What's just as bad as MARA/Chinese Independent Schools?

[misled_youth]

Why.....

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS

of course!!!

The school where the Menteri Besar's, MP's, Business Men send their children. The school of the elite crap. Those of you who studied in SS15 colleges know what I'm talkiong about.

Look at how Sri KL is CLOGGED with BIG EXPENSIVE CARS during school days. Check out how the kids loiter in Cyber CAfe's during school hours.

Just think - which school did Nori Abdullah (PM's daughter) studied in?

In contrast - Anwar Ibrahim's eldest daughter was a product of SMK.
________
Find headshop (http://headshop.net/)

[Neutral_pH]

they have cash, of course and they want their children to have the " best education" but never heard of any MB or VIP children getting top honours in top unis in world though, despite sending them to these so-called International schools

[DecentMerson]

wait til u see wat Sri Chempaka has to offer...

oh yar... 1 year of tuition at Sri Chempaka cost RM 30+k - RM 40k...
and that's primary school...

[kucingbiru]

look at it this way. they can afford it. so why do they want to burden the govt?

most of them choose to go to school in big expensive cars. so what? it's not the school's fault. what makes u think that they wont do that should they go to public schools?

Why.....

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS

of course!!!

The school where the Menteri Besar's, MP's, Business Men send their children. The school of the elite crap. Those of you who studied in SS15 colleges know what I'm talkiong about.

Look at how Sri KL is CLOGGED with BIG EXPENSIVE CARS during school days. Check out how the kids loiter in Cyber CAfe's during school hours.

Just think - which school did Nori Abdullah (PM's daughter) studied in?

In contrast - Anwar Ibrahim's eldest daughter was a product of SMK.

[Salvation]

i don't think it is worth it.
i would like my children to connect with the average malaysian instead of spending a fortune letting them mingle with rich kids who lives a high consumption liftstye. :)

[kucingbiru]

i don't think it is worth it.
i would like my children to connect with the average malaysian instead of spending a fortune letting them mingle with rich kids who lives a high consumption liftstye. :)

i would do the same too. the problem is some of us are not happy with other people's choice.

[petertok]

kucingbiru , your cat avatar is REAL cute... hehe :lol:

[el_empty]

i think what misled is trying to say, is that the govt should put its money where its word is. if they are asking the public to trust the national education system, then they should have their kids study at the national schools as well - much like how mahathir used to guilt-trip his ministers to drive proton.

this is how bad the MOE wants the malaysian average joe and jane to stay at home in the local schools:

(this is a cached new straits times article)
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:bp6ympPybtQJ:www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Sunday/National/NST32273404.txt/Article/pp_index_html+site:nst.com.my+license+study+abroad&hl=en


NON-OBJECTION certificate - a must for Malaysian students studying overseas. Such students will have to be "licensed" before they can leave Malaysia under a plan by the Higher Education Ministry. The proposal for "non-objection certificates" to be issued by the ministry's Students Welfare Department will help the Government track their whereabouts, Higher Education parliamentary-secretary Dr Adham Baba said.

The certificates will also allow the Government to help students get into the "right" universities, which are those recognised by the Government, he said. Students who insist on studying at non-scheduled universities will not be issued the certificate.

luckily this proposal was shot down. google site:nst.com.my for more
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anst.com.my+license+study+abroad&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

[nwx86]

Could it be that the sylabus taught in International Schools are better than those of government schools? It couldn't be that people spend a bomb on their children's education just to let them mingle with the 'rich children', right?

[topdog]

i think what misled is trying to say, is that the govt should put its money where its word is. if they are asking the public to trust the national education system, then they should have their kids study at the national schools as well
yes.

i don't think it is worth it.
i would like my children to connect with the average malaysian instead of spending a fortune letting them mingle with rich kids who lives a high consumption liftstye. :)

i would do the same too. the problem is some of us are not happy with other people's choice.
while i understand your point about choice, i think dissatisfaction over menteris sending their kids to intl schools is justified. these people are publicly-elected officials... how did they become loaded in the first place? they owe at least some of their riches to political connections... made possible at least in part by the general public.

afak the pm didn't say "we urge you to send your children to national schools unless you're rich and/or a member of the political elite."

[el_empty]

Could it be that the sylabus taught in International Schools are better than those of government schools? It couldn't be that people spend a bomb on their children's education just to let them mingle with the 'rich children', right?

there are two types of int'l/private schools. one that sucks, but takes in whoever who would pay for *some* education since the kid is a dumbo. and the other that's truly good, charging high fees to pay for better facilities, teachers, and management. most schools lie within this spectrum, and it's quite hard to tell which is which.

but i have friends who went to sri cempaka - she said it's awesome, and she's brilliant. another's an excellent medical student in dublin now. so i can say that it's not just the syllabi that draws crowds, but something more tangible and significant, like dedicated teachers, better facilities, and most importanly the ability of the teachers to cut some slack and chill. personally what i disliked about nat'l schools is the patronizing attitude twds students.

and lastly, sometimes parents send their kids to rich schools to mingle with the rich kids. it's unbelievable how parents build their own (and their kids') connections from young.

[proudmsianz]

Why.....

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS
.

HYPOCRISY OF OUR LEADERS!
besies our Prime Minister, deputy Prime Minister Najib has his son Ashman Najib (confirmed 100% accuracy) studying in Garden International School in Kuala Lumpur, too.

The two strongest men in Malaysia have sent their children to international school, yet at the same time they urge all Malaysians to only send their children to Malay medium national schools (SK).

Hence I wonder what would be the rational for the government to criticize National type vernacular schools, which have exactly the same syllabus but only in different medium. Furthermore in vernacular school there are more than 10% (and rising) bumiputras studying there. The same syllabus among different medium of national type schools, ensure the same materials learn by students, and the incresing number of bumiputras in vernacular schools prove that the schools do not promote racial disintegration. Also 90% of vernacular school graduates move on to Malay medium national type secondary school. Would the same be observed in international school graduates? NO! International schools use their own syllabus, students mingle with foreigners mostly, and when they graduate from it they do not move on to National type secondary school!

Also, it is not fair to compare SRJKC with religious school. The former one uses government syllabus, the later one doesn't. The former one accepts student of all religions and races, while the later one confine itself primarily to the study of Islam, hence non-muslim parents is unable to send their children there.

Just look at the satistics: 10% non-Chinese in SRJKC national type Chinese schools, while 0% non-muslims in religious schools. The difference is obvious. Hence illogical to compare the two.

Hence I often wonder why, why the government is always trying to discourage Malaysians from sending their children to vernacular schools, especially since granted by constitution minorities have the rights to study in their mother tongue. Since vernacular school is multiracial and Malaysian in syllabus, there should be no concern of racial segregation. At the same time our leaders happily send their children to International schools, which is actually not national type in syllabus, and only rich people can afford it, hence segregation from the general public.


GARDEN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
NEWSLETTER

25th February 2005

http://www.gardenschool.edu.my/subfolder/news/file/newsletter/webdoc/Word_250205.htm

ISAKL U15 Football Team – South-East Asia Champions

Recently, five boys from GIS represented ISAKL in the South-East Asia Football Tournament in Jakarta. They were Ashman Najib, Ben Goh and Nikesh Chahal for the U15’s and Justen Pang and Carlos Villa for the U13’s. While the U13’s finished third in their age group, the U15’s defeated Singapore 7-0, Jakarta 3-2 and Bangkok 4-2 to win the trophy with Ben Goh finishing top scorer.

[proudmsianz]

i think what misled is trying to say, is that the govt should put its money where its word is. if they are asking the public to trust the national education system, then they should have their kids study at the national schools as well - much like how mahathir used to guilt-trip his ministers to drive proton.

this is how bad the MOE wants the malaysian average joe and jane to stay at home in the local schools:

(this is a cached new straits times article)
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:bp6ympPybtQJ:www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Sunday/National/NST32273404.txt/Article/pp_index_html+site:nst.com.my+license+study+abroad&hl=en


NON-OBJECTION certificate - a must for Malaysian students studying overseas. Such students will have to be "licensed" before they can leave Malaysia under a plan by the Higher Education Ministry. The proposal for "non-objection certificates" to be issued by the ministry's Students Welfare Department will help the Government track their whereabouts, Higher Education parliamentary-secretary Dr Adham Baba said.

The certificates will also allow the Government to help students get into the "right" universities, which are those recognised by the Government, he said. Students who insist on studying at non-scheduled universities will not be issued the certificate.

luckily this proposal was shot down. google site:nst.com.my for more
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anst.com.my+license+study+abroad&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

This is not the first time government is trying to be a big nanny. In 1970s government tried to pass a law saying that only Cambridge certificates holder can study abroad, hence effectively making thousands of non-Cambridge certificate holders unable to get a degree.

If that ridiculous law were passed, Malaysia would have another chapter in the Guiness Book of World Record - the most nanny state in the world.

[kucingbiru]

i think what misled is trying to say, is that the govt should put its money where its word is. if they are asking the public to trust the national education system, then they should have their kids study at the national schools as well - much like how mahathir used to guilt-trip his ministers to drive proton.


while i understand your point about choice, i think dissatisfaction over menteris sending their kids to intl schools is justified. these people are publicly-elected officials... how did they become loaded in the first place? they owe at least some of their riches to political connections... made possible at least in part by the general public.

afak the pm didn't say "we urge you to send your children to national schools unless you're rich and/or a member of the political elite."

the topic is "What's just as bad as MARA/Chinese Independent Schools?", not the problem with ministers sending their kids there, i guess.

[topdog]

the topic is "What's just as bad as MARA/Chinese Independent Schools?", not the problem with ministers sending their kids there, i guess.
but the ministers say that non-mainstream schools (esp vernacular) are a problem what...

Let's get this straight. The vernacular schools are segregated by race, whereas the international/private schools are normally segregated by financial status. Also, very very few Malaysian students are in private schools (something like less than 1%), whereas a significant percentage are in government-funded schools. Whatever your viewpoints, don't confuse the two.

Unless we want a socialist/communist state, we cannot stop the wealthy from sending their kids to whatever private schools they prefer. However, if we envision a stable & sustainable multiracial society, racial segregation starting from a young age is definitely not the way to go.

[kucingbiru]

the topic is "What's just as bad as MARA/Chinese Independent Schools?", not the problem with ministers sending their kids there, i guess.
but the ministers say that non-mainstream schools (esp vernacular) are a problem what...

i guess so. but i was just saying that my response to mislead was right in the topic.

[el_empty]

ok question to you guys

let's say when you have your own kids in future, and you've become quite wealthy for whatever reason.

holding everything else constant, would you send your kiddo to

a) a vernacular school?
b) a private school?
c) an international school?
d) a national public school? (including vision schools)

which is your choice? why?

[lyzzy]

international school - national schools robbed me of extracurricular opportunities that i could have had .... (comparing my friends from international schools as well as american students here)

and they encourage an unhealthy culture of studying for the sake of memorizing and passing exams.

and they only have fans - no air cons... malaysia is so darn hot, instead of putting that money into crappy projects, do something for the sanity of the people!

plus, the product of national schools are people who think that doing a subject like Art is a "waste of time" if you are going to become say, an engineer, you shouldn't do Art.... check the other thread where they are discussing A1s. That's crazy talk - people shouldn't start thinking about specializing so early in their life.
________
Mercedes-Benz F700 (http://www.mercedes-wiki.com/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_F700)

[gonjeng]

that depends... if imy kid have access (transportation-wise) to all four schools, then it depends on which school performs better and has lesser dicipline issue. as some points which were brought up here, some international school suxx whereas some dont. the same goes for the rest of the schools. unless all of them are equally strong, heh its time to main dadu kot :) or maybe go for the cheaper school (why spend more on sth when you can get the same by spending less :P)

heh lyzzy, crazy talk ay? i believe you mean crazy from your point of view, but not from others :) ppl think differently, but that doesnt mean they are crazy :) and heh, not ALL products of national school, or whatever school, are the same. there are some kids who choose to see things differently :)

[theT]

I would send my kid to a preppy school.

why? coz the teachers and the school would be so anal thinking they're the best in the whole wide world. Then, my kid gonna be those little rascal; and I will stand behind him. Try to put the teachers down. I'm so mean... Well, all the time since pre-school I had to face with principals, disciplines teachers and just any other teachers because I'm different. My parents were never behind me; I will never let that happen to my kid. He's gonna be a spoilt kid, but at least he gonna recognized his individuality, and not to feel bad about it.

[lyzzy]

heh lyzzy, crazy talk ay? i believe you mean crazy from your point of view, but not from others :) ppl think differently, but that doesnt mean they are crazy :) and heh, not ALL products of national school, or whatever school, are the same. there are some kids who choose to see things differently :)

Actually, no. I believe that a lot of experts (not to mention the general opinion) mention that secondary school (or high school ) years should be a time to explore different subjects - specializing so early narrows the mindset, and makes them less attractive for job employers. Maybe people might think like that now, but if they were given a chance to be educated differently (instead of pure memorization), they will think differently.
________
Aprilia RS250 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Aprilia_RS250)

[misled_youth]

Let's get this straight. The vernacular schools are segregated by race, whereas the international/private schools are normally segregated by financial status. Also, very very few Malaysian students are in private schools (something like less than 1%), whereas a significant percentage are in government-funded schools. Whatever your viewpoints, don't confuse the two.

That is besides the point.

What I'm trying to bring up is as follows:

1. Our MP's/MB's et al. feel INTERNATIONAL schools give their children better education

2. What kind of message are they sending out? That only the rich get the best in education?

3. Are our leaders (Najib included) saying that the education system is CRAP? Then we... the proletariat are merely left with the scraps?

*ptui!
________
VAPORIZER VIDOES (http://vaporizers.tv/)

[misled_youth]

the topic is "What's just as bad as MARA/Chinese Independent Schools?", not the problem with ministers sending their kids there, i guess.

Screw the topic lah... let discussion flow!
________
California Dispensary (http://california.dispensaries.org/)

[Salvation]

ok question to you guys

let's say when you have your own kids in future, and you've become quite wealthy for whatever reason.

holding everything else constant, would you send your kiddo to

a) a vernacular school?
b) a private school?
c) an international school?
d) a national public school? (including vision schools)

which is your choice? why?

Frankly, international school. IMO it would be a good place for him/her to get a wider perspective of life. From what I hear, kids there have a better opportunity to participate in lots of international events, provided you have the finance. About ministers sending their kids to international school, we can't blame them can we? After all, parents want the best for their children. haha, even Michael Moore's 911farenheight also showed in a segment in which only 1 out of the few hundred congressman have their kids in the army while they where busy encouraging the public to join.

[profmich]

1st choice: International school
2nd choice: Private school

Why?

These schools often have better teachers/facilities/extracurricular activities. Students are given a better chance to experience life as opposed to their conterparts in national schools. As has been said by other recomers in earlier posts, these teachers are often of higher standards (as the school would not want their reputation to be at stake) and offer more collaboration with parents.

Facilities are also way better than national schools. Think about a library that is well stocked with the latest periodicals and books versus the Ladybird's Peter and Jane Series in secondary schools (yes, my secondary school actually had a set of those)!!!

It is sad, but true. International/private schools win hands down.

[profmich]

A side note though, Malaysians are actually NOT allowed to send their kids to international schools, unless they have been abroad of a certain number of years and can't adapt into the national system and one or both of the kid's parents is an expatriate.

Saw this in the Star newspaper some time ago and I think MoE's website has a section on this. Will post it here once I found it.

[kucingbiru]

the topic is "What's just as bad as MARA/Chinese Independent Schools?", not the problem with ministers sending their kids there, i guess.

Screw the topic lah... let discussion flow!

screw u for not being aware of what happened.

ok i donno how to delete this msg. i dont wanna fight.

[proudmsianz]

Let's get this straight. The vernacular schools are segregated by race, whereas the international/private schools are normally segregated by financial status. Also, very very few Malaysian students are in private schools (something like less than 1%), whereas a significant percentage are in government-funded schools. Whatever your viewpoints, don't confuse the two.


Actually vernacular schools nowadays are multiracial, hence do not qualify the term "segregated". The only difference between Malay medium schools (SK), Chinese medium schools (SJKC) and Tamil medium schools (SJKT) is the medium of instruction they use. All three of them share the same syllabus. In fact all three of them are called "National type schools". In Sabah 40% of students from Chinese medium vernacular school are bumiputras. In many case vernacular schools appear to be segregated because of the racial composition of where they locate.

