Dong Jiao Zong’s description of the transformation of the status of Chinese primary schools from “freehold in 1957  to  TOL in 1961  to squatters in 1996” fully exemplified by Education Development Blueprint 2001-2010 adopted by Cabinet in June last year

(Penang, Saturday): Dong Jiao Zong’s description of the transformation of the status of Chinese mother-tongue education  from  “freehold in 1957  to  TOL in 1961  to squatters in 1996” is right and fully exemplified by the Education Development Blueprint 2001-2010 adopted by Cabinet in June last year. 

Dong Jiao Zong have argued that the status of Chinese schools in 1957 was that of “freehold” as under the 1957 Education Ordinance, the Chinese education  system, such as Chinese primary schools and Chinese secondary schools, was given recognition by the authorities for the first time.  In  the 1961 Education Act, the status of Chinese education was downgraded to that of “Temporary Occupation Licence (TOL)”, as Chinese primary schools  could be converted into national primary schools any time the Education Minister deemed fit.  The 1996 Education Act reduced the status of Chinese primary schools to that of “squatters” - without proper legal status or position. 

The Education Development Blueprint clearly treated Chinese primary schools as no better than that of “squatters”, and I am still waiting for full explanations from the four MCA Minister, Datuk Seri Ling Liong Sik, Datuk Chua Jui Meng, Datuk Fong Chan Onn and Datuk Ong Ah Ting, the Gerakan Minister, Datuk Seri Dr. Lim Keng Yaik and the SUPP Minister, Datuk  Law Hien Ding, as well as the respective MCA, Gerakan  and SUPP leaderships,  as to how they could be a party to a 10-year Education Development Blueprint 2001-2010 which makes no mention or reference to the future development of Chinese primary schools and their right to fair and equitable allocation of public funds. 

The statistics given in Jadual 2.1 (below)  in the Education Development Blueprint stand not only as an indictment of the failure of the MCA, Gerakan and SUPP Ministers to discharge their responsibilities to Chinese mother-tongue education but also the failure of the entire Cabinet to be  fair and just to all national streams of education.

Jadual 2.1

Bilangan Sekolah, Kelas, dan Enrolmen Sekolah Rendah pada Tahun 1995 dan 2000  

These figures capture in a nutshell the unfair development and treatment meted out to Chinese primary schools under the national  education system.  In the five years between 1995 to 2000,  the enrolment in Chinese primary schools had increased by 4.7 per cent from 594,520 to 622,712, with the number of classes increasing by 6.4 per cent from 16,651 to 17,729, but  there had not only been no increase in the number of Chinese primary schools, actually there was a decrease of 0.3% or a reduction of four schools from 1,288 to 1,284! 

In the case of national primary schools, student enrolment increased by 4.4 per cent from 2,100,638 in 1995 to 2,193,582 in 2000, with the number of classes increasing by 12.8 per cent from 63,243 to 71,349 while the number of national primary schools  increased by 4.9% from 5,141 to 5,393. 

In the Chinese primary schools from 1995 to 2000, enrolment increased by 28,192 pupils, the number of classes increased by 1,078 but the number of schools reduced by four.  In comparison, for  the national primary schools for the same period, enrolment  increased by 92,844 pupils, 8,106 classes and 252 new schools. 

As the percentage of student enrolment in the Chinese primary schools between 1995 to 2000 was higher than national primary schools, there should be at least 50 new Chinese primary schools if not more – considering that the student ratio to each class is much higher in the Chinese primary schools as compared to national primary  schools.

All educational bodies and  associations  concerned about the future of Chinese mother-tongue education in the country should protest against the Education Development Blueprint treatment of Chinese primary schools as “squatters” in the national education system, and demand a New Deal for Mother-Tongue Education to restore the “freehold” status enjoyed during national independence, which should include following detailed programmes in the next 10 years:

• Build at least 500 new Chinese primary schools, or 50 new schools a year, under the Education Development Blueprint.

• RM1 billion special allocation for the 60 Chinese Independent Secondary Schools and the  1,200  Chinese primary  schools to be paid out in the next five years in recognition of their past contribution to nation-building.

• Allow building of new or re-establishment of previous  Chinese Independent Secondary Schools.

• Government recognition of Unified Examinations  Certificate (UEC) of Chinese Independent Secondary Schools.

• Make Pupil’s Own Language (POL)  a compulsory subject for all pupils in national  primary and  secondary schools.

• Fair allocation of development expenditures to different streams of primary schools based on student enrolment, i.e. the total development allocation of RM2.75 billion for  primary schools under the five-year Eighth Malaysia Plan (2001-2005)  should be distributed into  RM2.1 billion or 75% for national primary schools, RM577 million or 21% for Chinese primary schools and  RM99 million or 3.6% for Tamil primary schools.

(20/7/2002)