About Me
- Lee, Guan Aik
- Alor Star, Kedah Darul Aman, Malaysia
- Hi! I'm Lee Guan Aik (State Assemblyman for Kota Darul Aman state constituency Retired RMAF Senior Non Commission Officer/PC-7 Aircraft Engine Instuctor 1972-1991 Birthplace: Alor Setar Qualification:Senior Cambridge/Malaysia Cert.Education. Education:Sultan Abdul Hamid College, Alor Setar.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Kedah mula projek mega hujung tahun
Sinar Harian-27/10/10.
ALOR SETAR - Beberapa projek mega akan dilaksanakan penghujung tahun ini untuk mensejahterakan rakyat Kedah.
Menteri Besar, Datuk Seri Azizan Abdul Razak berkata, setakat ini, projek yang dirancang itu masih dalam penelitian akhir dan dijangka dapat dimulakan dalam masa terdekat.
“Antaranya membabitkan sektor perumahan dan pembukaan beberapa bandar baru di negeri ini yang dirancang di daerah utara dan selatan Kedah,” katanya.
Bagaimanapun, buat masa ini Azizan enggan mendedahkan secara terperinci projek yang dirancang itu kerana ia hanya akan diumumkan pada masa yang sesuai.
Beliau turut membidas pihak tertentu, terutama parti lawan yang sebelum ini berkeras mahu Kerajaan Negeri mengumumkan pelan perancangan dan pembangunan negeri sehingga mendakwa Kedah pada tahap mundur serta tidak ada projek pembangunan bawah kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat (PR).
“Tindakan mereka tidak wajar. Kerajaan Negeri tidak boleh sewenang-wenangnya mendedahkan pelan perancangan negeri pada umum. Sampai masanya baru boleh dihebahkan dan saya sendiri akan umumkan,” katanya.
Menurutnya, kewujudan projek mega ini sedikit sebanyak diyakini dapat menangkis tohmahan kononnya pembangunan di Kedah terbantut kerana kekangan kewangan dan sebagainya seperti yang pernah dibangkitkan oleh UMNO sebelum ini.
Menteri Besar, Datuk Seri Azizan Abdul Razak berkata, setakat ini, projek yang dirancang itu masih dalam penelitian akhir dan dijangka dapat dimulakan dalam masa terdekat.
“Antaranya membabitkan sektor perumahan dan pembukaan beberapa bandar baru di negeri ini yang dirancang di daerah utara dan selatan Kedah,” katanya.
Bagaimanapun, buat masa ini Azizan enggan mendedahkan secara terperinci projek yang dirancang itu kerana ia hanya akan diumumkan pada masa yang sesuai.
Beliau turut membidas pihak tertentu, terutama parti lawan yang sebelum ini berkeras mahu Kerajaan Negeri mengumumkan pelan perancangan dan pembangunan negeri sehingga mendakwa Kedah pada tahap mundur serta tidak ada projek pembangunan bawah kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat (PR).
“Tindakan mereka tidak wajar. Kerajaan Negeri tidak boleh sewenang-wenangnya mendedahkan pelan perancangan negeri pada umum. Sampai masanya baru boleh dihebahkan dan saya sendiri akan umumkan,” katanya.
Menurutnya, kewujudan projek mega ini sedikit sebanyak diyakini dapat menangkis tohmahan kononnya pembangunan di Kedah terbantut kerana kekangan kewangan dan sebagainya seperti yang pernah dibangkitkan oleh UMNO sebelum ini.
Hari penamaan calon PRK dun Galas, Kelantan 26hb Oct 2010
Dap Kedah menghantarkan rombongan parti untuk memberi sokongan kuat kepada calon PAS dun Galas.Yang pergi memberi sokongan adalah YB Lee, Setia Usaha Negeri Sdr.Chow, Sdr. Vincent Chee dan sebilangan AJK DAP Negeri Kedah dan Perlis.
Friday, October 22, 2010
DAP mahu kerusi DUN Derga
Dari Sinar Harian-21hb. Oct.2010
ALOR SETAR - DAP bertegas akan mempertahankan kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Derga dengan meletakkan calonnya pada pilihan raya umum akan datang.
Pengerusi DAP Kedah, Lee Guan Aik berkata, pihaknya tetap akan bertanding di kerusi DUN itu yang dikatakan milik DAP, sebelum berpindah tangan kepada Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).
“Awalnya kawasan Derga adalah milik DAP, tetapi pada Pilihan Raya Umum 2008, timbul kekeliruan apabila PKR turut meletakkan calonnya di situ. DAP memang kesal namun tidak sempat membuat bantahan kerana keputusan dibuat pada saat-saat akhir,” katanya.
Berikutan itu, Guan Aik merayu kepada PKR supaya memberi laluan kepada DAP untuk mewakili rakyat di kawasan berkenaan.
“Biarlah DAP letakkan calon di situ pada PRU akan datang. Kawasan itu memang milik DAP dan saya juga mahu perkara ini diputuskan segera oleh kepimpinan tertinggi parti,” katanya.
Menurutnya, pada pilihan raya umum lalu, DAP telahpun membuat persiapan rapi bagi memenangi hati pengundi namun terkilan apabila calon PKR turut bertanding di situ.
“Kita tidak boleh buat apa-apa ketika itu melainkan terpaksa menerima keputusan Pusat. Saya tidak mahu perkara sama berulang, namun saya fikirkan DAP lebih sesuai bertanding di Derga,” katanya.
Guan Aik berkata, pihaknya akan sedaya upaya mempertahankan hak mereka di situ walau dengan apa cara sekalipun, namun akan tetap akur pada keputusan Pusat kelak.
“Sekiranya rayuan kami tidak didengari, saya tidak menolak kemungkinan kita bakal menyaksikan pertandingan tiga penjuru sekali lagi di Derga. Jika itu yang terpaksa dibuat, saya tiada pilihan,” katanya.