Also, there is no regulations that say "only Chinese can study in SJKC or only Indians can study in SJKT. There is no quota whatsoever in vernacular (Chinese) schools. However, in some Malay medium government schools, quota is given to Malay and some non-Malays who live next to the school cannot study in those controlled schools. Not all of them are like this, thankfully.

Malaysians are more open-minded than you might have known. In the past when English medium schools existed, many parents, Malays or Chinese, sent their children there. Even if the schools were affiliated with Christian missionary, many Malay parents still sent their children there. Our beloved Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi is a good example: he studied at Methodist Boy School in Penang when he was young. Now the same reasoning is true for Chinese medium schools (SJKC) or Malay medium schools (SK), parents regarless of race send their children to the one they think it is the best.


Unless we want a socialist/communist state, we cannot stop the wealthy from sending their kids to whatever private schools they prefer. However, if we envision a stable & sustainable multiracial society, racial segregation starting from a young age is definitely not the way to go.

The reverse is true: Unless we want a socialist/communist state, we cannot stop minorities from building more schools for their kids to study their mother tongue. Currently in many urban areas there is an increasing shortage of National type Chinese schools, partly because of population increase and also because more and more non-Chinese are sending their kids there.

[__earth]

Actually vernacular schools nowadays are multiracial, hence do not qualify the term "segregated". The only difference between Malay medium schools (SK), Chinese medium schools (SJKC) and Tamil medium schools (SJKT) is the medium of instruction they use.

Since MRSM and some other traditionally all-Bumi schools now allows a fractions of non-bumiputra to enter, then those schools are effectively the same as SRJ. Don't you agree?

As such, if that reason is to stand, these traditionally all-Bumi schools should stand too, regardless how miniscule the fraction of non-Bumi is.

In Sabah 40% of students from Chinese medium vernacular school are bumiputras. In many case vernacular schools appear to be segregated because of the racial composition of where they locate.

FYI, in east Malaysia, some of Chinese are called Bumiputra too. The composition of Bumi in east Malaysia is different from west Malaysia composition. So, it wouldn't be surprising seeing a high percentage of Bumi in east Malaysia


Unless we want a socialist/communist state, we cannot stop the wealthy from sending their kids to whatever private schools they prefer. However, if we envision a stable & sustainable multiracial society, racial segregation starting from a young age is definitely not the way to go.

The reverse is true: Unless we want a socialist/communist state, we cannot stop minorities from building more schools for their kids to study their mother tongue

While the reverse might be true, it does not affect the argument.

The argument here, the govt should not support a special type of school. Instead, it should support a common system. The minorities may build more school of their choice but without support from the government. Notice, nowhere it is said that the government should prevent the establishment of privately own institutions.

What ppl like me wants here is for all public schools to be a common school in a common system. Vernacular can exists but funding for it must not come from the government since it is not the common system. The government should care all of its citizens equally, regardless of skin or language.

Cmon, if we allow this to continue, it will be bad. Already, we have an-MCA sponsored varsity and soon, we should have an-MIC sponsored varsity. Is that what we really what - race-based varsity? And dont forget, UiTM.

Of course, you can say, there is no quota for entering UTAR (MCA-supported varsity) but that does not refute the fact that MCA supported the varsity for the sake of the Chinese.

[Salvation]

You are missing the point. The argument here, the govt should not support a special type of school. Instead, it should support a common system. The minorities may build more school of their choice but without support from the government.

The problem now is that non-Malays in Malaysia do not trust the Kementrian Pendidikan to have the "common school". I don't know about what Indians generally feel, but Chinese people strongly felt that Chinese SRJK is a foundation and basis of the Chinese culture, so no way they are letting them go for a "common school", since "common school" usually means "Malay school" where Chinese language is not of importance at all. (at least what most of the chinese I know thinks) Since now vernacular school has the same syllabus as the national school, and also have a significant number of bumis (10%?) why not just adopt them as our national school and fully fund them?(politics...) By denying them funds they actually deny a portion of Malaysian their opportunity to have the best education facillities.
thats my 0.00002 sens.

[proudmsianz]

Since MRSM and some other traditionally all-Bumi schools now allows a fractions of non-bumiputra to enter, then those schools are effectively the same as SRJ. Don't you agree? As such, if that reason is to stand, these traditionally all-Bumi schools should stand too, regardless how miniscule the fraction of non-Bumi is.

The striking difference is: there is no quota in Chinese medium natioinal type schools! Even the private Chinese Independence Secondary Schools do not have quota. Saying a 10% quota for non-Malays in MARA & many secondary schools is another way of saying 90% quota for bumiputras. Vernacular school is non-exclusive; i.e. anobody, regarless of race can enter, but not true for MRSM.

Just to clarify a bit, I DO NOT oppose the existence of MRSM or other special schools created for bumiputras, since this is MALAY SPECIAL RIGHTS guaranteed under our constitution or kontrak sosial. Just to make it clear I am perfectly fine with MALAY SPECIAL RIGHTS, hence MRSM rights to admit exclusively bumiputras or 90% bumiputras, I have no objection. The government initially only admited 100% bumiputras in those special institution created for bumiputras but quickly realize that this is bad for racial interaction, particular at the ages when the students are making life long friends while stepping into society. So a 10% quota is imposed on those schools, for the purpose of racial interaction.

I think the purpose of mislead_youth brought up the issue of MRSM is because of government (or rather some UMNO members) opposition towards vernacular schools on the basis of racial segregation. The truth is, however, in vernacular schools there are people from different races at a ratio as high as or more than (and increasing) MRSM. It would be hypocrictic for the government to condemn vernacular school for causing racial segregation while approving MRSM, since in both schools students have about the same level of racial interaction. Malays do have special rights to build MRSM with government funding but that does not mean that UMNO politicians can criticize the vernacular schools unfairly by ignoring the fact that MRSM are in the boat. This would be called hypocrisy.



FYI, in east Malaysia, some of Chinese are called Bumiputra too. The composition of Bumi in east Malaysia is different from west Malaysia composition. So, it wouldn't be surprising seeing a high percentage of Bumi in east Malaysia. What ppl like me wants here is for all public schools to be a common school in a common system. Vernacular can exists but funding for it must not come from the government since it is not the common system. The government should care all of its citizens equally, regardless of skin or language.

Actually I realize the fact that some Chinese in East Malaysia are called bumiputras, but those Chinese are of minority among the Chinese. Usually they have Kadazan or other bumiputras partial ancestry. I was merely quoting Sabah vernacular school because I saw the satistics a day before. The truth is the same for Chinese medium National type schools in West Malaysia, in places where ethnic Chinese make up only a small percentage of the local population, Chinese medium National type school often have more non-Chinese students than Chinese students. In urban areas where ethnic Chinese made up of a major percentage, naturally SJKC have more percentage of Chinese students and less percentage of non-Chinese. The increasing trend of non-Chinese seding their children to SJKC is happening right now, hence there is more and more racial integration in SJKC.

While the reverse might be true, it does not affect the argument.
The argument here, the govt should not support a special type of school. Instead, it should support a common system. The minorities may build more school of their choice but without support from the government. Notice, nowhere it is said that the government should prevent the establishment of privately own institutions.

By your definition, the "common system" means only Malay-medium National type school (SK). Hence your saying that the government should only support Malay medium National type school (SK), but NOT other national type schools like SJKC & SJKT which use exactly the same syllabus but different medium of instruction. By your argumment, the minorities should finance their own education solely, without any help from the government, even though they pay the same taxes as other Malaysians. While the majority - Malays - should be the only one receiving government funding to build and support Malay medium schools (SK), so-called "common system".

Actually before moving on, I should first clarify the concept of "common system" your brought up. Your definition of "common system" does nothing but only to distinguist the medium of instruction used. Your definition of "common system" only excludes all languages other than Malay languages. Accept it or not, Chinese and Tamil medium National type schools are in fact already belonging to the so-called "common system". Before independence, all vernacular schools like Malay medium, Chinese medium and Tamil medium have different syllabi. Most of them are funded by their own communities, though Malay school generally receive some aids from state and colonial government. After Malaysia achived its independence, the government unified different vernacular schools under one National or "common" syllabus, hence the name National type Chinese and Tamil schools. Since then there is no "independent" or "non-National type" Chinese or Tamil primary schools. All of them were "nationalized" or "commonized" and come under the control of Ministry of Education directly in terms of its syllabus, examination and teaching. All three Malay, Chinese and Tamil vernacular schools are, in fact, united and belong the the "common system" or national type.

Hence I dispute your definition of "common system" that include only Malay medium National type schools. Chinese and Tamil medium national type schools are in fact belonging to the "common system" too. To suggest not so is to ignore the effort that our government has done to unify them under one syllabus. They are not "privately owned" institutions as you might have suggested. They belong to the family of National type schools and your "common system". There is currently NO privately or non-National type Chinese medium primary school in Malaysia.

Suggesting that the government not to support non-Malay medium National type schools is equivalent to taking a step backwards, a deadly mistake should it be made, as it would disunite our education system, and unfair to the minorities who pay the same amount of taxes. Note that I am talking only about basic education (primary school), a fundamental right that people have and it is the government resposibility to take care of it. Furthermore non-Malay medium National schools have exactly the same syllabus and racial interation. Higher education is a priviledge, not a fundamental right, and for that I fully respect the government decision to give preference to the support of special institution like MRSM which have the Malays in mind when created. But when talking about basic education like National type primary schools, ragardless of medium, the government should take action (and it clearly does) to support them.

Hence comparing higher education like MRSM　here with basic education like non-Malay medium National type primary schools in this regard, is both unfair and improper.

Cmon, if we allow this to continue, it will be bad. Already, we have an-MCA sponsored varsity and soon, we should have an-MIC sponsored varsity. Is that what we really what - race-based varsity? And dont forget, UiTM.

Actually MIC varsity already exists. It is a twinning medical college located in Kedah. Like Rahman college it does not have any quota (unlike MRSM), since they do not cater only specific gruop in mind. Everybody regardless of race is welcomed, no quota.
Furthermore they are still very expensive for most people, unlike MRSM. A lot of parents (non-Malays) are selling houses, withdrawing EPF, saving, just to let their children to receive Tertiary education. Rahman and local private colleges are still very expensive, unlike MRSM that receive full government support.

Of course, you can say, there is no quota for entering UTAR (MCA-supported varsity) but that does not refute the fact that MCA supported the varsity for the sake of the Chinese.

Rahman started in 70s when the government introduced quota system in local public universities. A lot of previously qualified non-Malays are suddenly finding themselves unable to attain tertiary education. We are talking about a time when there was few (or zero) of private colleges, and studying abroad was (and still is) financially impossible for most non-Malays. At the same time there are many fully government support MARA colleges that are EXCLUSIVELY for the Malays. Understanding the dilemma faced by non-Malays, the MCA supported the initiative to start Rahman college, which provides many non-Malays the chance to get a diploma.

The fact that Rahman college has no quota but still little Malays are studying there shows that Malays DO NOT need Rahman college. WHY? Malays already have the priviledge to attend cheap (or free?) MARA University that fully sponsored by the government, and with a quota of 90% reserved for them. Hence there would be NO reason for most Malays to study in a college that is relatively EXPENSIVE, while MARA University exists.

(Despite suport from MCA, Rahman still cost a fortune to most non-Malay family, unlike MARA University )

Again, just because I lament about how much non-Malays have to pay for tertiary education, this doesn't mean that I oppose the existence of MRSM or Mara University. Those are the special rights granted to the Malay by the constitution.

[proudmsianz]

You are missing the point. The argument here, the govt should not support a special type of school. Instead, it should support a common system. The minorities may build more school of their choice but without support from the government.

The problem now is that non-Malays in Malaysia do not trust the Kementrian Pendidikan to have the "common school". I don't know about what Indians generally feel, but Chinese people strongly felt that Chinese SRJK is a foundation and basis of the Chinese culture, so no way they are letting them go for a "common school", since "common school" usually means "Malay school" where Chinese language is not of importance at all. (at least what most of the chinese I know thinks) Since now vernacular school has the same syllabus as the national school, and also have a significant number of bumis (10%?) why not just adopt them as our national school and fully fund them?(politics...) By denying them funds they actually deny a portion of Malaysian their opportunity to have the best education facillities.
thats my 0.00002 sens.

The reason of Chiense people distrust for Minitry of Education is because of a report written:

Razak Education report of 1956 which states that “…the ultimate objective of educational policy in this country must be to bring together the children of all races, under a national educational system in which the national language is the main medium of instruction…”

Though the constitution guarenteed minorities right to have vernacular education, this Razak Education report has never been abandoned and has been made into a law in 1961. The Education Act 1961, particularly caluse 21(b) stated that the Education Minister has the power to change the language of instruction in primary schools from English, Mandarin or Tamil to Malay.

This controversial and unconstitutional Act has never been abolished or modified since then. It is a time bomb ticking, threathening the right of minorities to receive vernacular education anytime in the future.

This "ultimate objective" was clear when the government converted Chinese medium secondary schools into Malay medium in 1966. Since then, there is no more Chinese medium National type secondary schools, those so-called Chinese National School (SMJKC) uses Malay as medium of instruction. MCA Deputy President Tan Sri Lee Siok Yew publicly apologized to Malaysian Chinese in year 2000 for his role in that conversion. He claimed to be misled in 1966. Thi

Until now, 800 out of 1200 of Malaysian Chinese medium National type primary schools are only partially subsidised by the government. The government's rational for not fully subsidizing those 800 schools is that the government do not own the land and building of those schools, which instead are owned by Chinese community in general. The Chinese community is willing to pay an additional "tax" to its own community in order to support 800 of these Chinese medium primary schools, because of the not unfounded fear that the government will one day fully converts all government-owned fully subsidized Chinese medium primary schools into Malay medium.

Hence come the opposition toward Vision School project, because if this project succeed, the government would gradually move ALL Chinese medium national type schools into land and buildings owned by the government, hence becoming a school fully owned by the government. Hence when Education Act 1961 is implemented, BOOM, doomsday for Chinese medium primary schools in Malaysia.

If the government is sincere in treating the minorities fairly, as granted by the constitution, the Education Act 1961 should be abolished.

I hope from the thread I wrote everyone can have a better understanding of the situation that Chinese eduation are facing. It may be soporific because it contains a lot of history, but one has to understand the past in order to better understand the present.

Thank you for your patience. Thank you.

[__earth]

FYI, in east Malaysia, some of Chinese are called Bumiputra too. The composition of Bumi in east Malaysia is different from west Malaysia composition. So, it wouldn't be surprising seeing a high percentage of Bumi in east Malaysia.

Actually I realize the fact that some Chinese in East Malaysia are called bumiputras, but those Chinese are of minority among the Chinese. Usually they have Kadazan or other bumiputras partial ancestry. I was merely quoting Sabah vernacular school because I saw the satistics a day before.

Then you shouldn't have used that stats. It's misleading to those that don't know the true reason why Sabah has 40% Bumiputra in SRJ. Benjamin Disraeli once said, "there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."

By your definition, the "common system" means only Malay-medium National type school (SK). Hence your saying that the government should only support Malay medium National type school (SK), but NOT other national type schools like SJKC & SJKT which use exactly the same syllabus but different medium of instruction. By your argumment, the minorities should finance their own education solely, without any help from the government, even though they pay the same taxes as other Malaysians. While the majority - Malays - should be the only one receiving government funding to build and support Malay medium schools (SK), so-called "common system".

I'm not saying the minorities should finance their own education (actually, im more of a libertarian and thinks everybody should finance their own education instead of depending on welfare but i dont think that will work in Malaysia given a lot of ppl in Malaysia prefer welfare state).

Any Malaysian should be able to enjoy education in the common system. Equal benefit for all - no government-supported school specially for the Malays, the Chinese, the Indian or any other denomination; just for Malaysians. If the common system is imperfect to one's needs, then one should work the common system out with the society, not by asking the government to give them special treatment instead.

After Malaysia achived its independence, the government unified different vernacular schools under one National or "common" syllabus, hence the name National type Chinese and Tamil schools.

It's unified by name only and it is essentially what it was during the colonial era. If it were really unified, we all should be under one roof now. Apparently, well into the 21st century, we are still running a colonial legacy system.

To suggest not so is to ignore the effort that our government has done to unify them under one syllabus.

I don't necessarily accept that premise. But, for the sake of the argument, may I add, to accept so is to accept racism. Which one do you prefer? Ignore the effort or accept racist system?

