。教总并不能只是专注在广招大家加入教育界前的工作而已，反之教总更应该继续帮助在华小面对问题的教育工作者。
很多在籍华小教师在面对问题时，从不会想到教总，而另寻其他管道如教专（NUTP）或其他政党，因为教总在维护在籍教师的权利及权益时往往令人大失所望。这一次，闹得热烘烘的教师周六回校服务的课题，教专就站着教师的立场，劝教师向教专投诉，对付校方。可是，教总主席王超群却不是站在教师的立场，反指出教师们并非每个星期六都需要回校办活动，并说什么家长与教师在星期六见面较方便，显示教总没有坚持教师们休息的权利，不适合再成为全国华小教师的代表。
华小校方刁难教师
教育是良心工作，不是纸张工作，可是教师却把时间浪费在纸张工作，写了一大堆的数据及报告后，却已经身心疲累。教师没有特定的工作时间，挤出应该与家人相聚的时间准备教学后，教师们的假期还要被剥削去参与课程、露营、带队比赛或回到学校补习。
我们华小不只面对教育部招生过程欠缺透明的问题，更不明白华小教师不能被派到自己所要的地方执教，我们华小不像国小，我们处处都缺教师。可是，华小教师就被从北派到南或从南派到北，教育部就是不让华小教师回去，直接打击教师对教育的热诚。奈何，华小校方很少体谅教师，在申请调职时大多不支持，甚至刁难教师；与国小校方支持教师调职相比，华小校方就显得没有协助同道的精神。
教总的领导人是校长
笔者无意抨击教总领导人，但是从教总的常务理事名单中，我们可以知道教总的领导人大部分都是华小的校长。华小的校长在学校是最高领导人，通常都是发下指令让教师执行任务，虽然大家同是公务员，但是校长是上司，教师是下属，所以他们职务立场是对立的。
因此，校长根本不可能维护教师们的权利及权益，相反的还可能压迫及剥削教师的待遇。冰山一角，威南爆发校长体罚教师丑闻后，教总没有放过任何文告，显示出教总必须严禁校长成为理事，以还教总能维护全国华小教师的公信力，毕竟校长们已经有了华小教师职工会的组织平台。
众所周知，以往一些校长在学校买卖作业簿或学校用具等滥权舞弊事件，事情被揭发后只调往其他学校继续做校长的惩罚行动，不止不能阻吓校长，甚至涉嫌包庇他们。很多校长发现惩罚微不足道后，便越来越大胆进行滥权舞弊事件，以致牵涉的校长越来越多，让杏坛蒙羞。教总非但没有监督底下理事或会员，反而默许校长们在买卖作业及收取电脑费时取得回扣，以职权换取额外收入是为贪污，教总为帮凶。
教总应是教师组织
笔者赞扬教总在政策上作出争取，要求政府给予华文小学公平的待遇，同时也长期主办各项华文小学和幼教教师在职培训课程和工作坊。教总也积极推展教育改革的工作，以带领华文教育迎向资讯时代和知识经济时代的需求。这当中，所进行的工作包括主办父母教育课程、巡回教育讲座和研讨会及出 版相关的刊物。
无论如何，教总号称是全马各地区华校教师公会以及州级华校教师公会联合会组成的教师组织，可是发布的统计数据显示教总其实是代表华小的组织而已。身为教师组织，教总理应收集及整理各源流学校教师的级别及薪金（大学资格及非大学资格）以让更多的华小教师能够修读大学文凭或硕士文凭，取得升级及加薪。教总更应该收集申请调职多年都不成功的教师资料，反映予教育部，让华小教师能够回到家乡。此外，着手处理会员们权利及权益之争更是教总的责任。
教总成变相校长职工会
2010年6月8日的教总会员代表大会如果依旧讨论华教的旧课题，实际上并不能为华教带来什么巨大的改变，毕竟这种课题已讨论多次而毫无效果，政府的政策依然故我。在捍卫华教的同时，教总在这次的会员代表大会更应该改革，动议修改章程，拒绝校长成为理事，好让普通的教师们能够拿下责任，成为真正的教师组织。
为了彰显校长们都有维护华教及教育工作者的理想，校长们应该避嫌地离开有利益冲突的理事层，退位让贤。没有改革的教总是另一个校长职工会，这将与教师们渐行渐远，失去其代表性。如果教总一意孤行，笔者大胆建议全国华小教师开始组成的州、区域或县级“华校教师职工会”，最后成立“全国华小教师职工会”以继续争取华小在籍教师的权利及权益。
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)