Menurutnya, selagi keputusan belum diputuskan sama ada DUN Derga milik PKR atau DAP, pihaknya akan berjuang berhabis-habisan untuk memastikan kerusi itu jatuh ke tangan DAP.
“Setelah kepimpinan Pusat buat keputusan kelak, DAP akan akur dan menghormati keputusan itu. Kami tidak akan bantah keputusan tetapi mohon keputusan berpihak kepada kami,” katanya.
Kelmarin, Pengerusi Biro Latihan Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Kedah, Senator Ir Zamri Yusuf berkata, meminta pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat (PR) membuat keputusan segera mengenai siapa yang akan bertanding di kerusi DUN Derga, sama ada PKR ataupun DAP.
Katanya, jika keputusan dibuat pada saat akhir, dibimbangi akan mencetuskan rasa tidak puas hati dalam kalangan ahli parti komponen PR di negeri ini.
Pada pilihan raya umum lalu, kedua-dua calon PKR dan DAP, Cheung Khai Yan dan Teoh Teik Guan tewas kepada calon BN, Dr Cheah Soon Hai. Khai Yan mendapat 6,353 undi, Teik Guan (2,095) manakala Dr Cheah (6,516).
ALOR SETAR - DAP bertegas akan mempertahankan kerusi Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Derga dengan meletakkan calonnya pada pilihan raya umum akan datang.
Pengerusi DAP Kedah, Lee Guan Aik berkata, pihaknya tetap akan bertanding di kerusi DUN itu yang dikatakan milik DAP, sebelum berpindah tangan kepada Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR).
“Awalnya kawasan Derga adalah milik DAP, tetapi pada Pilihan Raya Umum 2008, timbul kekeliruan apabila PKR turut meletakkan calonnya di situ. DAP memang kesal namun tidak sempat membuat bantahan kerana keputusan dibuat pada saat-saat akhir,” katanya.
Berikutan itu, Guan Aik merayu kepada PKR supaya memberi laluan kepada DAP untuk mewakili rakyat di kawasan berkenaan.
“Biarlah DAP letakkan calon di situ pada PRU akan datang. Kawasan itu memang milik DAP dan saya juga mahu perkara ini diputuskan segera oleh kepimpinan tertinggi parti,” katanya.
Menurutnya, pada pilihan raya umum lalu, DAP telahpun membuat persiapan rapi bagi memenangi hati pengundi namun terkilan apabila calon PKR turut bertanding di situ.
“Kita tidak boleh buat apa-apa ketika itu melainkan terpaksa menerima keputusan Pusat. Saya tidak mahu perkara sama berulang, namun saya fikirkan DAP lebih sesuai bertanding di Derga,” katanya.
Guan Aik berkata, pihaknya akan sedaya upaya mempertahankan hak mereka di situ walau dengan apa cara sekalipun, namun akan tetap akur pada keputusan Pusat kelak.
“Sekiranya rayuan kami tidak didengari, saya tidak menolak kemungkinan kita bakal menyaksikan pertandingan tiga penjuru sekali lagi di Derga. Jika itu yang terpaksa dibuat, saya tiada pilihan,” katanya.
Menurutnya, selagi keputusan belum diputuskan sama ada DUN Derga milik PKR atau DAP, pihaknya akan berjuang berhabis-habisan untuk memastikan kerusi itu jatuh ke tangan DAP.
“Setelah kepimpinan Pusat buat keputusan kelak, DAP akan akur dan menghormati keputusan itu. Kami tidak akan bantah keputusan tetapi mohon keputusan berpihak kepada kami,” katanya.
Kelmarin, Pengerusi Biro Latihan Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Kedah, Senator Ir Zamri Yusuf berkata, meminta pemimpin Pakatan Rakyat (PR) membuat keputusan segera mengenai siapa yang akan bertanding di kerusi DUN Derga, sama ada PKR ataupun DAP.
Katanya, jika keputusan dibuat pada saat akhir, dibimbangi akan mencetuskan rasa tidak puas hati dalam kalangan ahli parti komponen PR di negeri ini.
Pada pilihan raya umum lalu, kedua-dua calon PKR dan DAP, Cheung Khai Yan dan Teoh Teik Guan tewas kepada calon BN, Dr Cheah Soon Hai. Khai Yan mendapat 6,353 undi, Teik Guan (2,095) manakala Dr Cheah (6,516).
Monday, October 18, 2010
Mercu tanda Alor Setar yang memedih mata.
Tengah hari ini, 16 hb Okt.,jam 2.00 petang, semasa saya turun padang membuat lawatan ke kawasan Pekan Cina/Pekan Melayu dengan beberapa ahli parti Dap untuk melihat sendiri masaalah dan keadaan saya begitu terkejut sekali melihat keadaan tempat mercu tanda permulaan nya Bandar Alor Setar. Amat menyesal sekali keadaan hiasan untuk menarik para pelancung tempatan dan orang luar adalah dalam keadaan terbir, kotor, rosak dan tidak langsung serenggarakan. Tempat sini amat lah memalukan kepada pihak kerajaan kerana tujuan pembenaan tempat ini adalah untuk rakyat mengetahui dan faham akan sejarah bandaraya Alor Setar. Tempat sekeliling sangat kotor dan dilihat sangat tidak di jaga langsung oleh pihak yang bertanggung jawap walaupun ratusan wang rakyat telah di belanjakan. Saya percaya sudah tentu ini akan memberi gambaran yang buruk kepada pihak kerajaan sekarang walaupun tempat ini telah di buat dan tapi dibiarkan tanpa menjagakan nya kerajaan tempatan sebelum ini. Ini adah sebahagian dari tempat tempat yang sangat senang dilihat oleh orang ramai, tapi sedih dan memalukan sangat. Tempat ini sudah menjadi tempat membuang sampah, membiakan nyamuk dan kesemua tiang lampu hiasan dan kerusi hiasan besi yang ada pun semuanya hilang kerana vandalisma.