Suggesting that the government not to support non-Malay medium National type schools is equivalent to taking a step backwards, a deadly mistake should it be made, as it would disunite our education system, and unfair to the minorities who pay the same amount of taxes.

To support vernacular system is to go back in time during the British outmoded education system. Really, we are still stuck in the pre-independence mentality whenever it comes to education system.

To abolish state-supported vernacular is to move forward in time. In fact, if you look at modern states like those in the EU or the US, it's hard to find a state-supported race-based system. Even affirmavite actions is being challenged fiercely in the US.

We are in 2005, not in 1957. Next year, it will be 2006, not 2004. How does moving forward in time is taking a step backward?

Note that I am talking only about basic education (primary school), a fundamental right that people have and it is the government resposibility to take care of it. Furthermore non-Malay medium National schools have exactly the same syllabus and racial interation. Higher education is a priviledge, not a fundamental right, and for that I fully respect the government decision to give preference to the support of special institution like MRSM which have the Malays in mind when created. But when talking about basic education like National type primary schools, ragardless of medium, the government should take action (and it clearly does) to support them.

This issue is part of affirmative action is Malaysia. And affirmative action is Malaysia is race-based and hence, it's racist. Again, affirmative action should be socioeconomically based.

Hence comparing higher education like MRSM　here with basic education like non-Malay medium National type primary schools in this regard, is both unfair and improper.

It is relevant to the topic at hand. Look at the larger picture. If we continue to create race-based education system, the goal of achieving a race-blind society is impossible and therefore, the ideal of equality is unattainable. Education is one of the keys in creating a fairer society.

In Malaysia, the system is anything but fair. It is racist to say the least.

Those are the special rights granted to the Malay by the constitution.

Just because its enshrined in the constitution doesnt mean its right. South Africa some decades ago had an aparteid constitution but does that make it right?

[digimushu]

As a product of a national school(convent but nonetheless national), I am proud to say that I will send my kids(if i ever do have any) to the same school. I grew up having a Malay as my best friend, and we would often do stuff together with other Dayak and Tamil friends. IMHO, this was the event that shaped my perspective of the world around me, the event that made me colorblind. The time we spend playing football in the rain, or catching grasshoppers in the school field is always going to be the happiest times of my life. The clubs we joined, and the competitions we entered as a combination of multiracial teams to represent our school has always proven that all of us has never seen the color of the skin as a barrier to our friendship. As far as learning chinese is concerned, our school has a saturday morning program for students who are interested in learning how to converse in chinese, and read and write in chinese, and I must say, i enjoy taking that class, together with my bumiputera friends.

My parents on the other hand, are two products of a separate system. My mother was a product of vernacular school, and although she has tried to learn BM to communicate in the market, she rarely mixes with anyone of the other races. My father on the other hand, is a product of precolonial british system, always believing in the separation of the races. Consequently, he also has few non-chinese friends. What is the point of this paragraph? It is the proof that if we continue to adopt the system that will divide and conquer ourselves, we will never be Malaysians.

Hasn't anyone noticed, every once in a while, a racially provocative statement would be made by UMNO, MCA or MIC, causing some divide between the races, and then the issue will just disappear? The BN component parties, every once in a while, has to throw something on the table that will divide the races, in order to garner support for their racially based parties and thus maintaining the status quo. We are all being divided and conquered, every single day.

I see this SRJK thing as something similar to suqiu and other things that have been thrown into the faces of the people to obfuscate the real truth. Racial politics is something that has split our country from end to end.

In Sarawak, most SRJK schools(esp the chung hua schools) are private schools, where most of the money come from the alumni and the parents. My sister was a temporary teacher in one of them and i really cant comment too much on the quality of education there.

I believe that we should start by merging the schools, so that our kids will learn to be colorblind and see that the future of Malaysia does not lie in dividing and conquering amongst themselves.

[USSDefiantNX74205]

Assuming we do implement a common system with no vernacular schools, what would be the common language of instruction then? Malay? Then the system would be accused of favoring the Malays and stiffling the non-Malays. Chinese or Tamil? I can't see that happening.

The biggest obstacle in implementing a single system would be to convince people that it will favor no single race nor ignore any. This system would have to be able to bring the various races together without compromising the culture, language and identity of any race, since a single Malaysian race would be the sum of the cultures, languages and identities of every race in the country.

[tree007]

Assuming we do implement a common system with no vernacular schools, what would be the common language of instruction then? Malay? Then the system would be accused of favoring the Malays and stiffling the non-Malays. Chinese or Tamil? I can't see that happening.


our national language is after all~ BM.. so~......... n furthermore, we ARE living in MALAYsia~..... so~..........

i dunno~.. i just feel that if the language of instruction becomes a BIG issue~.. then... single system would be~... tough~.....

[el_empty]

Assuming we do implement a common system with no vernacular schools, what would be the common language of instruction then?

english

malay as a compulsory additional language.

[proudmsianz]

Actually I realize the fact that some Chinese in East Malaysia are called bumiputras, but those Chinese are of minority among the Chinese. Usually they have Kadazan or other bumiputras partial ancestry. I was merely quoting Sabah vernacular school because I saw the satistics a day before.

Then you shouldn't have used that stats. It's misleading to those that don't know the true reason why Sabah has 40% Bumiputra in SRJ. Benjamin Disraeli once said, "there are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."

By your definition, the "common system" means only Malay-medium National type school (SK). Hence your saying that the government should only support Malay medium National type school (SK), but NOT other national type schools like SJKC & SJKT which use exactly the same syllabus but different medium of instruction. By your argumment, the minorities should finance their own education solely, without any help from the government, even though they pay the same taxes as other Malaysians. While the majority - Malays - should be the only one receiving government funding to build and support Malay medium schools (SK), so-called "common system".

I'm not saying the minorities should finance their own education (actually, im more of a libertarian and thinks everybody should finance their own education instead of depending on welfare but i dont think that will work in Malaysia given a lot of ppl in Malaysia prefer welfare state).

Any Malaysian should be able to enjoy education in the common system. Equal benefit for all - no government-supported school specially for the Malays, the Chinese, the Indian or any other denomination; just for Malaysians. If the common system is imperfect to one's needs, then one should work the common system out with the society, not by asking the government to give them special treatment instead.

After Malaysia achived its independence, the government unified different vernacular schools under one National or "common" syllabus, hence the name National type Chinese and Tamil schools.

It's unified by name only and it is essentially what it was during the colonial era. If it were really unified, we all should be under one roof now. Apparently, well into the 21st century, we are still running a colonial legacy system.

To suggest not so is to ignore the effort that our government has done to unify them under one syllabus.

I don't necessarily accept that premise. But, for the sake of the argument, may I add, to accept so is to accept racism. Which one do you prefer? Ignore the effort or accept racist system?

Suggesting that the government not to support non-Malay medium National type schools is equivalent to taking a step backwards, a deadly mistake should it be made, as it would disunite our education system, and unfair to the minorities who pay the same amount of taxes.

To support vernacular system is to go back in time during the British outmoded education system. Really, we are still stuck in the pre-independence mentality whenever it comes to education system.

To abolish state-supported vernacular is to move forward in time. In fact, if you look at modern states like those in the EU or the US, it's hard to find a state-supported race-based system. Even affirmavite actions is being challenged fiercely in the US.

We are in 2005, not in 1957. Next year, it will be 2006, not 2004. How does moving forward in time is taking a step backward?

Note that I am talking only about basic education (primary school), a fundamental right that people have and it is the government resposibility to take care of it. Furthermore non-Malay medium National schools have exactly the same syllabus and racial interation. Higher education is a priviledge, not a fundamental right, and for that I fully respect the government decision to give preference to the support of special institution like MRSM which have the Malays in mind when created. But when talking about basic education like National type primary schools, ragardless of medium, the government should take action (and it clearly does) to support them.

This issue is part of affirmative action is Malaysia. And affirmative action is Malaysia is race-based and hence, it's racist. Again, affirmative action should be socioeconomically based.

Hence comparing higher education like MRSM　here with basic education like non-Malay medium National type primary schools in this regard, is both unfair and improper.

It is relevant to the topic at hand. Look at the larger picture. If we continue to create race-based education system, the goal of achieving a race-blind society is impossible and therefore, the ideal of equality is unattainable. Education is one of the keys in creating a fairer society.

In Malaysia, the system is anything but fair. It is racist to say the least.

Those are the special rights granted to the Malay by the constitution.

Just because its enshrined in the constitution doesnt mean its right. South Africa some decades ago had an aparteid constitution but does that make it right?

Your so-called "common system" or SK is actually Malay vernacular school, since its medium is in Malay (definition of vernacular). If government only sponsors SK (Malay vernacular school), it is actually giving special support to Malays. Hence your statment "no government-supported school specially for the Malays" is not correct.

Were you hinting that I am a lier for quoting that figure about Sabah vernacular education? Perhaps you should prove that how many percent of Chinese in Sabah are bumiputras, before disputing the satistics I present. I doubt Chinese bumiputras would be significant. Still, I like that particular quotation. It is so catchy.

Frankly I am quite surprised, or actually shocked, by your comparision of Arpatheid and Malay Special Rights in your last paragraph. This claim is even too far-fetched for me, as a Malaysian Chinese. Are you a Malay?

A raceblind society is not possible here because Malaysia is a multiracial country. A multicultural country can never be raceblind, since different groups have its own identity and uniqueness, which cannot be just simply ignored. In the some Western countries vernacular schools are rare because of White supremacy in the past, racial discrimination, fasicm, and also the fact that countries in Europe is pretty much divided according to race, hence they are unlike multiracial Malaysia.

Actually if you look carefully, many countries have vernacular schools, expecially in Switzerland, Canada, India e.t.c. Many nations who have significant minorities have vernacular education and this doesn't mean they are less unite or polarized.

Your idea of one system for all is the old assimilitionist idea, similar to the notorious White Australia policy before 1970s. In today's globalized era, diversity is celebrated and promoted, not assimilation.

You said that Affirmative Action is a racist action. Are you an opponent of New Economic Policy? Also to create the utopic equality no group can have special rights, otherwise it won't be a race-blind society. Are you opposing Malay Special Right in this regard?

Also, I think your "libertarian" idea (thinks everybody should finance their own education instead of depending on welfare) is idealistic but impractical. Just name a country that does not support or subsidize its basic education. Actually I have the answer: NEGARA TAKDA.

Chinese schools have existed for 180 years in this country. It has the seniority and also without it Chinese society in Malaysia cannot sustain. Furthermore in the Malay medium primary school there is no proper time slots to teach Chinese language. This is actually the REAL cause of many Chinese parents unwilling to send their children into Malay medium primary school, as Chinese is a difficult language that requires formal education to master.

It is easy for you to say that SK is the school for all races. However, keep in mine that SK is also a type of vernacular school - Malay vernacular school, by the definition of vernacular (language of instruction used). Ethnic Malays would have no difficulty in enrolling their children into the so-called "common system", or SK, because SK is really a Malay vernacular school. The fact that there is no differences between SK and SJKC, SRKT except language medium proves that SK and SJKC, SJKT are fundamentally the same national type, except the medium used.

Also, do not try to again comparing religious schools with SJKC or SJKT. Malays have already got their vernacular school (SK) taken care of by the government, hence Malays have the time to worry about religious school. IF Chinese schools were given the same treatment as the Malay medium national type schools (SK), Chinese community might have also ask for government to support Christianity or Buddhist religious school, like their Malay counterparts. Remember that Malay community is a step forward in this regard!

Try to imagine the sensitivity of non-Malays, they are asked to abandon their own vernacular school, and enroll in Malay vernacular school (with the name changed to SK), under the namesake "raceless society". This is called discrimination. Why the Malays can have Malay medium schools dubbed SK, but minorities cannot have their own vernacular schools?

The constitution gives Malays Special Right but that doesn't mean the right to make the minorities abandoning their language, which transmitted trough vernacular schools.

Of course I am saying the above as a response to your "one system" utopia. Thailand, Indonesia have used it to convert or abolish minorities vernacular schools, and now they realize how wrong it was by destroying diversity. Since then Chinese medium university (currently the only one in SEA) has been built in Thailand. More and more Chinese schools are opened again in Indonesia since the racist notion of "one system for all" has clearly proven itself to be chavinist manifesto of the dominant group tyring to belittle the culture of the minorities.

Of course, I thankful to God for being a Malaysian. I am thankful to God that I live in a country where minorities right are taken care of.

True equality and racial harmony cannot be achieved by discrimination. Asking Chinese and Indian community to abandon their vernacular education in favor of Malay vernacular school (SK), does not work towards racial harmony or your race-blind idealistic society. It wouldn't be called "fair" if the minorities are coerced, through regulations or limiting financial support, to abandon their vernacular schools that are guarenteed by UN Human Rights and our sacred constitution. True, the system in Malaysia is not fair, if you read my above sentences carefully. Racist it would be to suggest that minorities in Malaysia to abandon their mother tongue education, in favor of the dominant group language.

In the end, the government could easily use three words: MALAY SPECIAL RIGHTS to justify the government preference over Malay vernacular school (SK) as the "common system"; ignoring the need of minorities to have their own means to preserve their language and culture - vernacular school just like ethnic Malays have (SK). However, keep in mind that MALAY SPECIAL RIGHTS comes with the social contact, which guarentee minorities the right to receive mother tongue education.

(I am talking generally here about the current situation, not about what you would say, because you says that you do not believe in Special Right, am I right?)

Equality comes with mutual respect. Your "common system" will only achive the opposite.

[proudmsianz]

As a product of a national school(convent but nonetheless national), I am proud to say that I will send my kids(if i ever do have any) to the same school. I grew up having a Malay as my best friend, and we would often do stuff together with other Dayak and Tamil friends. IMHO, this was the event that shaped my perspective of the world around me, the event that made me colorblind. The time we spend playing football in the rain, or catching grasshoppers in the school field is always going to be the happiest times of my life. ...


I admit what you describe was true for the older generation. Look at the current situation however, more and more non-Chinese are sending their children to SRKC. I just read a news about a Malay boy helping his Chinese classmate, both study in a SJKC school in Kedah. Will find the link and post it later. Also keep in mind that 65,000 non-Chinese study in SJKC, unlike the past when SJKC used to be racially homogeneous. The percentage of non-Chinese doing so is rising every year. Also 90% of SJKC graduates move on to SK.

Most people have close friends from Secondary school, not primary school right?

The main reason why most Chinese send their kids to SJKC is because they want them to learn their mother tongue. This oppurtunity is unfortunately not available in SK as in class lessons.

Personally I would send my kids to Vision school (if not available where I live - second choice SJKC), then SMK. International school is an absolutely no no because I think that will make my kids alienated from the general public and only mingle with rich kids, and perhaps become spoilt.

[kucingbiru]

Assuming we do implement a common system with no vernacular schools, what would be the common language of instruction then?

english


that will favor westerners (who live and study in malaysia of course). the truth is, not everyone will be satisfied.

[topdog]

i used to share more or less the same sentiments as __earth but now i'm not so sure. i think abolishing vernacular schools (referring to srjk only here) would be a very short-sighted move. besides preservation of culture (since bahasa jiwa bangsa...), i think malaysians who are fluent in mandarin as a result of chinese language education is an ASSET to the nation. it is darn near impossible unless u have an amazing aptitude for language to learn chinese well without formal education. learning it as a stand-alone subject in school is not as easy as it sounds either, especially if you speak little of it at home... trust me...

we need to find some sort of middle ground. i think it would be great if vision school received more support from all.

[topdog]

also, abolishing vernacular schools in favor of only sekolah kebangsaan may seem like a way to promote better race relations in theory, but on closer inspection things are really not that simple. in most parts of the country neighbourhoods have distinct racial makeups, and parents will usually send their kids to the nearest school. we may end up having a lot of sek kebs in name only, when in reality the schools would still be [insert race]-majority.

[lyzzy]

With regards to the whole 'what should be our medium of instruction' issue, I would like to point out that Singapore's national language is actually ..... dumdumdum ... Malay Language. But they do everything in English or Chinese, and even their language of instruction is English, they have a higher command of English than we do.

P/S Look at how far they went since Independence - they were originally one with Malaysia

PP/S About two years ago, when *someone* (can't remember who) pointed out that Malays were much more successful in Singapore, a high-ranking minister in Malaysia got rather defensive, making a good deal of excuses....(if someone could enlighten me on the details, that would be awesome) But does Singapore have 'affirmative action' or favor one race over the other? Do they have vernacular schools? Do they have special boarding schools?

