Vernacular or not?

DEC 9, 2008 — The recent debate over the existence of vernacular schools has seen vociferous defence and attacks from proponents and exponents alike.
Exponents argued that vernacular schools are hurting national unity, but the actual harm is being inflicted not by the curriculum of the vernacular schools but the actions and rhetoric of politicians from both sides of the divide.
Political rhetoric on the erosion of Malay rights, the position of the national language and Islam and now vernacular schools have been hitting the front pages on an almost daily basis since the March 8 general election.
One wonders whether these so-called sensitive issues would be highlighted if the results of the election had been otherwise and hegemony not under threat.
I suppose not.
The debate questioning the need for vernacular schools is an attempt to take an offensive stand to uphold the hegemony for certain quarters and certain elements within society.
There is no sincerity in discussing the actual issues — whether the education system or national unity.
To put a seemingly logical and righteous spin, national unity is being raised as the raison d'être to justify the need for a single uniform education system.
While the man in the street is not really bothered about the supposed adverse effects of vernacular schools on national unity, extreme peripheral elements are trying to sway the majority to see their point of view.
Hence, it is vital to put the discussions and the anger stirred up by these extreme elements into perspective.
We should not miss out on history in the discussion of this important issue even if it was raised for political expediency.
It is a fact that the Razak Report recommended the need for a single education system but in the same breath it also allowed for the right of vernacular schools to exist.
The British told Tunku Abdul Rahman and his delegation that Malaya would be granted independence as long as the foundation of the country was agreed upon by all the main races inhabiting it at that point of time.
The British wanted every single community to be represented hence the compromise on the special position of the Malays and the right to mother tongue education.
It was to be that Malaya will not be exclusively for the Malays.
Malaya is a migrant state and we should be proud of it.
Some historians have put forward the theory that even the Malays originated from southern China, they migrated to this region and the Nusantara in search of a better life.
Some other historians claim that the Malays were from the extended Polynesian family, with physical attributes akin to the natives in Hawai'i and the neighbouring cluster of islands.
Our diverse culture, language and beliefs are a boon to the nation as we are a melting pot.
Should we not discuss and debate issues sacred to each other?
As a dynamic nation we should be able to discuss — to agree or disagree — on any issue even if it touches on our constitution.
Those calling for the Sedition Act or the Internal Security Act to be used on those questioning these two issues — the special position of the Malays and the right of vernacular schools to exist — are the ones guilty of stifling a mature democracy.
For us to mature as a country, meaningful debate— whether it is on the special position of the Malays or vernacular schools — must be allowed to flourish.
These leaders do not realise that they are species of the same kind; they bark in different languages but want the same thing — they do not want debate.
To me and the rest of apathetic Malaysians, they are simply not democrats but hypocrites.

- published in The Malaysian Insider : Dec 9, 2008