Soalanya adah siapakah yang bertanggungjawap keatas stuktur mercu tanda Alor Setar ini yang di bina kerajaan melaui UPEN Negeri Kedah. Kedengaran banyak aduan dibuat oleh peniaga berdekatan tempat ini, tetapi sampai hari ini tidak Nampak apa apa tindakan diambil oleh pihak yang bertanggung jawap.
Turut bersama sama dengan saya adalah Ahli Majlis Bandaraya Sdr. Chow Hui Ping,
pembantu saya Sdr. Cheah, Sdr. Jason Chiang dan Sdr. Dr. Lim Sing Keat
Friday, October 15, 2010
吉州水供高涨话题，还人民真相。
国阵在吉打州执政50载以来，吉打便欠下了2.4亿令吉的庞大巨额，其中的1.7亿是向中央政府借来缴水费的。自2008年上任，民联发现吉打州除了庞大的债务以外，其基础设施和服务规划已远远跟不上时代的需求。
这些问题的发生，是因为当时的州政府并没有接受当时中央政府所提供的特别援助，反而选择向中央政府贷款，也不依照政策的需求性和重要性来做资金分配。巴东色奈的水供发展便是其中一个鲜明的例子。
无法偿还水费是每一个在国政执政下的政府常常面对的问题。这些欠下的债务又成了中央政府的负担，努力确保每一州都还清债务的中央局，在如此情况之下只好剥削了州政府在管理水源的权利。
与此同时，前朝政府决定把水供私营化，这个对人民不负责的行动将事情更严重化。
人民有权知道的事实
日前，国会通过议决案修改联邦宪法，把水供事务从州政府的权限中转移到中央政府。
而此项变数带来的影响有
1）2006年水务服务法令（Water Services Industry Act-WASIA）：
a.国家水务服务委员会（SPAN）的成立，监管水务公司的运营及管理
b.由财政部拥有的水务资产管理有限公司（PAAB）负责协调，包括接管资产及现有的债务如债券等。
c.根据此项法令，州政府不得不成立企业/实体公司如水务机构（SADA）
d.州政府拥有企业/实体公司，但中央政府全权管理
2。水务机构的成立
根据国家税务服务委员会法令，中央政府有权接管任何一州的水供服务。宪法里说明，倘若该局的财务报告显示任何一州的政府无财务能力承受水供服务费用，中央政府便会插手管理该州的水供。这样的现象可谓是一种：侵犯州属主权（kedaulatan negeri）
水务资产管理有限公司（PAB）的掌权
a) 由国家财政部全权拥有，目的是：
i〉 准备足够的资金于水供公司进行有关提升水供服务的计划（如建立水厂、水箱等）
ii〉 协调/管理州属的贷款，债务等
b) 资金来源
i. 中央政府贷款（原先属于州政府，如今交移PAB）
ii. 国际金融市场
iii. 所有由水务资产管理有限公司的资金投资建设的资产将出租给水供公司，根据税率征收的租金将用来解决州属的债务
c) 水务资产管理有限公司向中央政府接管债券，并一次性通过国际融资偿还所有债务。与此同时，水务资产管理有限公司变成了州政府的债主，并且需要接受以下条件：
i. 所有水务资产必需抵押给水务资产管理有限公司作为贷款担保
ii. 水务资产管理有限公司将水务资产租借给作为运营商的水务机构(SADA)
iii. 支付水务资产租金给水务资产管理有限公司
iv. 定期偿还欠下的债务
通过水务资产管理有限公司摆脱中央政府的掌权
为了防止吉打州的子民的利益被剥削，州政府通过水务机构已经有所行动，其中设下了一个条例：
-水务资产管理有限公司的股权仍然完全属于财政局，若股权因任何理由或方式转让给外方，租赁协议即刻无效，所有债账自动一笔勾销。通过与水务机构的商讨，水务资产管理有限公司已接受此协议。
目前财务状况导致关税税率增加。
~自从水务资产管理有限公司接管州属债务后，水务资产管理有限公司便遣派国家水务服务委员会监督调查国内水供公司的财政状况，确保能够征收回报。
~调查结果证明，在国阵50年的统领下，水源部和水务机构的财政能力是属于“财政吃紧”的状态。
~国会在2009年尾正式通过议案，宣布提高半岛的水源关税税率
~能源部已通过公函要求州秘书及运营商提交关税模型
~国家水务服务委员会为监督，下令要求各州水源运营商提交关税模型。
~吉打州水务机构提交3种关税模型
~国家水务服务委员重新检讨，并决定关税率的提高不包括宗教场所及福利院。
提高关税计划
在2013年，水源关税将与电源关税统一，国家水务服务委员提议每立方米（Semeter Padu）90仙。（与柔佛州相同）
为了人民的负担起见，水务机构争取水源关税只提高10仙。一切与国家水务服务委员会的谈判都以人民的福利作为主要考量。
吉打州在国内的情况
共有52千家用户，百分之90是住家用户，而百分之10是工业用户。这类的情况导致水务机构（SADA）面临关税太低的问题。而槟州的情况恰恰相反。
吉州需管理长达13,000公里的供水管道，相比起槟州的谦恭立即拨周的千公里，吉打州在这方面所付出的管理费及维修费是远远超越邻州的。
除此之外，由于人口分布不一，所花的费用比回报率高，此类情况更加中了吉打州政府的负担。
水供私营化带来的影响
-前朝政府于１９９５年把浮罗交怡的水供私营化，与Taliworks (Langkawi)有限公司签署私营化合约，为期２５年，结果造成的州政府必须承担所面对的损失，例如在２００９年，州政府在水费收入只获得１千４００万令吉，但是，必须付还给 Taliworks公司３千９００万令吉。”
-Taliworks公司是负责从玻州供应水源至浮罗交怡，在私营化合约下，Taliworks公司每立方米向州政府收１令吉９３仙，惟州政府仅向用户收取每立方米４０仙，换句话说，州政府必须承担１令吉５３仙的津贴。
-至于Air Utara Indah 在柏鲁邦发展水供计划所提供的食水，据私营化合约，该公司每天提供的食水，征收的费用是水源的处理费，而不是以用量作为标准，却因为州政府面对水管损坏或破漏影响造成约４３%水源的流失，真正只获得５７%的水源，使州政府也蒙受损失。