(It's true. When my Singaporean friend told me this , I was SO skeptical of this at first, but then I heard their national anthem...)
________
Toyota PZ engine specifications (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_PZ_engine)

[proudmsianz]

With regards to the whole 'what should be our medium of instruction' issue, I would like to point out that Singapore's national language is actually ..... dumdumdum ... Malay Language. But they do everything in English or Chinese, and even their language of instruction is English, they have a higher command of English than we do.

P/S Look at how far they went since Independence - they were originally one with Malaysia

PP/S About two years ago, when *someone* (can't remember who) pointed out that Malays were much more successful in Singapore, a high-ranking minister in Malaysia got rather defensive, making a good deal of excuses....(if someone could enlighten me on the details, that would be awesome) But does Singapore have 'affirmative action' or favor one race over the other? Do they have vernacular schools? Do they have special boarding schools?

(It's true. When my Singaporean friend told me this , I was SO skeptical of this at first, but then I heard their national anthem...)

YES, Malay is still the nominal national langauge of Singapore. However, it has been largely symbolic: 75% of Singaporeans cannot speak nor understand Malay language. Malay language was once briefly a compulsory language in all schools, during 1970s, but the government scrapped it shortly afterwards. Malays in Singapore do not have to pay school fees, which only cost around $10 per month. Malays are excluded from ‘sensitive’ units in the Singapore Armed Forces.

Daughter of Singapore first president Dr. Lily Zubaidah Rahim, wrote a book titled "The Singapore Dilemma", which talks about the marginalization off Malay community in Singapore.

[gonjeng]

agreed with proudmesian... a fren of mine, who is an arab decent in sin, told me somewhat the same also. she also said that the chinese are getting some advantage over other races. however, they are not formally documented (unlike mesia, which states them clearly in its constitutional).

cheers!

[lyzzy]

I don't know about the marginalization, but lets face it, you can't really deny that the Malays in Singapore are doing so much better than the Malays in Malaysia. Even if they are, as you say, marginalized, they are doing so much better than the Malays in Malaysia (who have been helped by the goverment, unlike Singapore).

Is language the key to this? Is it education? Is it meritrocracy? I don't know.

Above a certain income level, the issue of race becomes a non-issue - and I think prince explained this in one of his posts (I'm not sure which thread, but just recently) - hence, the key to eradicating racism is by improving income levels of the citizens.

It looks like Singapore is right on track with this.
________
extreme vaporizer (http://extremevaporizer.info)

[topdog]

Assuming we do implement a common system with no vernacular schools, what would be the common language of instruction then?

english


here's a comment from one of jeff ooi's readers... source:
http://www.jeffooi.com/archives/2005/03/dr_m_dont_be_to.php

I can't believe the level of nostalgia for English Medium Schools in this discussion string and the past one! How does a medium strengthen the quality of education without a strong curricular? And if it is so necessary a part of being competitive internationally, why are most non-English speaking OECD countries persisting with their native language schools!

They do not seem to have such a hurdle with being international, though some choose to be more English savvy than others, e.g. Dutch (English as subject in Primary school) more than German (English in Secondary) more than Japanese (truly optional)!

In fact, the British are lamenting the lowering quality of education in British schools (which is why most Malaysians find A-Levels, especially Maths, a doddle). But the British are not contemplating moving to Japanese, Chinese, German or (heaven forbid) American medium!

The reason why Malay was chosen as a medium was not because we wanted to go for national unity alone. No sane government would sacrifice their nation's long term viability for amorphous goals - i.e. education for unity (and contrary to popular uninformed opinion - as evident from general confusion here on when Malay medium started, the BN gov over the years have on balance been quite sane!)!

The truth is, Malay medium schools was introduced also to lower the hurdle of gaining education for those who cannot afford to be conversant in English, by delivery of education in their mother tongue (Malay) or the majority used language in their community (M/C/I). Chinese and Indian medium schools persisted because of course there are areas where these races predominate such that Malay would be as high a hurdle as English, hence the use of respective mother tongues.

If we had stayed on English medium, we would have still been an elitist nation where education would be even more skewed to benefit those in urban areas with easy access to early exposure to English. Sure, those conversant in English may have been more fluent, but the numbers of educated and average level of education would likely be lower as the hurdle of entry would be higher for the rural and non-city based folk.

Can English use in Malaysia be improved to a suitable standard such as to make us competitive in the world without an English medium school? Sure! What's the big deal? Malaysians are speaking better English than the English in England all the time, and the majority are from Malay medium schools, albeit the distribution of urban-rural English nous needs to improve. UIAM won international English debates galore with Malay-medium originating students all the time!

There are proper ways of fostering English use, like increasing the number of competent English teachers and paying them hazzard pay to the rural schools. Mini-scholarship as awards not just to the best English speaker, but the fastest improving of every school as a form of incentive. Exchange programs, more books and forced to staple reading, etc. Even strengthening curricular, like returning Merchant of Venice and The Prince to English curricular.

I actually opposed Dr M's policy on Malay for Science and Maths as I think it is not a sound policy. The improvements of English via the teaching of these two subjects are minimal, and it just raises the hurdle of learning these critical subject for the rural masses or urban poor with weaker English - a key reason why Chinese educationists opposed it. Unfortunately, only time will tell if I am right, and then it'll be too late.

So, English medium schools... think again ladies and gentlemen...

Posted by: A M Ubaidah S at March 23, 2005 01:09 PM

[__earth]

The striking difference is: there is no quota in Chinese medium natioinal type schools! Even the private Chinese Independence Secondary Schools do not have quota. Saying a 10% quota for non-Malays in MARA & many secondary schools is another way of saying 90% quota for bumiputras. Vernacular school is non-exclusive; i.e. anobody, regarless of race can enter, but not true for MRSM.

There is also a striking similarity: both of them are dominated by certain race, regardless of quota.

Just to clarify a bit, I DO NOT oppose the existence of MRSM or other special schools created for bumiputras, since this is MALAY SPECIAL RIGHTS guaranteed under our constitution or kontrak sosial. Just to make it clear I am perfectly fine with MALAY SPECIAL RIGHTS, hence MRSM rights to admit exclusively bumiputras or 90% bumiputras, I have no objection. The government initially only admited 100% bumiputras in those special institution created for bumiputras but quickly realize that this is bad for racial interaction, particular at the ages when the students are making life long friends while stepping into society. So a 10% quota is imposed on those schools, for the purpose of racial interaction.

I OTOH, oppose the extra privileges. Again, affirmative action based on race is racism with a less than ugly mask. Your agreement to race-based affirmative action is based on that it's enshrined in the Consitution. Perhaps that's why you make the argument that the rights to have vernacular is a right too, despite its race-conscious.

Consider however, in the Constitution, "There shall be no discrimination in favour of any person on the ground that he is a subject of the Ruler of the State." Link, see Article 8 (http://confinder.richmond.edu/local_malaysia.html).

Affirmative action clearly violates that clause. While you respect the Malay privileges because its in the Constitution, you are at the same time are disrespecting the Constitution due to that clause.

I think the purpose of mislead_youth brought up the issue of MRSM is because of government (or rather some UMNO members) opposition towards vernacular schools on the basis of racial segregation. The truth is, however, in vernacular schools there are people from different races at a ratio as high as or more than (and increasing) MRSM.

It's not a matter whether mislead brought it out or not. As a matter of fact, this issue has been discussed a few years ago at ReCom at Education System of Malaysia (http://www.recom.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=117&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=education+system).

It would be hypocrictic for the government to condemn vernacular school for causing racial segregation while approving MRSM, since in both schools students have about the same level of racial interaction. Malays do have special rights to build MRSM with government funding but that does not mean that UMNO politicians can criticize the vernacular schools unfairly by ignoring the fact that MRSM are in the boat. This would be called hypocrisy.

Yes, it would be hypocritical I agree. That's why both need to become one if both of it are to be continued funded by the state. Strengthing one or the other makes the already grim situation worse.

Your so-called "common system" or SK is actually Malay vernacular school, since its medium is in Malay (definition of vernacular). If government only sponsors SK (Malay vernacular school), it is actually giving special support to Malays. Hence your statment "no government-supported school specially for the Malays" is not correct.

So, use English as some has mentioned. Would you have problem with that? I don't mind not using Malay as the medium.

Were you hinting that I am a lier for quoting that figure about Sabah vernacular education? Perhaps you should prove that how many percent of Chinese in Sabah are bumiputras, before disputing the satistics I present. I doubt Chinese bumiputras would be signficant. Still, I like that particular quotation. It is so catchy.

I'm not hinting anything. I'm telling you the obvious - your use of the statistics and its implied conclusion is wrong because the rule of ceteris paribus is not considered or even ignored to serve your position. Anybody that's trained in statistics will quickly recognize this misquoting of statistics, so to speak.

Frankly I am quite surprised, or actually shocked, by your comparision of Arpatheid and Malay Special Rights in your last paragraph. This claim is even too far-fetched for me, as a Malaysian Chinese. Are you a Malay?

It does not matter what's my skin is. It is irrelevent to any argument and it should not matter.

A raceblind society is not possible here because Malaysia is a multiracial country. A multicultural country can never be raceblind, since different groups have its own identity and uniqueness, which cannot be just simply ignored. In the some Western countries vernacular schools are rare because of White supremacy in the past, racial discrimination, fasicm, and also the fact that countries in Europe is pretty much divided according to race, hence they are unlike multiracial Malaysia.

The US is much more multiracial than Malaysia and yet, their race-blind policy is more advanced than us. At the same time, they are not ignoring that fact that America is consisted of people of many color or even nationality. in fact, most Americans know that the US is a country of immigrants.

You mentioned about lack of vernacular schools in the west "because of White supremacy in the past, racial discrimination, fasicm, and also the fact that countries in Europe is pretty much divided according to race, hence they are unlike multiracial Malaysia".

First, the vernacular system existed because of the British divide and rule strategy in old Malaya. The British saw the ethnics in Malaysia as different entities and encouraged specialization of professions for each race. That is the point where it all started.

Second, fascism - don't we have it here already?

Third, European countries are more diverse than you've expected. For instance, in Germany, there is a large fraction of Turks. In the UK, Pakistanis, Indians. In France, North Africans. European countries may have been created upon the basis of ethinity but modern times have changed that.

The notion that Malaysia is the only multiracial country is a myth. Lots of other countries with more open immigration rules are more diverse than Malaysia. In fact, the US is a true multiracial country. Malaysia is rather a triracial country with race-conscious policy. There are other races of course but statistically speaking, they are the true minority. The three big races are the true majority.

Since a lot of other countries are multiracial and enforcing race-blind policy, then your statement "A raceblind society is not possible here because Malaysia is a multiracial country" runs contrary to the example of the real world.

Actually if you look carefully, many countries have vernacular schools, expecially in Switzerland, Canada, India e.t.c. Many nations who have significant minorities have vernacular education and this doesn't mean they are less unite or polarized.

Canada, if you are referring to Quebec, that's different. Quebec has a strong separatist movement with referenda to break from Canada. Though the referedum has been defeated so far, the support for separatism remains strong. Having another Singapore breakaway is not my idea of a strong federation.

Furthermore, Quebec has some degree of autonomy. Because of that, though English is the de facto language in Canada, the state of Quebec has declared French as the official language of the state.

In Malaysia, there is no state with autonomy power.

India - I don't know whether they have verncular system (need reference) or not but surely you haven't forgotten the Muslim-Hindu riot or the Sikh riot against the Indian government.

Switzerland - again, I don't know whether there's vernacular there; kindly state a source for reference - Germany, France, Italy and some others have great influence on the Swiss partly because the Swiss are the German, French, Italian etc and those countries are bordered to Switzerland. If we were to take the parallel view, China and India would have a strong influence on us. I'm not ready to let Malaysian policy to be dictated by some other country.

Your idea of one system for all is the old assimilitionist idea, similar to the notorious White Australia policy before 1970s. In today's globalized era, diversity is celebrated and promoted, not assimilation.

Diversity is celebrated but race-conscious policy is looked down upon. This is not assimilation, it's just a part of a wider movement to abolish race-conscious policy. Diversity could only thrive if there is no system that encourages racism.

You said that Affirmative Action is a racist action. Are you an opponent of New Economic Policy? Also to create the utopic equality no group can have special rights, otherwise it won't be a race-blind society. Are you opposing Malay Special Right in this regard?

naturally.

Also, I think your "libertarian" idea (thinks everybody should finance their own education instead of depending on welfare) is idealistic but impractical. Just name a country that does not support or subsidize its basic education. Actually I have the answer: NEGARA TAKDA.

I got news for you; most of top varsity in the world is privately funded. State-sponsored varsity are gaining a lot more fund from the private sector instead of the government (this is especially true when in the US when the state fund for education is being cut). There a list of rankings of top U published every year. You could check which is private and which is public schools.

But then again, a mix between a welfare state and free market state is acceptable to a certain degree. however, this is a digression and should be reserved for another day.

Chinese schools have existed for 180 years in this country. It has the seniority and also without it Chinese society in Malaysia cannot sustain.

The Chinese society in the US has existed more than 180 years and it is still running strong without vernacular school.

Furthermore in the Malay medium primary school there is no proper time slots to teach Chinese language. This is actually the REAL cause of many Chinese parents unwilling to send their children into Malay medium primary school, as Chinese is a difficult language that requires formal education to master.

If somebody worked from the inside, I'm sure some acceptable practices would be reached. As in for now, probably no one from the other side of the fence are working from the inside of the common system to make it more acceptable to the pro-vernacular people. Instead, they are saying no without even trying to work the common system out.

It is easy for you to say that SK is the school for all races. However, keep in mine that SK is also a type of vernacular school - Malay vernacular school, by the definition of vernacular (language of instruction used). Ethnic Malays would have no difficulty in enrolling their children into the so-called "common system", or SK, because SK is really a Malay vernacular school. The fact that there is no differences between SK and SJKC, SRKT except language medium proves that SK and SJKC, SJKT are fundamentally the same national type, except the medium used.

Again, if it were English, would you object?

Also, do not try to again comparing religious schools with SJKC or SJKT. Malays have already got their vernacular school (SK) taken care of by the government, hence Malays have the time to worry about religious school. IF Chinese schools were given the same treatment as the Malay medium national type schools (SK), Chinese community might have also ask for government to support Christianity or Buddhist religious school, like their Malay counterparts. Remember that Malay community is a step forward in this regard!

Again, vernacular system should be aborted. Religious school is similar in every aspect of the SRJ, except the medium. Both SRJ and religious school, or in fact, any other vernacular system, should be converted into a common system.

Try to imagine the sensitivity of non-Malays, they are asked to abandon their own vernacular school, and enroll in Malay vernacular school (with the name changed to SK), under the namesake "raceless society". This is called discrimination. Why the Malays can have Malay medium schools dubbed SK, but minorities cannot have their own vernacular schools?

Try to think beyond racial boundary. It's time the politics in Malaysia go beyond the color of skin.

Of course I am saying the above as a response to your "one system" utopia. Thailand, Indonesia have used it to convert or abolish minorities vernacular schools, and now they realize how wrong it was by destroying diversity. Since then Chinese medium university (currently the only one in SEA) has been built in Thailand. More and more Chinese schools are opened again in Indonesia since the racist notion of "one system for all" has clearly proven itself to be chavinist manifesto of the dominant group tyring to belittle the culture of the minorities.

Of course, I thankful to God for being a Malaysian. I am thankful to God that I live in a country where minorities right are taken care of.

True equality and racial harmony cannot be achieved by discrimination. Asking Chinese and Indian community to abandon their vernacular education in favor of Malay vernacular school (SK), does not work towards racial harmony or your race-blind idealistic society. It wouldn't be called "fair" if the minorities are coerced, through regulations or limiting financial support, to abandon their vernacular schools that are guarenteed by UN Human Rights and our sacred constitution. True, the system in Malaysia is not fair, if you read my above sentences carefully. Racist it would be to suggest that minorities in Malaysia to abandon their mother tongue education, in favor of the dominant group language.

True harmony can't be achieved through a system that encourages racism. Our current system encourages racism and I don't know why you call a move to remove such system as discrimination.

It is inappropiate to call the common system as discriminating the other simply because the medium used is not the one one favors. It's even more inappropiate to call the common system as vernacular. The meaning of vernacular itself is changed if we were to use your definition of vernacular. You are merely relabeling something else as vernacular, just as invasion of Iraq was called the liberation of Iraq.

