2008年11月16日星期日

好公民温习历史


敦马哈迪截取敦陈修信长篇讲稿的一段,来加强他近期常谈的几个论点,涉及特权、公民权、华校等的“社会契约”。我们身为乖巧公民,当然虚心受教,不忘历史,时时警惕。

敦陈是于22.5.1965在福建会馆大会讲话,是一篇马华向华社邀功的作品。

其实,特权、公民权、华教都不是独立前突然冒出来的东西,而是“古已有之”,即在殖民地时代就有了。

特权:在1948年的马来亚联合邦协定中就有马来人特殊地位的条款。马华的功劳是把那含糊不清的条款谈得比较具体,然后清清楚楚写入宪法153条。

除了宪法所规定,后期出现的名目繁多的东西,如新经济政策下的种种,只是执政党的政策而不是立国社会契约。现实例子之一,是吉打州的“土著房屋固打”任意由30%提高到50%,至今仍争论得火气大。

公民权:殖民地时代已经发出公民权,但由于很多华人参加马共,英政府不悦,收紧政策,在独立前二百万华人只有二十万人获得公民权。马华的功劳是争取到每个人都有份。

不过,众所周知,独立谈判时,是英国人坚持所有华人和印人都必须获公民权,否则不让独立,东姑只好让步。所以,不是什么人对我们特别宽宏大量,恩赐我们什么。但是常常听到有人指责我们不知感恩,如果硬要感恩,要为恩人立生祠的话,供的也应该是约翰牛而不是其他,毕竟是他们把大量华工、印工带出来,让他们尝尽孤苦滋味,临走时总算做了一件功德。当然,马华也有功,敦陈祯禄等代表影响了英政府的态度。

华教:华校历史超过百年,比国家历史长一倍。现在的华校数目,在殖民地时代大体奠定,尤其是1950年代的国内大迁移,建立了几百个新村,一村一校,华校遍地开花。马华在这方面的功劳,是争取到比以前更多的拨款。

百年风雨走来,只见斗士,不见恩人。

敦陈修信是开国元勋的第二代,本身也是党国大员。他不只最了解社会契约,也是一位最遵守游戏规则的人,还有一点无可置疑的,就是他对华文、华教毫无兴趣。

即便如此,他也争取做副首相。他是最资深的阁员不说,最重要的,是他知道那是他的权利,是宪法所允许。但是那些口口声声说社会契约的反而说不可以。

此外,他也曾极力争取把华文列为“官方应用文”。这就表示这么做并不违反社会契约,也不侵犯国语的地位,更不是敏感课题。他没有成功,最大的障碍是狂热的语文极端分子的政治操作,结果他被攻击得很惨,连带东姑也受难。

虽然敦陈没有成功,但是政府在认为有利时仍用上了中文,如招商、旅游的说明书。为了宣传政府的政策,官方电视台也有中文节目。所以,在路牌加上华文字样,何必无理取闹。

宪法也规定马来人在政府奖学金、公务员的聘用有固打制。公务员的比例是41,即每四个马来人配一个非马来人,但有一点很重要,即是“专业职位”不设固打制,所以独立初期,一级公务员包括各部门主管,非巫人多过巫人。

这一点空间多年来不断压缩,如今不知是否还能找到非巫人主管,我们看到的是:即连委任一位华裔出任雪州发展局代总经理也风波不断,甚至上纲上线,祭出什么立国社会契约来唬人。

到底是什么人在颠覆社会契约,真希望有高人出来追究追究。

6 条评论:

liezi--烈子 说...

时至今日,社会契约该是各族平等,和谐融合,民主共生、助贫扶弱;几十年来,华印人民已经让了、帮了、屈了很多很多,也该扯平了。

只能够说,衔在口里的肉谁都不愿意吐出来平分,就有这个理由那个条款,强词夺理。

liezi--烈子 说...

狗照片好恶心!

kok 说...
此评论已被博客管理员删除。
fong 说...