水是基本人权，为人民提供安全、足够及价格合理的食水是政府的责任。联盟认为，私人财团利益先行，一旦水供由私人界操控，消费人的权益将备受剥削，吉州人民与政府必需要并肩作战，保护属于自己的主权，不要让外方一点一点地占领了我们的水资源，水资产，因为这些都是属于州属拥有的宝藏。我们决不能因为水费只涨了区区的10仙而漠视这个问题。人民应全力支持当朝政府，为了我们的利益及福利，也为了吉打州的昌盛与繁荣。
这些问题的发生，是因为当时的州政府并没有接受当时中央政府所提供的特别援助，反而选择向中央政府贷款，也不依照政策的需求性和重要性来做资金分配。巴东色奈的水供发展便是其中一个鲜明的例子。
无法偿还水费是每一个在国政执政下的政府常常面对的问题。这些欠下的债务又成了中央政府的负担，努力确保每一州都还清债务的中央局，在如此情况之下只好剥削了州政府在管理水源的权利。
与此同时，前朝政府决定把水供私营化，这个对人民不负责的行动将事情更严重化。
人民有权知道的事实
日前，国会通过议决案修改联邦宪法，把水供事务从州政府的权限中转移到中央政府。
而此项变数带来的影响有
1）2006年水务服务法令（Water Services Industry Act-WASIA）：
a.国家水务服务委员会（SPAN）的成立，监管水务公司的运营及管理
b.由财政部拥有的水务资产管理有限公司（PAAB）负责协调，包括接管资产及现有的债务如债券等。
c.根据此项法令，州政府不得不成立企业/实体公司如水务机构（SADA）
d.州政府拥有企业/实体公司，但中央政府全权管理
2。水务机构的成立
根据国家税务服务委员会法令，中央政府有权接管任何一州的水供服务。宪法里说明，倘若该局的财务报告显示任何一州的政府无财务能力承受水供服务费用，中央政府便会插手管理该州的水供。这样的现象可谓是一种：侵犯州属主权（kedaulatan negeri）
水务资产管理有限公司（PAB）的掌权
a) 由国家财政部全权拥有，目的是：
i〉 准备足够的资金于水供公司进行有关提升水供服务的计划（如建立水厂、水箱等）
ii〉 协调/管理州属的贷款，债务等
b) 资金来源
i. 中央政府贷款（原先属于州政府，如今交移PAB）
ii. 国际金融市场
iii. 所有由水务资产管理有限公司的资金投资建设的资产将出租给水供公司，根据税率征收的租金将用来解决州属的债务
c) 水务资产管理有限公司向中央政府接管债券，并一次性通过国际融资偿还所有债务。与此同时，水务资产管理有限公司变成了州政府的债主，并且需要接受以下条件：
i. 所有水务资产必需抵押给水务资产管理有限公司作为贷款担保
ii. 水务资产管理有限公司将水务资产租借给作为运营商的水务机构(SADA)
iii. 支付水务资产租金给水务资产管理有限公司
iv. 定期偿还欠下的债务
通过水务资产管理有限公司摆脱中央政府的掌权
为了防止吉打州的子民的利益被剥削，州政府通过水务机构已经有所行动，其中设下了一个条例：
-水务资产管理有限公司的股权仍然完全属于财政局，若股权因任何理由或方式转让给外方，租赁协议即刻无效，所有债账自动一笔勾销。通过与水务机构的商讨，水务资产管理有限公司已接受此协议。
目前财务状况导致关税税率增加。
~自从水务资产管理有限公司接管州属债务后，水务资产管理有限公司便遣派国家水务服务委员会监督调查国内水供公司的财政状况，确保能够征收回报。
~调查结果证明，在国阵50年的统领下，水源部和水务机构的财政能力是属于“财政吃紧”的状态。
~国会在2009年尾正式通过议案，宣布提高半岛的水源关税税率
~能源部已通过公函要求州秘书及运营商提交关税模型
~国家水务服务委员会为监督，下令要求各州水源运营商提交关税模型。
~吉打州水务机构提交3种关税模型
~国家水务服务委员重新检讨，并决定关税率的提高不包括宗教场所及福利院。
提高关税计划
在2013年，水源关税将与电源关税统一，国家水务服务委员提议每立方米（Semeter Padu）90仙。（与柔佛州相同）
为了人民的负担起见，水务机构争取水源关税只提高10仙。一切与国家水务服务委员会的谈判都以人民的福利作为主要考量。
吉打州在国内的情况
共有52千家用户，百分之90是住家用户，而百分之10是工业用户。这类的情况导致水务机构（SADA）面临关税太低的问题。而槟州的情况恰恰相反。
吉州需管理长达13,000公里的供水管道，相比起槟州的谦恭立即拨周的千公里，吉打州在这方面所付出的管理费及维修费是远远超越邻州的。
除此之外，由于人口分布不一，所花的费用比回报率高，此类情况更加中了吉打州政府的负担。
水供私营化带来的影响
-前朝政府于１９９５年把浮罗交怡的水供私营化，与Taliworks (Langkawi)有限公司签署私营化合约，为期２５年，结果造成的州政府必须承担所面对的损失，例如在２００９年，州政府在水费收入只获得１千４００万令吉，但是，必须付还给 Taliworks公司３千９００万令吉。”
-Taliworks公司是负责从玻州供应水源至浮罗交怡，在私营化合约下，Taliworks公司每立方米向州政府收１令吉９３仙，惟州政府仅向用户收取每立方米４０仙，换句话说，州政府必须承担１令吉５３仙的津贴。
-至于Air Utara Indah 在柏鲁邦发展水供计划所提供的食水，据私营化合约，该公司每天提供的食水，征收的费用是水源的处理费，而不是以用量作为标准，却因为州政府面对水管损坏或破漏影响造成约４３%水源的流失，真正只获得５７%的水源，使州政府也蒙受损失。
水是基本人权，为人民提供安全、足够及价格合理的食水是政府的责任。联盟认为，私人财团利益先行，一旦水供由私人界操控，消费人的权益将备受剥削，吉州人民与政府必需要并肩作战，保护属于自己的主权，不要让外方一点一点地占领了我们的水资源，水资产，因为这些都是属于州属拥有的宝藏。我们决不能因为水费只涨了区区的10仙而漠视这个问题。人民应全力支持当朝政府，为了我们的利益及福利，也为了吉打州的昌盛与繁荣。
I Language won't make 1Nation? Learning fromThailand,Indonesia
BY DR BOO CHENG HAU
The Malay supremacists have consistently characterized efforts by non-Malays to maintain vernacular schools as 'anti-national'. Why so?
