Thursday, April 21, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
‘Biased’ emphasis on Malays, Islam in history syllabus, says historian
Historian Dr Ranjit Malhi Singh also believed that “scant attention” has been given to the efforts of the Chinese and Indians in the development of the nation.
The author of history textbooks up until 1996 also charged that there were too many “half-truths and factual errors” in the current syllabus, and that it was laden with “value judgments.”
“There should be no value judgment in our textbooks. It is the greatest sin in any history book.
“There is a lopsided emphasis on Islamic civilisation... five out of 10 chapters of the current Form Four history textbook deal with Islamic history whereby earlier the Form 4 history textbook only had one chapter on Islamic history,” Ranjit said at a discussion organised by Catholic Teachers’ Association at the Assumption Catholic church here.
According to Ranjit, “half-truths” and inaccuracies were evident in the existing syllabus. As an example, he said the history books have omitted the fact that Parameswara (founder of Malacca) was a Hindu prince from Palembang who died a Hindu.
He also said the current syllabus gave the wrong impression that the other races did not fight courageously in defending Malaya during the Japanese Occupation, and that only the Malay Regiment did so.
“Thousands of Punjabi, Gurkha, British and Australian soldiers died defending Malaya during the Japanese onslaught.
“Thirty-three of the 232 names on the Tugu Negara are Sikhs,” said Ranjit.
The historian pointed out that the current Form Four history textbooks had reduced by more than 25 per cent of the text related to Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism compared to the previous syllabus (from 1,112 words to about 832 words.)
Ranjit lamented the fact that non-Malay leaders were not duly recognised in the history books.
“The current Form 2 history textbook has downplayed the role of Yap Ah Loy in developing Kuala Lumpur, it has just one sentence on him.
“Yap Ah Loy was why Kuala Lumpur became what it is today, he established the township... he initiated the KL-Damansara road, and was the first person to build brick shophouses in 1884,” said Ranjit.
The majority of the 100-odd people who turned up for the discussion today agreed with Ranjit’s findings.
Many of them, mostly non-Malays, expressed fears of an unbalanced teaching of history in the classroom, with specific emphasis only on Islam and Malays.
Some present today were heard whispering “pseudo-Islamisation” to each other during the discussion.
One parent, who did not want to be named, has begun a petition to demand a revamp of the syllabus.
“What kind of balanced proportion is this none? One civilisation that is glorified at the expense of others.
“History classes become more like ‘agama’ classes, children have no opportunity to learn about comparative religions,” she said.
Ranjit said he had already contacted the director-general of education and planned to notify him of the suggested revamps to the history module.
He said that the Form 1-5 history textbooks should be reviewed to ensure factual accuracy and consistency and a balanced account of the country’s history.
He also said the advisory panel and writers should be drawn from various ethnic groups, and that the textbooks should be devoid of value judgments.
“All history textbooks should be revised to ensure factual accuracy, consistency... right now they are not.
“What’s more, all 17 authors of the books belong to one ethnic group. How can this be? You must have a balanced ethnic composition,” said Ranjit.
He also called on the government to change the methods of teaching history to be geared towards active participation and live debates rather than memorising and regurgitating facts.
为何华裔选民将摒弃人联党？
【本刊特约詹运豪撰述/郑慧玉翻译】在即将来临的4月16日，砂拉越华裔选民将作出选择：支持国阵的人联党或民联的民主行动党。我的看法是华裔选民毫无疑问地将支持行动党，即便西马的趋势显示一小部分的华裔选票正缓慢回流国阵。为何我如此确定？
砂拉越华裔有太多理由让人联党下台，但我在这里仅提出几个主要的原因。
除非持续中彩票或拥有自家油田，你不可能赚取如此的巨额财产。人联党作为执政党内的第二大政党却从未对此事有所行动，甚或对此私人累积的财富提出任何反对，这足以说明人联党与泰益同样有罪。
倘若人联党在一开始就决意与之对抗，泰益将无法累积如此巨大的资产。事实上，正是人联党的支持使他在1987年的倒泰益运动中转危为安。
第 二，人联党过去20年在砂拉越国阵中的角色已无足轻重。随着该党将绝对的控制权交付予首长，它的“政府中的华裔代表”及“参与执政”的选举口号已完全失去 意义。2006年，尽管人联党公开请求，首长拒绝在土地租赁课题上作出任何让步。人联党在更新地契议题上的失败已让多数华裔看清该党的一切主张纯属空谈。
人联党只爱老板
第 三，自1970年代以来，人联党即以代表砂拉越大亨阶层著称。该州的多位大亨在人联党的固打配额下，当上了上议员。一旦他们的上议员任期（最长六年）届 满，他们当中的一些将被献议竞选国会或州议席。来自诗巫的张氏家族，亦即长青集团业主就是例子之一。该家族的其中一位曾是上议员，而另一位则是目前诗巫南 兰区（Lanang）国会议员。至今人联党仍声称它代表的是当地华裔，然而实际上它只对会牟利的老板们有兴趣。
第五，某些人联党党要无疑地善于利用他们的政府关系及官位“促进”自身的企业。他们当中许多已从官位中获捞取与商业头脑无关的财富。虽说他们得到的利益不致于像首长家族般的露骨，但间中许多的商机来自政府，而他们早已背叛砂拉越华裔选民对他们的信任。
大企业被巨鳄吞噬
第六，无法在免于“第一家庭”的干涉下谋生或经营生意使许多砂拉越华裔感到焦虑。在砂拉越流行一个笑话，即如果不想被“巨鳄”盯上，你最好只是个小商人。倘若你不小心成了商界里的“大鱼”，几乎可以肯定的是巨鳄会上前来“咬你一口”。
至 今成千上万的砂州年轻专业人士被逼在西马或新加坡工作，只因他们无法在砂州生存。那里也没有让他们经营生意的空间。这一切是谁的错？是谁没有去纠正这种情 况？最后，谁会愿意投票给国阵的成员党并支持巫统？最糟的是，巫统崇尚马来人主权而人联党对此未发一言。作为国阵的一员，人联党实际上已公开支持马来西亚 华社所面对的种种压制。
巫统是否在砂拉越掌权也是无关紧要的，巫统在背后操纵查扣《圣经》事件并公开压制回教以外的其他宗教，人联党是否曾公开指责巫统及其马来人主权意识？当然没有。它的领袖们只忙于担忧一些诸如华裔及非马来人被当成二等公民的“小事”，同时享受“参与执政”的附加好处。
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
夢醒時分
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 !
Sunday, January 9, 2011
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?