The truth is that the ability of education to bring people together is limited. On top of that, education - at least secular one - is about the pursuit of knowledge and truth, and hence whatever is taught in schools should be based on the truth and reality in order to unite the students.

But when our society is already polarised by the law and other economic realities, and we tell our children otherwise in school, its likely that the unity lessons will never stick for long or even worse result in a backlash.

What is more distressing is the fact that national education policy is only meant for the masses while our political leaders send their children overseas. Can we believe they have faith in our own educational facilities and that they are sincere in wanting the best for us?

In Malaysia, unfairness is institutionalised. For example, it is alright for certain schools or universities like the Universiti Institut Teknologi Mara to bar non-malays.

So it piques me to hear some blaming vernacular schools for racial tensions. Vernacular schools have never barred malays from enrolling into them unlike Mara educational institutions. If vernacular schools are to be blamed, so too must the Mara institutions.

A minister responsible for higher education who can make such inflammatory statements confirms that the so-called meritocracy system of university entrance is a sham, since he was able to promise that the percentage for malay applicants will never fall below the previous quota percentage.

Is he suggesting that we should rejoice over our poor education? Please do not confuse quality with quantity.

I cannot help but think that the politicians have an ulterior motive. If so, please be honest and brave enough to admit it.

With such narrow-minded people in charge, it is difficult to have confidence in any of their suggestions.

When it came to choosing a career, I avoided public services for the fear of being excluded from promotions just like how I was excluded from matriculation etc. Many employers are also very racially defined.

Now, as much as I miss hanging out with people of other races, I end up being with people of my own race.

Looking back, I don't think our primary vernacular system is the cause of disunity. On the contrary, it enriches our Malaysian heritage. The real problems are with the uneven playing fields that split malays and non-malays from secondary school onwards.

Another examples are the Chinese Indonesians. Most of them don't even speak their mother tongue, nor do they even carry Chinese names anymore, yet come any major political turmoil, they are targeted by the majority. Is this due to vernacular education?

The government should be aware of the fact that the number of Chinese schools has not increased over the past 30 years despite the need for them due to increased demand from both Chinese and non-Chinese students.

The diversity of education methods in the country is a national treasure and should be upheld. Unity will come from mutual respect and fair treatment for all - not necessarily from a uniform education.

Whether they will take concrete steps to address the imbalance is another matter for, while I am optimistic about the people of Malaysia, I have very little faith in politicians.

ruyom 说...

Then let me re-quote Lee Kuan Yew:

Singaporean politician Lee Kuan Yew of the PAP, who publicly questioned the need for Article 153 in parliament, and called for a "Malaysian Malaysia".

In a speech, Lee Kuan Yew bemoaned what would later be described as the Malaysia social contract:

"According to history, malays began to migrate to Malaysia in noticeable numbers only about 700 years ago. Of the 39% malays in Malaysia today, about one-third are comparatively new immigrants like the secretary-general of Umno, Dato Syed Jaafar, who came to Malaya from Indonesia just before the war at the age of more than thirty. Therefore it is wrong and illogical for a particular racial group to think that they are more justified to be called Malaysians and that the others can become Malaysians only through their favour."

Eventually, and Singapore became an independent nation in 1965, with Lee Kuan Yew as its first prime minister.

张木钦 说...

liezi,kok,fong,ruyom:

谢谢大家留言分享见解。

我觉得这个课题不要继续讨论了,这不是适当的地方,因为我们的言论自由到底能去到哪里,分寸很难拿捏,似乎是有权力的人说了算。

我们都很理性,说的也是真话,但是在特殊情形下,越是讲真话越会触动敏感神经。

李光耀的马来西亚人的马来西亚,直接冲击到马来亚(不是马来西亚)的建国契约,当然引起熊熊怒火。

我的态度是:宪法上所列明的,我们尊重,但是从那个条款衍生出来没完没了的,就会使我们觉得很难呼吸。