'Anti-national' was, in fact, the same term used by the South African apartheid regime against other mediums of instruction in school aside from Afrikaans.
And Malay supremacists keep citing Indonesia and Thailand as examples of the one-language school policy to unite the races. Yet in Thailand, we can see that there is a secessionist movement by its Malay minority in the southern provinces not only because of discriminative language policy but religious policy too.
The Jakarta riots still occurred at the height of the Asian financial crisis in 1998 where the ethnic Chinese minority was targeted. The Chinese were victims of mob violence even though by then Indonesia's forced assimilation had already deprived this minority community of their Chinese names, suppressed expression of Chinese culture as well as caused many Chinese to lose the ability to speak their dialects.
However, after the 1998 reformasi movement, Indonesia has in recent years eased its strict imposition of Bahasa Indonesia and Mandarin has begun to pick up again. Our 'big brother' has gone one step forward and ahead of Malaysia by abolishing the segregation of its citizens into Pribumi and non-Pribumi.
Many Indonesian students learning Mandarin are not only Chinese but of other ethnicities who want to capitalize on growing economic ties between Indonesia and China. The post-Suharto Indonesian authorities no longer discriminate against Chinese Indonesians who wish to reconnect with their own culture through language.
The questions to ponder on, from the experience of our neighbours, are: Would allowing multilingualism and multiculturalism have prevented Thailand's militant insurgency? Another question is why the Chinese in Indonesia -- in spite of having Indonesian names and speaking Indonesian -- were still singled out as a distinct people in the Jakarta riots?
Likewise, Canada was confronted by Quebec separatists who wanted to establish an independent French-speaking republic. To avoid the secession of Quebec, French was declared additionally an official language in 1969.
Evidence has shown that monoligualism and one-race supremacy has resulted in racial polarization and ethnic conflicts around the world.
Is 'oneness' key to unity?
Integration can never be realised with Malay supremacy being the predominant ideology. When racial discrimination is deeply ingrained in our official education policy, how do we expect ordinary citizens not to propagate 'reverse' racism at interpersonal and social levels?
It is not inaccurate to say that racist connotations are often found at these informal levels. Howeverinstitutionalized racism is the culprit for its creation. Is it thus unfair to blame non-Malays for being unwilling to be assimilated by Malay culture and subjected to religious indoctrination?
But let's look beyond Asean region countries on their experiences. Previously in the United States, the various ethnic groups had tended to live within their own ethnic enclaves but governmental institutions and policies encouraged inter-racial integration through 'bussing' to mixed-race schools following the success of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s.
American affirmative action is for its ethnic minorities yet in the truly unique and one-in-the world Malaysia, it is for its dominant majority!
The US has been wrongly quoted as an example of success in monolingualism by Dr Mahatir Mohamad in his book The Malay Dilemma. English was never made an official language by the American constitution whereas attempts to impose English as such had actually failed.
According to the country's 1990 Census, 13.8 percent of US residents speak some non-English language at home. Another 2.9 percent, or 6.7 million people, did not speak English at all, or could not speak it well.
Over there, the Hispanics have fought most earnestly for bilingualism where Spanish has been effectively used as language of instruction in schools together with English. There are even bilingual colleges that use both English and Spanish. This approach has effectively integrated Spanish-speaking Americans into the mainstream.
Moving away from supremist ideology
Dr Mahatir misrepresented English as the only official language, and language of instruction in American schools. There is no actual restriction in the use of any other language of instruction even though usage of English is predominant in schools, government agencies and more importantly as the de facto lingua franca. In the USA, multilingualism has gained ground as the way forward.
Another famously polyglot country Switzerland not only designated four official languages but also mandates funding for development of mother tongue education.
Despite having its four languages, national identity is strong among the Swiss who predominantly regard themselves as Swiss rather than German, French or Italian as per the native languages they speak. Four languages of instruction including English are allowed in schools and up to tertiary level.Multilingualism has contributed to Switzerland's position as a global financial centre.
The Swiss also live in their own ethnic enclaves but cross-interaction is free without any institutionalized racism, unlike the 'nativism' of South African apartheid and the Bumiputera-ism of Umno. Institutionalised racism in official education policy has caused severe brain drain over the years in both apartheid South Africa and Umno-ruled Malaysia.
Malaysian public universities and teacher training colleges do not accept the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) although this A-level equivalent is accepted by universities in other countries. Students who complete their education in the independent Chinese secondary schools are therefore denied the opportunity to converge into Malaysia's mainstream tertiary education system.