Again, if the language were English, would that make it discrimation? Would that make the common system as english vernacular system? Would that make, the common system discriminate the Malay too?

In the end, the government could easily use three words: MALAY SPECIAL RIGHTS to justify the government preference over Malay vernacular school (SK) as the "common system"; ignoring the need of minorities to have their own means to preserve their language and culture - vernacular school just like ethnic Malays have (SK). However, keep in mind that MALAY SPECIAL RIGHTS comes with the social contact, which guarentee minorities the right to receive mother tongue education.

Your accusation of hypocrisy is right and that provides the more reason we need to throw away the hypocritical system. The hypocrisy could only be kicked out by gradual removal of the old system and by replacing it with race-blinded one, and more importantly, a fairer society.

Sticking with the old system won't make the hypocrisy go away. instead, it invites more hypocrisy in.

And again, apartheid in South Africa was the social contract. But that doesn't mean the social contract is right.

[proudmsianz]

First of all, I would like to make it clear that I support PM idea that "all Malaysians should spend time together at some point of their life". And the current system is clearly what he has intended. Most students who study in vernacular primary schools move on to the "common system" Malay medium secondary schools, where they spend time together.

During White Australia period the whites kidnapped minorities' children and make them study in the so-called "common system" or English medium primary schools. As a result of this "common system", many minorities languages were not transmitted and lost.

In Malaysia, those who oppose vernacular primary schools stand narrowly on the verge of the belief of White Australia "common system". By encouraging minorities to study in Malay medium primary school (Note that I'm not opposing Malay medium secondary schools for all), minorities will gradually lose their mother tongues, bits by bits and in the end (not long) they will lost it all.

Also note that the government refusal to build (or give permit to build) more primary schools has caused thousands of parents unable to let their children receive vernacular education. In Klang Valley where I know well more than 25% of Chinese children failed to get a place in Chinese medium national schools. This has directly forced the minorities to abandon their vernacular school for the so-called "common system".

The definition of vernacular educataion does not mean just one subject of bahasa. Vernacular education means all subjects except other language in mother tongue. Vernacular schools funtions as a means for students to learn their mother tongue and cultural values.

Just look at the following website about Papu New Guinea mother tongue (vernacular) education.

http://www.sil.org/literacy/Mother_Tongue_First.htm




Canada, if you are referring to Quebec, that's different. Quebec has a strong separatist movement with referenda to break from Canada. Though the referedum has been defeated so far, the support for separatism remains strong. Having another Singapore breakaway is not my idea of a strong federation.

Furthermore, Quebec has some degree of autonomy. Because of that, though English is the de facto language in Canada, the state of Quebec has declared French as the official language of the state.


We were not talking about official language,were we? In Canada the official policy is that all vernacular schools would be supported, or in fact, welcomed.This applies to every culture, even for recent immigrants. After 911 I read news from government of Canada welcomiing muslims to migrate to Canada and set up their schools to preserve their language and culture. This policy is officiaL not just in Quebec, but everywhere else in Canada.

The government of Canada specifically says that it will cooperate with NGO to "increase the production and dissemination of knowledge, methods and tools to support minority-language education."

Open your eyes, pal. This is what liberal really is, not yours.

Canada is one of the most liberal countries in the world. In fact when you ask a Canadian, he or she will think US as being conservative. (I personally think so too)

Malaysia which has started as a multicultural country should probably look towards Canada, not the United States which practise assimilationist policy.

The reason Singapore break away was because the Federal government KICKED it out. Singapore didn't beg to leave Malaysia, it begged to join! I still think Tunku made a mistake by letting away a strategic island.


India - I don't know whether they have verncular system or not but surely you haven't forgotten the Muslim-Hindu riot or the Sikh riot against the Indian government.

Those riots were caused by religions, not language. Those people who fight against each other are of the same race, speak the same language (riots happen in northen India), and differentiated by religions. India has more languages than Malaysia, and if you visit there you will see schools use different medium of instruction. Tamil, Hindi, e.t.c medium. Also there are English medium schools too.

In case you do not realize, there are Tamil muslim and Tamil hindu. Vernacular education is definitely not an issue there, and I would argue the same is true for Malaysia.

Just then someone was trying to use vernacular education in India as an example of how it would "cause" riots, since there is no "common education system"? Since I have disproved that as wrong, would you then argue that because religion cause riot, all people should be under the same "common religious system"?

Clearly for the case of India and many other contries, language is not a factor at all. Ideology/religion is obviously the cause of disparity, yet no one has ever suggested that we should have a "common system" for ideology. I hope you won't be the first one in Malaysia to argue this sort of "common system" for the "people".

Since language is less of a factor than religion, we should learn to respect the diversity of vernacular education in Malaysia, not treating it as a "threat" to national unity, especially for the case of Chinese and Tamil medium schools in Malaysia, which are all under national curriculum and syllabus, hence the name "National type" or what I would call your "common system" equivalent. The difference is only, as I have argued earlier on, the language/medium used.



Switzerland - again, i don't know whether there's vernacular there but Germany, France, Italy and some others have great influence on the Swiss partly because the Swiss are the German, French, Italian etc and those countries are bordered to Switzerland. If we were to take the parallel view, China and India would have a strong influence on us. I'm not ready to let Malaysian policy to be dictated by some other country.

Switzerland has official neutrality troughout the two world wars. Until now it has still refused to join EU. Contrary to your belief, no other country dictates Switzerland policy. Not France, Germany or Italy. The same is true for Malaysia: Neither Indonesia, China nor India influence our country. If you look carefully, the history of Switerland is very similar to Malaysia one. Ethnic French, German and Italian united together to form a new country - Switzerland.

I look to Switzerland as a model for Malaysia. Neutrality, high GDP, equality for all ethnics while still being united.


Also, I think your "libertarian" idea (thinks everybody should finance their own education instead of depending on welfare) is idealistic but impractical. Just name a country that does not support or subsidize its basic education. Actually I have the answer: NEGARA TAKDA.

I got news for you; most of top varsity in the world is privately funded. State-sponsored varsity are gaining a lot more fund from the private sector instead of the government (this is especially true when in the US when the state fund for education is being cut).

I think you got it wrong We were talking about BASIC education, which means primary schools. Some western countries might have top varsity in their country (actually there is only one - USA, look at Germany, Japan, China, England, UK, all of their top universities are funded by the government), but there would be none that let its basic education unsupported, as what would happen in your utopia. True, there are private schools, but those were just a small percentage of all countries basic education.

I must say that you have a very idealitic view of the world. However, I must warn you that like communism (I'm not saying your idea is communism), many utopic ideas sound wonderful but are just not practical. Perhaps you could be the one prove that it is workable. However, if it (_earth thinks everybody should finance their own education instead of depending on welfare)fails, and most likely it would be, many people will not have the chance to receive fundamental education. In the end, only the rich and priviledge will have access to even the most basic education.


Chinese schools have existed for 180 years in this country. It has the seniority and also without it Chinese society in Malaysia cannot sustain.

The Chinese society in the US has existed more than 180 years and it is still running strong without vernacular school.

Ethnic Chinese have been discriminated agaist ever since they stepped foot on that country. Only during Vietnam War era the United States that champion itself as the democratic country and liberator of Asian contries from Communism started change their anti-Asian anti-Black anti-Latino laws in their country, so as not to be hypocritic and gain support from Asian countries. Also remember that there is a continue influx of Chinese immigrant into America, unlike Malaysia. Otherwise Chinese society won't exist in USA today.

[quote="__earth"]
[quote]Furthermore in the Malay medium primary school there is no proper time slots to teach Chinese language. This is actually the REAL cause of many Chinese parents unwilling to send their children into Malay medium primary school, as Chinese is a difficult language that requires formal education to master.

If somebody worked from the inside, I'm sure some acceptable practices would be reached. As in for now, probably no one from the other side of the fence are working from the inside of the common system to make it more acceptable to the pro-vernacular people. Instead, they are saying no without even trying to work the common system out.

I am glad you mentioned the 'IF' word. IF only the government has been truely sincere in making mother tongues a formal lessons in SK, it wouldn't have taken decades and still non-Malays in SK have to struggle outside classroom to find tuition teachers by themselves.

Majority of non-Malays community are saying no to Malay schools (SK) because their children will not master their mother tongue in SK! Furthermore Malay school is a "common system" in your perspective but it is clearly not so, as I have explained earlier on. You should not turn around and blaming the parents instead; they were merely trying to find out the best for thier children, while still within the national system.

What the government should do is: fix the SK schools before people can give it a try. The government has full control over SK schools. No parents are foolish enough to send thier children to an institution that doesn't meet their expectation, and in this case I mean the teaching of mother tongues.

Until now there is no intention of the government to introduce former mother tongues lesson into SK schools. Tell me who is not trying.

There should be no more arguing that non Malay medium national type schools are not the "common system". Just to point out some points, all national type schools are not racial based as more and more parents are sending their children to different schools not based on race.


True harmony can't be achieved through a system that encourages racism.

It is also true that harmony cannot be achived in a biased system. Non-Malays would not have the chance to learn their mother tongues if they study in your so-called "common system". This is biased in itself and suggesting that they should still send their children to SK is in itself biased.

It is inappropiate to call the common system as discriminating the other simply because the medium used is not the one one favors. It's even more inappropiate to call the common system as vernacular. The meaning of vernacular itself is changed if we were to use your definition of vernacular. You are merely relabeling something else as vernacular, just as invasion of Iraq was called the liberation of Iraq.

Calling Malay medium schools as the only "common system" is in fact an act of discrimination the other types of national schools. Actually you are the one "relabeling" because your so-called "common system" iss in fact called "Malay vernacular schools" ever since its existence. You are in fact relabelling by changing the definition of vernaculars.

And again, apartheid in South Africa was the social contract. But that doesn't mean the social contract is right.

Just to correct you, there was never any kontrak sosial in South Africa. Arpatheid is like slavery, the other side never agrees upon the treatment. Hence your comparison of Malaysia and South Africa situation is inappropriate.

[lyzzy]

In reply to proudmsianz's post, I would like to point out a few things.

1. Where on earth did you get the idea Malaysia kicked out Singapore? They broke away because of differences in ideology - both sides agreed on this.

2. Basic education should be free. I think everyone (including earth) agrees.

3. Language is a great tool to encourage unity - just look at how much English-speaking households in Malaysia *bond* with American movies and do anything to send their children to Western Countries, just look at how much Chinese-speaking households send their children to SRJKs and do UECs and go to China/Korea/Taiwan to study. Not everyone does this, but a good majority. Let's face it, we need a common language to unite the people, and something which doesn't favor any of the major races in Malaysia.
________
grow medical marijuana (http://growingmedicalmarijuana.org)

[proudmsianz]

1. Where on earth did you get the idea Malaysia kicked out Singapore? They broke away because of differences in ideology - both sides agreed on this.

Well, Lee Kuan Yew cried when he heard the news that the Federal government has decided to "let go" Singapore. Clearly he does not want this to happen, and he did not suggest that Singapore "separate" from Malaysia, as a solution to the diffences. Agreement to leave? Singapore was in no position to say "no".

But you are correct in saying that the idelogical differences cause both countries to spilt in the first place.

I am not the only one saying that Singapore was "kicked out" A lot of UMNO members clearly think that Tunku made a bad decision.


2. Basic education should be free. I think everyone (including earth) agrees.

Earth says that he is of those "liberal" kind and think that people should finance their own education. See his previous post.

QUOTE EARTH:
"I'm not saying the minorities should finance their own education (actually, im more of a libertarian and thinks everybody should finance their own education instead of depending on welfare but i dont think that will work in Malaysia given a lot of ppl in Malaysia prefer welfare state)."

For your information Earth and I were discussing SJKC (primary school) issues.

I know many of you guys are busy (so am I) but please read carefully before commenting.


3. Language is a great tool to encourage unity - just look at how much English-speaking households in Malaysia *bond* with American movies and do anything to send their children to Western Countries, just look at how much Chinese-speaking households send their children to SRJKs and do UECs and go to China/Korea/Taiwan to study. Not everyone does this, but a good majority.

I can tell you there are much more SJKC graduates who study in western countries than China or Taiwan. Usually only some (still not the majority) of those from Independent Chiense Secondary Schools study in China or Taiwan because their certificates are not recognize in Malaysia (local and many privates), and also China and Taiwan are much cheaper option than western countries. Personally I don't know any Chinese classmates who study in China or Taiwan since I am not from UEC (but study in SJKC). The rich one will usually go to western contries just because the quality is better and they can afford it, not because of American movies or English speaking at home. I know a lot of Chinese speaking families that send their children to Western countries. In case you do not realize, more Malaysians study in Germany than China + Taiwan, even though there is no one speaking German nor watching German movies in Malaysia. People study in Germany because of its science and technology. Hence your statment "Not everyone does this, but a good majority" is incorrent. It should be "only a small majority does that".

Clearly those who study are from Chinese medium (national or private) schools, because only they have mastered the language to study there. Still they are only a small fraction of SJKC graduates.

Let's face it, we need a common language to unite the people, and something which doesn't favor any of the major races in Malaysia.

We already have a common language - Malay language. Graduates of SJKC when move on to secondary schools take the same level of Bahasa Melayu as other people. This is not something I would dispute.

Clearly when we select Bahasa Melayu as our common language we have already favored the Malays, since Bahasa Melayu is Malays mother tongue. However, the government should also not prevent other groups from having mother tongue education, as promised by the constitution. Mother tongue education is not a priviledge; it is a fundamental right guarenteed by U.N. Human Rights Declaration. (I have repeated this so many times still people fail to relize it)

True equality can only be achieved when the minorities language and culture are treated equally. Doing the reverse i.e. "one system" (Malay-medium schools) will not bring equality. Instead it would be called discrimination.

[__earth]

Also, I think your "libertarian" idea (thinks everybody should finance their own education instead of depending on welfare) is idealistic but impractical. Just name a country that does not support or subsidize its basic education. Actually I have the answer: NEGARA TAKDA.

I got news for you; most of top varsity in the world is privately funded. State-sponsored varsity are gaining a lot more fund from the private sector instead of the government (this is especially true when in the US when the state fund for education is being cut).

I think you got it wrong We were talking about BASIC education, which means primary schools. Some western countries might have top varsity in their country (actually there is only one - USA, look at Germany, Japan, China, England, UK, all of their top universities are funded by the government), but there would be none that let its basic education unsupported, as what would happen in your utopia. True, there are private schools, but those were just a small percentage of all countries basic education.

I'm pointing out a possible case in education. It's a case that might be used to show private sector is more efficient than the public sector given there is competition.

I must say that you have a very idealitic view of the world. However, I must warn you that like communism (I'm not saying your idea is communism), many utopic ideas sound wonderful but are just not practical. Perhaps you could be the one prove that it is workable. However, if it (_earth thinks everybody should finance their own education instead of depending on welfare)fails, and most likely it would be, many people will not have the chance to receive fundamental education. In the end, only the rich and priviledge will have access to even the most basic education.

And you my friend, are racially nationalistic.

Regarding idealistic, I quote myself:
But then again, a mix between a welfare state and free market state is acceptable to a certain degree. however, this is a digression and should be reserved for another day.
And:
actually, im more of a libertarian and thinks everybody should finance their own education instead of depending on welfare but i dont think that will work in Malaysia given a lot of ppl in Malaysia prefer welfare state.

In the second quote, read the second half on how I dont think it will work in Malaysia. I acknowledge Malaysian addiction to welfare state. Please read the implication in full instead of partially.

Finally, the discussion of welfare state is off topic.

I am glad you mentioned the 'IF' word. IF only the government has been truely sincere in making mother tongues a formal lessons in SK, it wouldn't have taken decades and still non-Malays in SK have to struggle outside classroom to find tuition teachers by themselves.

Majority of non-Malays community are saying no to Malay schools (SK) because their children will not master their mother tongue in SK! Furthermore Malay school is a "common system" in your perspective but it is clearly not so, as I have explained earlier on. You should not turn around and blaming the parents instead; they were merely trying to find out the best for thier children, while still within the national system.

Am I blaming the parents? I didn't say parents. Regarding Malay school as common, see below.

It is inappropiate to call the common system as discriminating the other simply because the medium used is not the one one favors. It's even more inappropiate to call the common system as vernacular. The meaning of vernacular itself is changed if we were to use your definition of vernacular. You are merely relabeling something else as vernacular, just as invasion of Iraq was called the liberation of Iraq.