Yet these are the very students who are able to integrate themselves into British, Australian, Canadian and American universities. After graduation, they can hold top positions in multinational corporations but ironically, they could not have earned a seat in their own kampung universities earlier.
Therefore any hope of ameliorating our country's severe brain drain lies in a reformed education system, whereby students from vernacular schools are integrated into mainstream public universities.
Monoligualism is a myth
It is a myth that monolingualism promotes integration. South Africa is one example where a monolingual education policy, closely linked to white supremacy, worsened racial animosities.
South Africa's revamped constitution post-apartheid recognizes as many as 11 official languages as well as equitable allocation of funding for mother tongue education, moving the country away from theAfrikaner supremacy of the past.
Multilingualism is shown in many multiethnic countries to ensure integration at all levels of the society. It especially cultivates cultural sensitivity among the majority ethnic group towards the minorities. Ethnic integration can, in fact, take place through any common language but cultural sensitivity must be the pre-requisite for integration in schools and in the wider populace.
In the apartheid regime of South Africa, English and Afrikaans were the only two official languages. The Malay supremacists have taken a leaf from their book with tacit approval of English as the de facto second language and common language in the private sector.
Needless to say, the Malay elites and GLC top professionals are comfortable in English. Former Lord President Mohamad Suffian made it clear that use of other languages in the private sector is allowed. It is the Umno firebrands complaining about Mandarin in the private sector that is going against the spirit of the constitution.
Diversity under threat
The spirit of voluntary integration in the form of universal participation is granted in the federal constitution, which also recognizes the need for a lingua franca, and hence we had the formulation of Article 152. Malay has logically been accepted for official purposes. Nonetheless, the use and learning of other languages are not only permissible, but the state has also to preserve and sustain these endeavours.
The constitutional right of non-Malays to their mother tongues must be translated not only into non-discriminative legislation but also their impartial implementation in the form of affirmative action for the minorities. Legislation alone is not enough to sustain the ideals of promoting integration and diversity if the majority ethnic group refuses to accept co-existence of cultural diversities.
Being the dominant majority in the country, the Malays must also accept that non-Malays would like to learn at their best capacity, and this would be in their mother tongues in school although not at the expense of national language proficiency.
Assimilative language and cultural policies have entrenched the supremacy of the dominant ethnic group. Their worship of the 'one language, one culture, one nation' policy, manifested through discriminative education policy, has understandably turned off non-Malays.
That Chinese and Indian parents have lost confidence in the national schools is patent. But why have they rejected too the Sekolah Wawasan concept of the different language streams grouped under one umbrella in terms of physical location?
In truth, with all that's been going on in national schools and their negative culture and bullying that has come to light, one can hardly blame the non-Malay parents for distrusting the authorities to treat vernacular schools with some decency. They are afraid -- and rightly so -- that once the vernacular schools fall under the influence of the supremacist bureaucracy, Chinese and Indian pupils will suffer discrimination.
Malaysia has been a multiracial society in reality since the Malaccan Sultanate where hundreds of different tongues were used. Malay scholar Munshi Abdullah in his famous work Pelayaran Munshy Abdullah gave a vivid account the multilingual and multicultural Malayan societies in olden times.
Historically speaking, despite Malay having been the lingua franca since the Malaccan Sultanate, it was nonetheless acceptance of diversity that made the entreport a cosmopolitan haven for international traders.
On the other hand, it is the Umno culture of chauvinism and linguistic policies that have made Malays lose the trait of their adventurous ancestors as gifted seafarers and outward-looking travellers.
Malaysians today should view our own diversity as a valued asset rather than a threat to further advance our beloved nation. The Malaccan Sultanate is a good example.
The Malay supremacists have consistently characterized efforts by non-Malays to maintain vernacular schools as 'anti-national'. Why so?
'Anti-national' was, in fact, the same term used by the South African apartheid regime against other mediums of instruction in school aside from Afrikaans.
And Malay supremacists keep citing Indonesia and Thailand as examples of the one-language school policy to unite the races. Yet in Thailand, we can see that there is a secessionist movement by its Malay minority in the southern provinces not only because of discriminative language policy but religious policy too.
The Jakarta riots still occurred at the height of the Asian financial crisis in 1998 where the ethnic Chinese minority was targeted. The Chinese were victims of mob violence even though by then Indonesia's forced assimilation had already deprived this minority community of their Chinese names, suppressed expression of Chinese culture as well as caused many Chinese to lose the ability to speak their dialects.
However, after the 1998 reformasi movement, Indonesia has in recent years eased its strict imposition of Bahasa Indonesia and Mandarin has begun to pick up again. Our 'big brother' has gone one step forward and ahead of Malaysia by abolishing the segregation of its citizens into Pribumi and non-Pribumi.
Many Indonesian students learning Mandarin are not only Chinese but of other ethnicities who want to capitalize on growing economic ties between Indonesia and China. The post-Suharto Indonesian authorities no longer discriminate against Chinese Indonesians who wish to reconnect with their own culture through language.
The questions to ponder on, from the experience of our neighbours, are: Would allowing multilingualism and multiculturalism have prevented Thailand's militant insurgency? Another question is why the Chinese in Indonesia -- in spite of having Indonesian names and speaking Indonesian -- were still singled out as a distinct people in the Jakarta riots?
Likewise, Canada was confronted by Quebec separatists who wanted to establish an independent French-speaking republic. To avoid the secession of Quebec, French was declared additionally an official language in 1969.
Evidence has shown that monoligualism and one-race supremacy has resulted in racial polarization and ethnic conflicts around the world.
Is 'oneness' key to unity?
Integration can never be realised with Malay supremacy being the predominant ideology. When racial discrimination is deeply ingrained in our official education policy, how do we expect ordinary citizens not to propagate 'reverse' racism at interpersonal and social levels?
It is not inaccurate to say that racist connotations are often found at these informal levels. Howeverinstitutionalized racism is the culprit for its creation. Is it thus unfair to blame non-Malays for being unwilling to be assimilated by Malay culture and subjected to religious indoctrination?
But let's look beyond Asean region countries on their experiences. Previously in the United States, the various ethnic groups had tended to live within their own ethnic enclaves but governmental institutions and policies encouraged inter-racial integration through 'bussing' to mixed-race schools following the success of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 60s.
American affirmative action is for its ethnic minorities yet in the truly unique and one-in-the world Malaysia, it is for its dominant majority!
The US has been wrongly quoted as an example of success in monolingualism by Dr Mahatir Mohamad in his book The Malay Dilemma. English was never made an official language by the American constitution whereas attempts to impose English as such had actually failed.
According to the country's 1990 Census, 13.8 percent of US residents speak some non-English language at home. Another 2.9 percent, or 6.7 million people, did not speak English at all, or could not speak it well.
Over there, the Hispanics have fought most earnestly for bilingualism where Spanish has been effectively used as language of instruction in schools together with English. There are even bilingual colleges that use both English and Spanish. This approach has effectively integrated Spanish-speaking Americans into the mainstream.
Moving away from supremist ideology
Dr Mahatir misrepresented English as the only official language, and language of instruction in American schools. There is no actual restriction in the use of any other language of instruction even though usage of English is predominant in schools, government agencies and more importantly as the de facto lingua franca. In the USA, multilingualism has gained ground as the way forward.
Another famously polyglot country Switzerland not only designated four official languages but also mandates funding for development of mother tongue education.
Despite having its four languages, national identity is strong among the Swiss who predominantly regard themselves as Swiss rather than German, French or Italian as per the native languages they speak. Four languages of instruction including English are allowed in schools and up to tertiary level.Multilingualism has contributed to Switzerland's position as a global financial centre.
The Swiss also live in their own ethnic enclaves but cross-interaction is free without any institutionalized racism, unlike the 'nativism' of South African apartheid and the Bumiputera-ism of Umno. Institutionalised racism in official education policy has caused severe brain drain over the years in both apartheid South Africa and Umno-ruled Malaysia.
Malaysian public universities and teacher training colleges do not accept the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) although this A-level equivalent is accepted by universities in other countries. Students who complete their education in the independent Chinese secondary schools are therefore denied the opportunity to converge into Malaysia's mainstream tertiary education system.
Yet these are the very students who are able to integrate themselves into British, Australian, Canadian and American universities. After graduation, they can hold top positions in multinational corporations but ironically, they could not have earned a seat in their own kampung universities earlier.
Therefore any hope of ameliorating our country's severe brain drain lies in a reformed education system, whereby students from vernacular schools are integrated into mainstream public universities.
Monoligualism is a myth
It is a myth that monolingualism promotes integration. South Africa is one example where a monolingual education policy, closely linked to white supremacy, worsened racial animosities.
South Africa's revamped constitution post-apartheid recognizes as many as 11 official languages as well as equitable allocation of funding for mother tongue education, moving the country away from theAfrikaner supremacy of the past.
Multilingualism is shown in many multiethnic countries to ensure integration at all levels of the society. It especially cultivates cultural sensitivity among the majority ethnic group towards the minorities. Ethnic integration can, in fact, take place through any common language but cultural sensitivity must be the pre-requisite for integration in schools and in the wider populace.
In the apartheid regime of South Africa, English and Afrikaans were the only two official languages. The Malay supremacists have taken a leaf from their book with tacit approval of English as the de facto second language and common language in the private sector.
Needless to say, the Malay elites and GLC top professionals are comfortable in English. Former Lord President Mohamad Suffian made it clear that use of other languages in the private sector is allowed. It is the Umno firebrands complaining about Mandarin in the private sector that is going against the spirit of the constitution.
Diversity under threat
The spirit of voluntary integration in the form of universal participation is granted in the federal constitution, which also recognizes the need for a lingua franca, and hence we had the formulation of Article 152. Malay has logically been accepted for official purposes. Nonetheless, the use and learning of other languages are not only permissible, but the state has also to preserve and sustain these endeavours.
The constitutional right of non-Malays to their mother tongues must be translated not only into non-discriminative legislation but also their impartial implementation in the form of affirmative action for the minorities. Legislation alone is not enough to sustain the ideals of promoting integration and diversity if the majority ethnic group refuses to accept co-existence of cultural diversities.
Being the dominant majority in the country, the Malays must also accept that non-Malays would like to learn at their best capacity, and this would be in their mother tongues in school although not at the expense of national language proficiency.
Assimilative language and cultural policies have entrenched the supremacy of the dominant ethnic group. Their worship of the 'one language, one culture, one nation' policy, manifested through discriminative education policy, has understandably turned off non-Malays.
That Chinese and Indian parents have lost confidence in the national schools is patent. But why have they rejected too the Sekolah Wawasan concept of the different language streams grouped under one umbrella in terms of physical location?
In truth, with all that's been going on in national schools and their negative culture and bullying that has come to light, one can hardly blame the non-Malay parents for distrusting the authorities to treat vernacular schools with some decency. They are afraid -- and rightly so -- that once the vernacular schools fall under the influence of the supremacist bureaucracy, Chinese and Indian pupils will suffer discrimination.
Malaysia has been a multiracial society in reality since the Malaccan Sultanate where hundreds of different tongues were used. Malay scholar Munshi Abdullah in his famous work Pelayaran Munshy Abdullah gave a vivid account the multilingual and multicultural Malayan societies in olden times.
Historically speaking, despite Malay having been the lingua franca since the Malaccan Sultanate, it was nonetheless acceptance of diversity that made the entreport a cosmopolitan haven for international traders.
On the other hand, it is the Umno culture of chauvinism and linguistic policies that have made Malays lose the trait of their adventurous ancestors as gifted seafarers and outward-looking travellers.