Calling Malay medium schools as the only "common system" is in fact an act of discrimination the other types of national schools. Actually you are the one "relabeling" because your so-called "common system" iss in fact called "Malay vernacular schools" ever since its existence. You are in fact relabelling by changing the definition of vernaculars.

I've noticed you always used the same word I used for vernacular and labelled everything I've said of vernacular as the common system.

I called it inappropiate, you called it inappropiate. I called it discrimination, you called it discrimination. I called you're relabelling, the you say I'm relabelling. Kinda tiring after awhile I must say.

And see, I'm not relabeling the common system as the common system. The common is already a common system. Vernacular wouldn't be called vernacular if everything were vernacular.

There should be no more arguing that non Malay medium national type schools are not the "common system". Just to point out some points, all national type schools are not racial based as more and more parents are sending their children to different schools not based on race.

There should be more argument. Consensus can't be reached without discussion.

Finally, let's move beyond the "calling each system this and that". Throwing the same mudballs over and over again is getting too old and too unproductive. Let's move to possible solution.

One solution is not to use a language that doesn't favor anyone per se. If the medium was English, would you accept?

Since you seem to have a problem with Malay as the common language, let's use English. That way, we'll have, as you might call it, "English vernacular" system. It's fair to all with favoring no one.

Furthermore, if English is to be used, a number of your points against the common system will be rendered irrelevent since your opposition to the common system is mainly driven by using Malay as medium.

For me, I'm not really nationalistic. So, the medium of instruction is not the main issue as far as my want for a common system is concern - it's compromisable. Any language that can be understood by the majority is suitable.

[proudmsianz]

The thread is getting too long and let's say we should put aside our differences instead of arguing something that couldn't be solved even if we discuss it for 1000 years.

Yes, I am very nationalistic, may be because of the Sejarah Malaysia I read for SPM. Actually I oppose any attempt to change the Constitution, including the Malay Special Rights issue, even though I'm not a Malay myself.

And I don't think you should equate Malay Special Rights with South Afirca Arpatheid.

If you look carefully, many of your so-called race blind states (like U.S.) have special rights for certain groups, usually the traditional owner of the land.

Actually I am happy with the current education system. I was merely pointing out my arguments against your notion of "common system".

Pak Lah himself has said it well: "Malaysians cannot be in two parallel systems that never meet." When he said that, he didn't mean most students who study in vernacular primary schools. Since 90% of them move on the Malay secondary schools where students from the two systems "meet".

However, some students who move on to Religious schools or Chinese Independent school, are in fact moving in two parallel systems that never meet. For this I oppose strongly against, standing on the side of what Pak Lah said. Government should not fund any independent vernacular secondary schools that promote the alternative tracks that never meet.

So it seems that we both (earth and I) actually agree with the "common system" notion, though your "common system" for me seems to be starting from primary schools (though you never really mention it). I, however, think that primary school vernacular education is necessary for the minorities to master their mother tongues. Then they should all move on to secondary schools and meet with other races.

Having vernacular secondary schools will hinder racial integration, since students will not enrol in the "common system" after vernacular primary school. Not having vernacular primary schools will however causing the gradual loss of minorities identity.

The current national type system is a perfect compromise of the need of racial integration and mother tongue education. I am happy with it and I just hope people don't oppose vernacular primary schools since a compromise has been made by all sides.

Also I believe in mother tongue education (primary school) hence oppose the notion of English schools as "common system" starting from primary school. Furthermore English is not an official language of Malaysia. Why mengagung-agungkan its status? Doing so would only disadvantage all races. As pointed out by an article from jeffooi.com, most non-English developed countries do not use English as the medium of instruction. Clearly language is not a decisive factor in determining a nation's success.

There are two commonwealth countries that use English as medium of instruction in all national school. One is Singapore and the other one is Kenya. The rational for Singapore using English is because of the fact that it has no natural resources at all, hence people are the only asset it has. Still, the key to success for Singapore is its efficiency and corruption-free government, as exemplified by many other nations that succeed without overemphasizing English. Kenyans on the other hand, has been using English as medium of instruction in national education, still I don't see any significant benefit they get from doing so.

I am not saying that we don't have to learn English, just saying that we don't have to overemphasize it by making it a medium of instruction in all schools, or your "common system".

I have really learnt a lot from this discussions. Thanks for participating.

[lyzzy]

If you look carefully, many of your so-called race blind states (like U.S.) have special rights for certain groups, usually the traditional owner of the land.

One last thing, U.S. do not have "special rights" for the Native Americans in their constituation. They have "special rights" because generally speaking, the Native Americans are at an economic disadvantage as compared to the rest of the country. You could compare that with Malaysia's situation. However, U.S has also supports the other minorities as well, such as Hispanics and African Americans, even though they are not "Native Americans". Their reason for this support is based on economic reasons and economic reasons only.

Malaysia supports bumiputeras because of economic reasons as well, but in addition to that, bumiputeras have special rights in the constitution which has nothing to do with economic reasons.
________
digital vaporizer (http://digitalvaporizers.info)

[proudmsianz]

If you look carefully, many of your so-called race blind states (like U.S.) have special rights for certain groups, usually the traditional owner of the land.

One last thing, U.S. do not have "special rights" for the Native Americans in their constituation. They have "special rights" because generally speaking, the Native Americans are at an economic disadvantage as compared to the rest of the country. You could compare that with Malaysia's situation. However, U.S has also supports the other minorities as well, such as Hispanics and African Americans, even though they are not "Native Americans". Their reason for this support is based on economic reasons and economic reasons only.


Of course I understand the difference between Affirmative Action and Special Rights. Native Americans do have special rights (treaty rights) in addition to Affirmative Action which also benefits other minorities.

If you have a better understanding of the United States history before writing, you would know that the founders of the United States made treaties with Native Americans when conquering their lands. Those treaties have given the Native Americans special rights in the issue of lands, water, mining, hunting, fishing, gambling industry, movement across their traditional lands, legal exemptions from requirements of immigration, registration of aliens, work permits, deportation and other restrictions and many more.

For Native Americans, those rights are not discriminatory race-based preferential treatment. For them, those rights are what they negotiated with the U.S. government, what they truely deserve as the traditional owner of America.

Though not mentioned directly in U.S. constitution, those special rights for Native Americans are in fact historical, just like in the case in Malaysia. Also for your information, those treties were only signed aften the U.S. Constitution was drafted. Also remember at that time Native Americans are not considered part of U.S. citizens, hence the constitution would not have applied to Indian Rights.

Hence your statment "reason for [native americans] support is based on economic reasons and economic reasons only" is incorrect. Native Indians in fact have special rights inherited from treaties made centuries ago.

[__earth]

If you have a better understanding of the United States history before writing, you would know that the founders of the United States made treaties with Native Americans when conquering their lands. Those treaties have given the Native Americans special rights in the issue of lands, water, mining, hunting, fishing, gambling industry, movement across their traditional lands, legal exemptions from requirements of immigration, registration of aliens, work permits, deportation and other restrictions and many more.

Those Native's treaties don't come just because they are Natives. It's because of the American history of aggression against the Natives.

Perhaps you are conveniently forgetting that Natives there are minority instead of majority with the American Republic driving them out of their land forcefully in the past.

Furthermore, if you know American history of which I'm sure you know considering how your state your statement, the rights for the Natives come because the US bought and sometimes confiscated the land from the Natives. For instance, the state of Washington was actually bought from the tribes that were later led by the famous Chief Seattle. The rights such as fishing and natural resource is part of the contract because of those lands that was taken away from them and the rights are compensation. An example of confiscation is the General Custer campaign when many Natives and American were killed.

Thus, the scenario of the Natives is different in at least two ways:

1. the US bought and sometimes stole the land from the Natives and the rights are the price and a way to apologize to the Natives. It's a compensation for past aggression. In Malaysia, the government didn't buy nor stole anybody's land to form a state. In Malaysia, nobody has yet, and hopefully will never to face aggression from the state.

2. Natives are minority and were truly disenfranchised. Even war was declared on them. In Malaysia, the majority receives special treatment instead of the minority. In Malaysia, its the Orang Asli's that need special attention instead of the majority and other large ethnics that are better well off. Even under socioeconomic measurement, lots of Orang Asli are probably living below average Malaysian line.

Driving the Natives American scenario to of the atmosphere in Malaysia parallel is similar calling a perpendicular as parallel though both belong to mathematics.

[proudmsianz]

Those Native's treaties don't come just because they are Natives. It's because of the American history of aggression against the Natives.

Perhaps you are conveniently forgetting that Natives there are minority instead of majority with the American Republic driving them out of their land forcefully in the past.

Furthermore, if you know American history of which I'm sure you know considering how your state your statement, the rights for the Natives come because the US bought and sometimes confiscated the land from the Natives. For instance, the state of Washington was actually bought from the tribes that were later led by the famous Chief Seattle. The rights such as fishing and natural resource is part of the contract because of those lands that was taken away from them and the rights are compensation. An example of confiscation is the General Custer campaign when many Natives and American were killed.

Thus, the scenario of the Natives is different in at least two ways:

1. the US bought and sometimes stole the land from the Natives and the rights are the price and a way to apologize to the Natives. It's a compensation for past aggression. In Malaysia, the government didn't buy nor stole anybody's land to form a state. In Malaysia, nobody has yet, and hopefully will never to face aggression from the state.

2. Natives are minority and were truly disenfranchised. Even war was declared on them. In Malaysia, the majority receives special treatment instead of the minority. In Malaysia, its the Orang Asli's that need special attention instead of the majority and other large ethnics that are better well off. Even under socioeconomic measurement, lots of Orang Asli are probably living below average Malaysian line.

Driving the Natives American scenario to of the atmosphere in Malaysia parallel is similar calling a perpendicular as parallel though both belong to mathematics.

Actually you can still draw some parallel comparison between Malays and Native Americans, even though they are not really the same (no two things are):
1. Malaya was colonized by the British. North America by White Americans.
2. Malay special rights is a kind of recognizition of Malays as traditional owners of the land (bumiputras). In U.S. is the same.
3. Native American Reservations are similar to Malay reserve lands in Malaysia.
3. Malays were not the significant majority in Malaysia (<50%). In fact when Singapore was counted, there were more Chinese than Malays. The same is true in North America when those treaties were signed.

Actually Native American special rights are not "compensation". More than 800 treaties were signed centuries ago between the government. The United States government, however, fail to ratify less than half of the treaties. Those rights are what Native Americans truely deserve ever since U.S. founders agree with the treaties centuries ago. Now more and more unassimilated Native Americans are claiming back their rights under treaties.

If you want to talk about the parallel notion of "compensation", it is called Affirmative Action in the United States, which started decades ago to compensate the discrimination and harms did to non-Whites. It is different from Native Treaty Right, which by right should have started ever since the day treaties were signed centuries ago.

[__earth]

1. Malaya was colonized by the British. North America by White Americans.
We achieve independence. Natives American didn't.

2. Malay special rights is a kind of recognizition of Malays as traditional owners of the land (bumiputras). In U.S. is the same.

If that is your answer, why dont you give all land to the Malays then?

3. Native American Reservations are similar to Malay reserve lands in Malaysia.


Nope. Wikipedia is holy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation).

3. Malays were not the significant majority in Malaysia (<50%). In fact when Singapore was counted, there were more Chinese than Malays. The same is true in North America when those treaties were signed.

You always give the most interest statistics without stating the source. Since when the Malay at any point of time became a majority less than 50% of the total population?

See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Malaysia) and the CIA Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/my.html). You stats is wrong just as your 40% Bumiputra in SRJ in Sabah. I will not be able to accept anymore stats from you unless you state your source. State your source or it would seem that you picked the fact out of the air at your leisure.

Plus, why do you need to include Singapore? Why don't you include Japan too? I'm sure that would make interesting numbers no matter how nonsense it might be. In statistics, we call that kitchen sink.

If you want to talk about the parallel notion of "compensation", it is called Affirmative Action in the United States, which started decades ago to compensate the discrimination and harms did to non-Whites. It is different from Native Treaty Right, which by right should have started ever since the day treaties were signed centuries ago.

Affirmative action includes the rights to the natives american. See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action) again for reference.

On the side note, we are digressing from SRJ to affirmative action.

[lyzzy]

3. Malays were not the significant majority in Malaysia (<50%). In fact when Singapore was counted, there were more Chinese than Malays. The same is true in North America when those treaties were signed.


Agree with earth. LOL. Your facts are so untrue that they are hilarious! The percentage of Malays have never dropped beneath 50%, and ever since Independence, the percentage of Malays have increased rapidly (migration of other races to Australia and etc).
________
video review (http://videoreviews.org)

[zAiTsEv]

3. Malays were not the significant majority in Malaysia (<50%). In fact when Singapore was counted, there were more Chinese than Malays. The same is true in North America when those treaties were signed.


Agree with earth. LOL. Your facts are so untrue that they are hilarious! The percentage of Malays have never dropped beneath 50%, and ever since Independence, the percentage of Malays have increased rapidly (migration of other races to Australia and etc).

east malaysia were invited to join the federation to balance the number of bumis and non-bumis. But after Singapore withdrew, the percentage of bumis has been increasing up till now.

[chiunlin]

3. Malays were not the significant majority in Malaysia (<50%). In fact when Singapore was counted, there were more Chinese than Malays. The same is true in North America when those treaties were signed.

You always give the most interest statistics without stating the source. Since when the Malay at any point of time became a majority less than 50% of the total population?

See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Malaysia) and the CIA Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/my.html). You stats is wrong just as your 40% Bumiputra in SRJ in Sabah. I will not be able to accept anymore stats from you unless you state your source. State your source or it would seem that you picked the fact out of the air at your leisure.

Plus, why do you need to include Singapore? Why don't you include Japan too? I'm sure that would make interesting numbers no matter how nonsense it might be. In statistics, we call that kitchen sink.

Though proudmsianz may not be entirely correct, I believe there's still something in his statement. Proudmsianz said Malays were... , and I believe he's referring to the period after independence and before Singapore separated. So, unless you have forgotten your history lessons, you would definitely include Singapore and not Japan into the population count.

Besides, _earth and lyzzy, can you please provide me statistics about the racial ratio right after the independence period? I have no idea what the ratio is but I believe you can only say proudmsianz is definitely wrong by providing us with the statistics. Don't counter by asking proudmsianz to provide us with the statistics, since if you can't do it, you can't say you're more right than him
I did a crude estimate. From the holy wikipedia, I found Sabah has >66% bumi(non-malay indigenous is 66%, so bumi is definitely way more than that), Sarawak has more than half bumi, and in the whole country, there is 58% bumi. And Singapore has 76.8% Chinese. Assuming the Chinese ratio in Singapore is constant and taking into account the drop in the percentage of Chinese in Malaysia, it appears to me there is a possiblity that at one point of time, there might be less than 50% bumis(proudmsianz said Malays, but I interpret as bumis, if it's Malay, then there's a greater possibility that the Malays were not the significant majority at one time).

[lyzzy]

Oops, I made a horrendous mistake.... Bumis WERE below 50% at one point. My bad. The bumi population before Independence was significantly under 50%.

Very significantly.

Extremely significantly.

They were, in fact, 49%. http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/merger/merger.html



3. Malays were not the significant majority in Malaysia (<50%). In fact when Singapore was counted, there were more Chinese than Malays. The same is true in North America when those treaties were signed.

I'm pretty sure that the 1% makes all the difference - obviously they can't be the majority in the country. Even though the Chinese was 37%.

Apparently 37% is MORE than 49%? I don't know how that would be possible? But since proudmsianz said so... it apparently is.

P/S I believe you can find those facts in Sejarah textbooks. That link is not the best link I can give (as I don't think it's very official), but it's the best I can give now.
________
medical marijuana (http://dispensaries.org/)

[proudmsianz]

3. Malays were not the significant majority in Malaysia (<50%). In fact when Singapore was counted, there were more Chinese than Malays. The same is true in North America when those treaties were signed.


Agree with earth. LOL. Your facts are so untrue that they are hilarious! The percentage of Malays have never dropped beneath 50%, and ever since Independence, the percentage of Malays have increased rapidly (migration of other races to Australia and etc).

Actually if you guys read carefully, I wrote "were" not now. Emphasis is given to independence era, not now. Also, when we said Malays, we don't include other natives like Dayak or Kadazan. If all natives should be included, the correct terminology is 'bumiputras'.

Let me present facts that end lyzzy baseless and truely "hilarious" accusation and opinion as usual.