Malaysians today should view our own diversity as a valued asset rather than a threat to further advance our beloved nation. The Malaccan Sultanate is a good example.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Voters Registration Campaign, a continuous mission for Kedah DAP.吉打民主行动党着重新选民注册运动
This is the 9th month of Chinese calendar and during this month, the Chinese hokkien are celebrating for 9 days, the festival of the Nine Emperor Gods. The Kedah Dap State Committees had decided that dap Voters Registration Team are to continue with our important mission, to register as many young voters as possible by taking this 8 days period, from 8th October to 16th at the Tow Boo Keong Temple at Jalan Gangsa, Alor Setar. The Voters Registration Team are being manage and headed by Sdr. Vincent Chee, the Dap State Assistant Secretary, and we appreciate the team effort. Thanks to him and his team Sdr.Zainal Endot, Sdr. Chow, Sdr.Annie Ng,Sdr. Jason Chiang, Sdr.Beh, Sdr. Ong and others. We also like to thank the temple committees to permit us to do and DAP would like to thank them again for their cooperation and understanding for allowing us to carry on our JOM DAFTAR campaign.
农历九月初一乃九皇大帝圣诞千秋，吉打斗母宫每年都隆重其事盛大庆祝这节日。为了配合此节日吉打民主行动党在斗母宫设有新选民登记柜台，希望菩提大众可以踊跃登记以及咨询。
日期：08-10-2010至16-10-2010
时间：7.00pm至11.00pm
地点：吉打斗母宫
以州副秘书徐伟轩同志为首的选民登记服务队，对于他们的付出本人代表党致万二分的谢意。借此也不忘感谢吉打斗母宫理事会同仁给于的协助与配合。
Monday, October 11, 2010
Penyampaian komputer pada SRJK(Cina) dikawasan Alor Setar
Memang terdapat beberapa buah sekolah rendah jenis kebangsaan cina di kawasan tersebut sangat memerlukan sekurang kurangnya dua set komputer di sekolah berkenaan. Maka saya dengan besar hati menyampaikan sumbangan keperluan ini kepada pengetua beberapa sekolah ini pada 27 Sept 2010 satelah mengetahui sangat meperluan alat berkenaan daripada pihak sekolah sekolah sekolah saperti SRJK(C) di kawasan yang berhampiran, Bandaraya Alor Setar. SRJK(c) yang saya sumbang adalah 1. SRJK(C) Soon Jian, SRJK(C)-S Keat Hwa, SRJK(C)Pei Hwa, SRJK(C)Pei Shih.
于9月27日2010年,本人捐献8台电脑于本坡亚罗士打四间华小,每间华小各获得赠送2台.
为安南武吉循然小学,吉打港口培华小学,佩实小学及吉华(S)校.
目前很多华小都很须要拥有电脑,或其他教材设备以供学生们学习运用,提高教育教学,
加强信息教育.但是华小都必须靠一些热心人士来赞助,不比获得政府全津贴的国民型小学,
其实我们华小应该要获得公平的对待.
为了让孩子们能够掌握更广的科技资讯,本人以真诚及实际行动以议员拨款捐赠这4间华小. #
In demonising PAS, MCA shows it is out of ideas — The Malaysian Insider October 10, 2010
MCA president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek warned the Chinese community today that PAS is likely to go back to its autocratic Islamic stand if Pakatan Rakyat (PR) comes to power.
Heard that before?
Yes it is the spinning of an old MCA record.
The message is that while Umno and MCA are not perfect PAS is worse.
But MCA is now completely missing the plot if they believe the Chinese are spooked by PAS.
In 1999, there was genuine concern of a green tide, the result of a campaign to demonise PAS and paint them as conservative mullahs.
But 11 years ago, Malaysia was a very different country.
Most people in the Chinese community view the arrogance, racism and complete disregard of the rule of law by Umno as much worse sins than anything that PAS can do.
Umno is seen by the Chinese community as the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the country.
The genuine need for reform is being ignored while foreign investors take a pass on Malaysia.
Even Malaysian companies are hedging their bets by moving the focus of their attention overseas.
And it is not just opportunism which sees Malaysians buying up property in London, Sydney and other cities.
With Umno embracing Perkasa, is there a chance that MCA's scare mongering is going to work?
MCA is now being ignored by Umno.
And Dr Chua has little to offer the Chinese community except to appeal to its fears.
But anyone living in Kelantan will tell you that the PAS administration are more tolerant and respectful of the rights of others than in Umno-controlled states.
The fact is that a straw poll of the urban Chinese will confirm one crucial fact: they are more worried about Umno than PAS.
Heard that before?
Yes it is the spinning of an old MCA record.
The message is that while Umno and MCA are not perfect PAS is worse.
But MCA is now completely missing the plot if they believe the Chinese are spooked by PAS.
In 1999, there was genuine concern of a green tide, the result of a campaign to demonise PAS and paint them as conservative mullahs.
But 11 years ago, Malaysia was a very different country.
Most people in the Chinese community view the arrogance, racism and complete disregard of the rule of law by Umno as much worse sins than anything that PAS can do.
Umno is seen by the Chinese community as the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the country.
The genuine need for reform is being ignored while foreign investors take a pass on Malaysia.
Even Malaysian companies are hedging their bets by moving the focus of their attention overseas.
And it is not just opportunism which sees Malaysians buying up property in London, Sydney and other cities.
With Umno embracing Perkasa, is there a chance that MCA's scare mongering is going to work?
MCA is now being ignored by Umno.
And Dr Chua has little to offer the Chinese community except to appeal to its fears.
But anyone living in Kelantan will tell you that the PAS administration are more tolerant and respectful of the rights of others than in Umno-controlled states.
The fact is that a straw poll of the urban Chinese will confirm one crucial fact: they are more worried about Umno than PAS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)