In 1969 there bumiputras (Malays + other natives) 53%, Chinese 37%, Indian 10%.

Before Singapore was "kicked out" of Malaysia, Malays ratio was lower and Chinese ratio higher.

Malaysia Census 2000, Malay 53%, Chinese 26%, Indian 11.7%, Other Bumi 7.7%, Ohters 1.2%.

Note that when isolate Malays from Bumiputras, the Malays comprise only 53%, and this is census of year 2000! Chinese used to made up 35% when Malaysia achieve independence (do your math). Also, Singapore was once part of Malaysia, and before we achieved independence in 1957, Singapore was always considered part of Malaya. Hence _earth argument that Singapore is irrelavent in this case, is by itself incorrect. Before 1957 there was a census of Malaya and it showed that ethnic Chinese (40%+) outnumber ethnic Malays (40%+). I swear this is a FACT I have learnt from printed non-Web based report just that currently I am unable to find equivalent support from the internet.

I did not make up facts from taking Japan or other nation into account. What I said really happened historically.


About my statistics of 40% bumiputras studying in Chinese schools, there is nothing wrong about it since those 40% are considered bumiputras! There was nothing wrong with the statistics but only the intepretation. You pointed out that some of those bumiputras could be Chinese, which is true but as I told you that the ratio of Chinese-bumiputras is probably very low hence the 40% figure is still not far from the truth. (_earth never shows the counter statistics or evidence) Also just to complicate the issue is the fact that those so-called Chinese-bumiputras are in fact descendents of Kadazan or other bumuputras, hence technically they should called Kadazan bumiputras and in fact they call themselves Kadazan! So strictly speaking there is no Chinese-bumiputras as those people with Chinese blood only becomes bumiputras because of bumiputras blood, not their Chineseness. (Would _earth argue in the similar way that Dr. Wan Azizah who has Chinese blood should be called "Chinese bumiputras" even though the definition of her bumiputra status comes from her Malay ancestors? Well this is off-topic but just to point it out.)

[proudmsianz]

Oops, I made a horrendous mistake.... Bumis WERE below 50% at one point. My bad. The bumi population before Independence was significantly under 50%.

Very significantly.

Extremely significantly.

They were, in fact, 49%. http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/merger/merger.html



3. Malays were not the significant majority in Malaysia (<50%). In fact when Singapore was counted, there were more Chinese than Malays. The same is true in North America when those treaties were signed.

I'm pretty sure that the 1% makes all the difference - obviously they can't be the majority in the country. Even though the Chinese was 37%.

Apparently 37% is MORE than 49%? I don't know how that would be possible? But since proudmsianz said so... it apparently is.

P/S I believe you can find those facts in Sejarah textbooks. That link is not the best link I can give (as I don't think it's very official), but it's the best I can give now.


Thanks for pointing out that! I was looking frantically for the evidence because I do not have all my sejarah books and reports with me.

[proudmsianz]

Oops, I made a horrendous mistake.... Bumis WERE below 50% at one point. My bad. The bumi population before Independence was significantly under 50%.

Very significantly.

Extremely significantly.

They were, in fact, 49%. http://ourstory.asia1.com.sg/merger/merger.html



3. Malays were not the significant majority in Malaysia (<50%). In fact when Singapore was counted, there were more Chinese than Malays. The same is true in North America when those treaties were signed.

I'm pretty sure that the 1% makes all the difference - obviously they can't be the majority in the country. Even though the Chinese was 37%.

Apparently 37% is MORE than 49%? I don't know how that would be possible? But since proudmsianz said so... it apparently is.

P/S I believe you can find those facts in Sejarah textbooks. That link is not the best link I can give (as I don't think it's very official), but it's the best I can give now.

Just to point out that if Malaya achieved independence in 1957 with Singapore included, ethnic Chinese would actually outnumber ethnic Malays, both still consist less than 50% though.

Similarly, if Malaysia was formed in 1963 without Sabah and Sarawak, the same scenario would happen too.

When Singapore was part of Malaysia, ethnic Chinese made up a significant propotion in Malaysia demographic composition, even though lesser than the Malays.

[UNCONFIRMED THIRD PERSON OPITION]Hence there is the opinion that Chiense voters at that time galvanized under Lee Kuan Yew's "Malaysia for Malaysians" idea represent a significant threat toward the Federal government chance of winning the election, hence Singapore was "kicked out" by then UMNO president Tunku Abdul Rahman to liquidate this threat.

Soon other UMNO members started to regret this "myopic" decision and think that Tunku shouldn't have "kicked out" Singapore from the Federation. The same complaints of Tunku decision can still be heard until today. Actually I also think that Singapore shouldn't be kicked out since it is a very strategic island for Malaysia.

I pointed out in my previous post that "when Singapore was counted, there were more Chinese than Malays" in Malaya. I have actually seen the statistics from the census myself, though I couldn't find any online link.

[proudmsianz]

2. Malay special rights is a kind of recognizition of Malays as traditional owners of the land (bumiputras). In U.S. is the same.

If that is your answer, why dont you give all land to the Malays then?

Well, we were merely comparing Native Americans and Malays. The fact is both Malays and Native Americans do not have all land in either Malaysia or U.S.A. My statement was to point out the similarity. You are however asking another question which is irrelevent to the comparison we were trying to make.


3. Malays were not the significant majority in Malaysia (<50%). In fact when Singapore was counted, there were more Chinese than Malays. The same is true in North America when those treaties were signed.

You always give the most interest statistics without stating the source. Since when the Malay at any point of time became a majority less than 50% of the total population?

See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Malaysia) and the CIA Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/my.html). You stats is wrong just as your 40% Bumiputra in SRJ in Sabah. I will not be able to accept anymore stats from you unless you state your source. State your source or it would seem that you picked the fact out of the air at your leisure.

Plus, why do you need to include Singapore? Why don't you include Japan too? I'm sure that would make interesting numbers no matter how nonsense it might be. In statistics, we call that kitchen sink.

Well, you misunderstood, ignore the crucial "were" keyword and took what I said out of the context. I have replied this in other post. Please read carefully next time.

If you want to talk about the parallel notion of "compensation", it is called Affirmative Action in the United States, which started decades ago to compensate the discrimination and harms did to non-Whites. It is different from Native Treaty Right, which by right should have started ever since the day treaties were signed centuries ago.

Affirmative action includes the rights to the natives american. See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action) again for reference.[/quote]

Then the situation in Malaysia and U.S.A isn't exactly perpenducular as you have claimed, right?

As I said ealier on there ain't two 100% similar contexts for us to compare.

Yeah we are off-topic. I think I should stop discussing affirmative action in this thread.

[__earth]

2. Malay special rights is a kind of recognizition of Malays as traditional owners of the land (bumiputras). In U.S. is the same.

If that is your answer, why dont you give all land to the Malays then?

Well, we were merely comparing Native Americans and Malays. The fact is both Malays and Native Americans do not have all land in either Malaysia or U.S.A. My statement was to point out the similarity. You are however asking another question which is irrelevent to the comparison we were trying to make.

Why is it irrelevent? It's merely an extension of your point. If it's irrelevent, then you are calling your point as irrelevent.

Then the situation in Malaysia and U.S.A isn't exactly perpenducular as you have claimed, right?

As I said ealier on there ain't two 100% similar contexts for us to compare.

Simple argument. A = Malay in Malaysia. B = Natives in US. C = affirmative action.

A and B are subsets of C. But A and B are mutually exclusive. Thus, A and B is not the same but still belong in c.

Besides, _earth and lyzzy, can you please provide me statistics about the racial ratio right after the independence period? I have no idea what the ratio is but I believe you can only say proudmsianz is definitely wrong by providing us with the statistics. Don't counter by asking proudmsianz to provide us with the statistics, since if you can't do it, you can't say you're more right than him

One problem though, if someone wants to prove something, as a yes, one needs to prove it. Like in science, it's not an accepted truth until its proven.

[lyzzy]

I gave an online link earlier that had the percentages of Malays and Chinese, showing clearly that the percentage of Malays was more than the percentage of Chinese. You didn't - saying that it was an non-web based report. Fine.

(For clarification purposes: I use the percentage 40% because it is the lowest number that you use, so as to not skew the argument in my favour.)

However, you make the argument that Malays was a minority when they created special rights, just like the Native Americans. The Native Americans population doesn't even come close to even 40% - it's just a mere 0.9%! (From Wikipedia) Whatever your case is, there's a big gap between 40% (or so you claim) and 0.9% - it changes the politics of the country by a lot.

I will use the terms affirmative action and special rights interchangably here.

For one thing, a 40% will influence the ruling party to their benefit. A 0.9% won't; they will most likely get sidelined (like the current situation of Indians and bumis who are not Malay) - unless the rest of the nation agrees to give them special rights due to some other reason (like previous aggression and oppresion perhaps???!!).

I fail to see how your argument that the Malays are in the same situation as Native Americans follow.
________
find dispensary (http://dispensaries.org/)

[__earth]

About my statistics of 40% bumiputras studying in Chinese schools, there is nothing wrong about it since those 40% are considered bumiputras! There was nothing wrong with the statistics but only the intepretation. You pointed out that some of those bumiputras could be Chinese, which is true but as I told you that the ratio of Chinese-bumiputras is probably very low hence the 40% figure is still not far from the truth. (_earth never shows the counter statistics or evidence) Also just to complicate the issue is the fact that those so-called Chinese-bumiputras are in fact descendents of Kadazan or other bumuputras, hence technically they should called Kadazan bumiputras and in fact they call themselves Kadazan! So strictly speaking there is no Chinese-bumiputras as those people with Chinese blood only becomes bumiputras because of bumiputras blood, not their Chineseness. (Would _earth argue in the similar way that Dr. Wan Azizah who has Chinese blood should be called "Chinese bumiputras" even though the definition of her bumiputra status comes from her Malay ancestors? Well this is off-topic but just to point it out.)

proudmsianz agrees with me that some other Bumiputras in Sabah are Chinese. So that automatically skips the proving part since both of us are convinced of it.

Later, proudmsianz said it's probably very small, and he asserted that it's an insignificant factor. So, is it my responsibility to prove that statement or proudmsianz's?

Surely, its the one that makes the statement is the one that needs to prove it. If he is yet to prove that, do I need to disprove it? Until it's proven, it's not accepted fact. Then do I need to provide proof to disprove a yet to be accepted fact?

Don't counter by asking proudmsianz to provide us with the statistics, since if you can't do it, you can't say you're more right than him.

If he fails, then he is no more right than me, true? When no one is right and nothing is true, does one need to disprove it while the statement is yet to be proven?

And perhaps he is right with the pre-independence demographic. but 37% > 49%? C'mon. One doesn't need to prove 49 >39 incessantly.

Concerning the 40%, I said it is misleading, and thus wrong in the way it was presented because while presenting the 40% as proof, proudmsianz didn't mention that part of the Bumis in Sabah are in fact Chinese. Immediately after I pointed that out, he said that he realized that some of the Bumis are in fact Chinese. His realization itself gives me the liberty to not prove that some of the Bumis are in fact Chinese. One doesn't need to be convinced when one is already convinced.

The question now, according to your source proudmsianz, how many Bumis minus the Bumi Chinese are there in SRJ? If small, how small?

Fact is, as proudmsianz and I have agreed, some of the Bumis are in fact Chinese. And if significant amount of Bumiputras are Chinese, then seeing 40% attending SRJ is not wildly unexpected and can't be called diverse. Plus, he mentioned 10% of all students in SRJ are non-Chinese and that in fact is prove SRJ is diverse. Is 10% diverse?

Ignoring that that part of 40% are Chinese is ignoring the underlying reason why it's 40%.

In statistics, interpretation is everything. Without interpretation, the numbers mean nothing. When you learn stats, most of the time you learn how to interpret it, not how to calculate it. Calculating stats most of the time is straightforward.

The matter at hand is, the composition of Sabah and Peninsular Malaysia is different. proudmsianz acts as if it is the same while the underlying reason to the Sabah's condition is the difference of demographic of west and east Malaysia. The composition between west and east Malaysian Bumiputra itself is different. That is why I'm challenging this presentation of 40% Bumis in Sabah's SRJ as a proof that SRJ is diverse as a whole.

My left hand has five fingers but does my head has five fingers too? This is exactly the scenario. Part of the system that is different from the other part of the system doesn't reflect the whole system. Like I've said earlier, composition doesn't say anything about distribution. Clear here, the composition of Sabah doesn't tell anything about the distribution of the vernacular as a whole, with the composition of Sabah's population itself is different from Peninsular. Do I need to proof that the composition is different or it is an acceptable statement?

proudmsianz agrees that part of Bumis in Sabah are in fact Chinese. So, that skipped the proving part. Question now, how small is that Bumi-Chinese? Is it small and negligible or it is small but significant or even greatly significant?

Again, proudmsianz asserts its small and negligible. It's he that needs to prove that, not me. Assertion without proof is nothing. Without proof, one that skeptics of the assertion doesn't have to disprove it in order to not to believe. It's the salesperson's job to convince the customer to buy. It's not the customer's job to convince the salesperson to buy.

If it's true in the real world that it's small and negligible, fine. But still, the Sabah's situation is different from the rest of west Malaysia and that itself means what is happening in Sabah can't describe the situation in west malaysia.

Stretching the argument, the situation of Natives American can't describe the situation of the Malay special rights.

[chiunlin]

Don't counter by asking proudmsianz to provide us with the statistics, since if you can't do it, you can't say you're more right than him.

If he fails, then he is no more right than me, true? When no one is right and nothing is true, does one need to disprove it while the statement is yet to be proven?

Of course proudmsianz is no more right than you without the stats(but the fact is, if the link can the trusted, then he is right about the Malays not being the majority), but my point is, you can't accuse him of being wrong, since you can't prove it.
You stats is wrong
One problem though, if someone wants to prove something, as a yes, one needs to prove it. Like in science, it's not an accepted truth until its proven.

[proudmsianz]

Stretching the argument, the situation of Natives American can't describe the situation of the Malay special rights.

Driving the Natives American scenario to of the atmosphere in Malaysia parallel is similar calling a perpendicular as parallel though both belong to mathematics.

Well, I have made my comparison between them, and that is the point I want to make. Of course everybody knows that they are not exactly the same. However, they are not "perpenducular" as you might have suggested.


Simple argument. A = Malay in Malaysia. B = Natives in US. C = affirmative action.
A and B are subsets of C. But A and B are mutually exclusive. Thus, A and B is not the same but still belong in c.

Come on, you might be a Math major but you can't equate what really happened in the past. This is really ridiculous!

Well, we were merely comparing Native Americans and Malays. The fact is both Malays and Native Americans do not have all land in either Malaysia or U.S.A. My statement was to point out the similarity. You are however asking another question which is irrelevent to the comparison we were trying to make.

Why is it irrelevent? It's merely an extension of your point. If it's irrelevent, then you are calling your point as irrelevent.[/quote]

We were making comparison, then you ask another related question which pertain to both cases. Hence I said this is irrelevant to the comparison I was trying to make.

And perhaps he is right with the pre-independence demographic. but 37% > 49%? C'mon. One doesn't need to prove 49 >39 incessantly.

Hmm, perhaps you were again misunderstood what I said. I said " Malays were not the significant majority in Malaysia (<50%)", then there is a FULL STOP punctionation. Followed by another sentence that said "In fact when Singapore was counted, there were more Chinese than Malays".

Please note that these are two different sentences! Izzy source has proven that my first part is correct, hence the comparison of Malays and American Indians are not the "significant majority" during the early years of both countries.

37 (Chinese)is not bigger than 40+(Malays). This is a fact that everybody aggrees.

I was later saying that "when Singapore was counted, there were more Chinese than Malays", this is another piece of fact that I have proven, because there is no non-web based information I can gather at this moment. I wasn't adding or substrating just to make up this statment "when Singapore was counted, there were more Chinese than Malays". This is in fact a census made during pre-independence (Malaya) era including both 11 states in Malaya and Singapore.

Please do not confuse the two sentences above. I take the blame in not being precise, hence giving you guys the false notion that I was arguing 37 > 40. This is of course not what I was saying.


One problem though, if someone wants to prove something, as a yes, one needs to prove it. Like in science, it's not an accepted truth until its proven.

[DIGRESSION]
Just to let you know that in science disproving requires evidence too. Something that was deduced without evidence is called hypothesis, yet those who wish to disprove it need evidence too.

[proudmsianz]

However, you make the argument that Malays was a minority when they created special rights, just like the Native Americans. The Native Americans population doesn't even come close to even 40% - it's just a mere 0.9%! (From Wikipedia) Whatever your case is, there's a big gap between 40% (or so you claim) and 0.9% - it changes the politics of the country by a lot.

Your data only shows MODERN U.S.A. demographic composition. Remember we were pointing to the time when those special rights started, and for the case of U.S.A. it was centuries ago. At that time the Native Americans have already been outnumbered by the Europeans, still Native Americans wasn't 0.9% but much much higher. The current ratio of 0.9% is only achived by centuries of immigrants pouring into America while Native Americans population decreased gradually due to diseases which they had no immunity.

[proudmsianz]

Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 3:47 am

Once again (as what I said earlier), from my source, as you said, 49% is very close to being a 50%, which would make them the "significant majority". 1% is a very minor difference! It is smaller, and it FAILS the significance level test (which is usually 3%) 1% means NOTHING, unless of course, you have two equally strong parties, as in the case of Ruben vs Clay, or Bush vs Gore. And we have seen that that case is not true, 37% of Chinese is probably a standard deviation away from 49%.

Malays WERE essentially speaking, the majority, at that time - therefore, able to skew the Constitution to their benefit should they wish to.

Native Americans were only 0.9%.

OK, when I said " not significant majority", I meant lower than 50%. I thought you and I agree with this definition? You said previously that the Malays (49%) "can't be the majority in the country", "the 1% makes all the difference"?


I'm pretty sure that the 1% makes all the difference - obviously they can't be the majority in the country. Even though the Chinese was 37%.


I am not familiar with your "significance level test", and I wasn't refering to this test when saying "significant majority". Perhaps I should have used the phrase "less than 50%" to avoid all this confusion.

Also, census I believe is made nationwide with no one excluded, everybody is counted. Unlike the statistical method which you might have refered to that relies on drawing samples, not every one of them.

Yes, Malays were the majority during independence in 1957 (Singapore excluded) and 1963(Singapore included). That's why I use the phrase "significant majority".

[lyzzy]

Please note that these are two different sentences! Izzy source has proven that my first part is correct, hence the comparison of Malays and American Indians are not the "significant majority" during the early years of both countries.


Once again as you said, 49% is very close to being a 50%, which would make them the "significant majority". 1% is a very minor difference! It is smaller, and it FAILS the significance level test (which is usually 3%) 1% means NOTHING, unless of course, you have two equally strong parties, as in the case of Ruben vs Clay, or Bush vs Gore. And we have seen that that case is not true, 37% of Chinese is probably a standard deviation away from 49%.

Malays WERE essentially speaking, the majority, at that time - therefore, able to skew the Constitution to their benefit should they wish to.

Remember we were pointing to the time when those special rights started, and for the case of U.S.A. it was centuries ago.

That is NOT true either. Even if your fact that the Native Americans population is larger than the European American is true (which I have not seen you give proof of), excuse me, have you ever not heard of the forced migration? Trail of Tears? Indian Removal Act of 1830? Special rights were given centuries ago? It's not even in the constution! (Unlike Malay/bumi's special rights)


As recently as the 1960s, Indians were being jailed for teaching their traditional beliefs. As recently as the 1970s, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was still actively pursuing a policy of "assimilation" [9] (http://www.doiu.nbc.gov/orientation/bia2.cfm), the goal of which was to eliminate the reservations and steer Indians into mainstream U.S. culture.
From Wikipedia: Native Americans

Your facts are without proof, and without basis. Special rights were NOT started since centuries ago. Feel free to search around for some link to your source. If you read every source pertaining to the Native Americans, all of which will tell you that there was active discrimination against the Native Americans since Columbus discovered America. That is the reason why they are given affirmative action.

Once again, I fail to see the connection between Malays and Native Americans.
________
Honda CBX (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Honda_CBX)

[lyzzy]

You said previously that the Malays (49%) "can't be the majority in the country", "the 1% makes all the difference"?



I was being sarcastic. I thought the repeating of the words "significantly" will clue you in on that.
________
Toyota TF106 specifications (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_TF106)

[proudmsianz]

You said previously that the Malays (49%) "can't be the majority in the country", "the 1% makes all the difference"?



I was being sarcastic. I thought the repeating of the words "significantly" will clue you in on that.

Hey I saw your post before mine, then it jumped after my reply. What happened?

I post my reply again so that it seems logical. Otherwise "reply before post" seems weird.



Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 3:47 am

Once again (as what I said earlier), from my source, as you said, 49% is very close to being a 50%, which would make them the "significant majority". 1% is a very minor difference! It is smaller, and it FAILS the significance level test (which is usually 3%) 1% means NOTHING, unless of course, you have two equally strong parties, as in the case of Ruben vs Clay, or Bush vs Gore. And we have seen that that case is not true, 37% of Chinese is probably a standard deviation away from 49%.

Malays WERE essentially speaking, the majority, at that time - therefore, able to skew the Constitution to their benefit should they wish to.

Native Americans were only 0.9%.

OK, when I said " not significant majority", I meant lower than 50%. I thought you and I agree with this definition? You said previously that the Malays (49%) "can't be the majority in the country", "the 1% makes all the difference"?


I'm pretty sure that the 1% makes all the difference - obviously they can't be the majority in the country. Even though the Chinese was 37%.


I am not familiar with your "significance level test", and I wasn't refering to this test when saying "significant majority". Perhaps I should have used the phrase "less than 50%" to avoid all this confusion.

Also, census I believe is made nationwide with no one excluded, everybody is counted. Unlike the statistical method which you might have refered to that relies on drawing samples, not every one of them.

Yes, Malays were the majority during independence in 1957 (Singapore excluded) and 1963(Singapore included). That's why I use the phrase "significant majority".

[lyzzy]

I mention this in the post before yours (last post on page 5), but you seem to be evading it.

Please, please do explain how you deduced that the Native Americans were given special rights "centuries ago" even though they were forced to assimilate, their lands were being robbed of, they lack access to good public schools (even until now, actually)

I am very curious to hear your explanation. So are the 0.9% of the American population.

I shall not argue with you about the significant majority, do ask a statistician about the significance level test when you have free time.
________
no2 review (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/no2/)

[proudmsianz]

Your facts are without proof, and without basis. Special rights were NOT started since centuries ago. Feel free to search around for some link to your source. If you read every source pertaining to the Native Americans, all of which will tell you that there was active discrimination against the Native Americans since Columbus discovered America. That is the reason why they are given affirmative action.

Once again, I fail to see the connection between Malays and Native Americans.

Just forget about my comparison between Native American and Malays for a moment. I was merely trying to show the legal connection between Native American and Malays special rights in my earlier post. This however proves too much for some and they miss the point here.

In fact Native Americans are guarenteed MANY special rights centuries ago. It is called TREATY RIGHTS. There are more than 800 of them between different tribes and during different time. A lot of them are however not ratified by the government and insteand the Native Indians were discriminated and oppressed.

Even without affirmative action, Native Americans still have Treaty Rights as guaranteed by the U.S. government. This is similar to Malays special right, which they still have it even though New Economic Policy wasn't implemented. Native Americans Treaty rights written in treaties, Malays special rights written in the consitution. The truth is these right stated not solely because of economic reason, as you have claimed (without prove).

One last thing, U.S. do not have "special rights" for the Native Americans in their constituation. They have "special rights" because generally speaking, the Native Americans are at an economic disadvantage as compared to the rest of the country. You could compare that with Malaysia's situation. However, U.S has also supports the other minorities as well, such as Hispanics and African Americans, even though they are not "Native Americans". Their reason for this support is based on economic reasons and economic reasons only.


Of couse I know how the treacherous U.S. government in the past discriminated Native Americans, even though 800 treaties were signed to guarantee Native American rights and special rights. I was pointing the similar legal basis of Native Americans Treaty Rights and Malays Special Rights, both started as a form of recogniztion of the Natives as traditional owner of the countries.

In fact I can draw more similarities between them, thogh their backgrounds are not exactly alike. In both cases Native Americans and Malays Special Rights are a sort of "compromise" between the natives and non-natives.

However, there is one disctinct differences, which is the U.S. didn't ratify most of the treaties, while Malaysia does. Keep in mind however I was just trying to point out the legal basis of both Malay sepcial rights and Native Americans Treaty Rights.

Here is the link to show you more information about Native Americans Treaty Rights.

Izzy just look at the years those treaties were signed.


http://collections.ic.gc.ca/indian/a84apr14.htm

Jay Treaty of 1794

The right of North American Indian people to travel freely across their traditional lands is a part of their self-determination, and those rights should also include legal exemptions from requirements of immigration, registration of aliens, work permits, deportation and other restrictions present in Canadian law. The United States having ratified the Jay treaties now extends these rights to North American Indians born in Canada whereas the Canadian government does not.

........................

Their tribal autonomy would be respected and they would suffer no direct or indirect compulsion to alter their traditional ways of life.

They would continue to enjoy the unrestricted rights to hunt, fish, trap and gather over their traditional lands (whether ceded or not), to the exclusion of non-Indians.

They would continue to enjoy all sub-surface rights in respect of their traditional lands (whether ceded or not).

They would be provided with prompt and adequate relief in times of famine, and proper medical care, and those who were aged or infirm would receive all necessary attention.

They would not be conscripted into military service nor taxed without their consent.

[__earth]

Don't counter by asking proudmsianz to provide us with the statistics, since if you can't do it, you can't say you're more right than him.

If he fails, then he is no more right than me, true? When no one is right and nothing is true, does one need to disprove it while the statement is yet to be proven?

Of course proudmsianz is no more right than you without the stats(but the fact is, if the link can the trusted, then he is right about the Malays not being the majority), but my point is, you can't accuse him of being wrong, since you can't prove it.
You stats is wrong
One problem though, if someone wants to prove something, as a yes, one needs to prove it. Like in science, it's not an accepted truth until its proven.

Alright, again

His 40% is inaccurate. Though the figure is 40%, his implication is wrong since he freely makes conclusion that SRJ is diverse without considering "all things are not equal". The ceteris paribus here is the composition or west and east Malaysia. Hence, he is wrong in his conclusion, and hence, the way he deduced from the stats.

He's 49% - he said it's not significantly majority and:

In 1969 there bumiputras (Malays + other natives) 53%, Chinese 37%, Indian 10%.

Before Singapore was "kicked out" of Malaysia, Malays ratio was lower and Chinese ratio higher.

Malaysia Census 2000, Malay 53%, Chinese 26%, Indian 11.7%, Other Bumi 7.7%, Ohters 1.2%. 9

3. Malays were not the significant majority in Malaysia (<50%). In fact when Singapore was counted, there were more Chinese than Malays. The same is true in North America when those treaties were signed.

I've problem with this and then you did a crude estimate:

did a crude estimate. From the holy wikipedia, I found Sabah has >66% bumi(non-malay indigenous is 66%, so bumi is definitely way more than that), Sarawak has more than half bumi, and in the whole country, there is 58% bumi. And Singapore has 76.8% Chinese. Assuming the Chinese ratio in Singapore is constant and taking into account the drop in the percentage of Chinese in Malaysia, it appears to me there is a possiblity that at one point of time, there might be less than 50% bumis(proudmsianz said Malays, but I interpret as bumis, if it's Malay, then there's a greater possibility that the Malays were not the significant majority at one time).

Let's examine this and make a finer estimation - the main reason I'm against proudmsianz is that he makes association too freely and disregards many statistics rules. First of all, how large the Malaysian population minus Singapore in 1963? How large Singaporean population is in 1963?

If Singaporean population large and by I mean, significant proportion of the Malaysian Federation in 1963, then that that 77% might influence the total demography of Malaysia in 1963 and changes the whole dynamics.

If Singaporean is small relative to the Federation in 1963, then that influences nothing.

Singapore right now has about 4.5 mil pop (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore)). Malaysia has 26 mil. (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia)).

The birth rate in Singapore 16 per thousand population each year (source (http://www.alsagerschool.co.uk/subjects/sub_content/geography/Gpop/HTMLENH/country/my.htm)). Malaysia's 27 per thousand population each year. (Source (http://www.alsagerschool.co.uk/subjects/sub_content/geography/Gpop/HTMLENH/country/my.htm)). Out of lack of information, may we assume the rate is constant though in both country, although the rate was higher back in the past?

Unless somebody is able to provide the information on birth rate, the constant rate assumption is reasonable for the time being.

newborn = birthrate*pop

Done in excel. First column corresponds to Malaysia, the later Singapore.

Malaysia

Year Newborn Total - newborn
2004
2003 598,000 25,402,000
2002 584,246 24,817,754
2001 570,808 24,246,946
2000 557,680 23,689,266
1999 544,853 23,144,413
1998 532,321 22,612,091
1997 520,078 22,092,013
1996 508,116 21,583,897
1995 496,430 21,087,467
1994 485,012 20,602,456
1993 473,856 20,128,599
1992 462,958 19,665,641
1991 452,310 19,213,332
1990 441,907 18,771,425
1989 431,743 18,339,682
1988 421,813 17,917,869
1987 412,111 17,505,758
1986 402,632 17,103,126
1985 393,372 16,709,754
1984 384,324 16,325,430
1983 375,485 15,949,945
1982 366,849 15,583,096
1981 358,411 15,224,685
1980 350,168 14,874,517
1979 342,114 14,532,403
1978 334,245 14,198,158
1977 326,558 13,871,600
1976 319,047 13,552,554
1975 311,709 13,240,845
1974 304,539 12,936,305
1973 297,535 12,638,770
1972 290,692 12,348,079
1971 284,006 12,064,073
1970 277,474 11,786,599
1969 271,092 11,515,507
1968 264,857 11,250,651
1967 258,765 10,991,886
1966 252,813 10,739,072


Singapore

Year Newborn .. Total - newborn
2004
2003 38,500 3,461,500
2002 38,077 3,423,424
2001 37,658 3,385,766
2000 37,243 3,348,522
1999 36,834 3,311,689
1998 36,429 3,275,260
1997 36,028 3,239,232
1996 35,632 3,203,601
1995 35,240 3,168,361
1994 34,852 3,133,509
1993 34,469 3,099,041
1992 34,089 3,064,951
1991 33,714 3,031,237
1990 33,344 2,997,893
1989 32,977 2,964,916
1988 32,614 2,932,302
1987 32,255 2,900,047
1986 31,901 2,868,146
1985 31,550 2,836,597
1984 31,203 2,805,394
1983 30,859 2,774,535
1982 30,520 2,744,015
1981 30,184 2,713,831
1980 29,852 2,683,979
1979 29,524 2,654,455
1978 29,199 2,625,256
1977 28,878 2,596,378
1976 28,560 2,567,818
1975 28,246 2,539,572
1974 27,935 2,511,637
1973 27,628 2,484,009
1972 27,324 2,456,684
1971 27,024 2,429,661
1970 26,726 2,402,935
1969 26,432 2,376,502
1968 26,142 2,350,361
1967 25,854 2,324,507
1966 25,570 2,298,937

I stop at 1966 since the separation happened in 1965. It wouldn't make sense to continue estimation when the composition of both countries are mixed. The merger itself possibly changed the composition.

Notice a few things. Singapore has a decreasing birth rate. In the real world, the birth rate should be greater that the constant we are taking as we go back in time, and thus, it should be smaller population as we substract greater number of people, if it is accounted into this summary.

Now, in Malaysia in, using factbook on Malaysia (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/my.html) and Singapore (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sn.html) , assuming the ratio in Malaysia and Singapore is constant throughout the year, just as chiunlin has assumed earlier, using 49% as malaysia while Bumis are 58% just to be conservative in estimation, in 1969,

Malay = 5,642,598 (Malay 49%)
Chinese = 2,763,721 (24%)

Singapore
Chinese = 1,829,906 (77%)
Malay = 332,710 (14%)

If Malaysia + Singapore, in 1969

Chinese = 4,593,627
Malay = 5,975,308

If we were to use Malay 49% and Chinese 37%, we need the same info from Singapore in 1969. Else, ceteris paribus is violated. In the factbook, they used 2000 for Msia and probably 2003 in Sin. But 2000 and 2003 is not much different so ceteris paribus is sufficiently adhered. Using figure for 2003 for Singapore and figure in 1969 in Malaysia violates the rule and thus, I don't used the figure.

However, I used 49% instead of anything higher than 49 and lower than 58% just to try to skew the possible result towards proud's conclusion. The result however, even with proud's stats, is not in favor of him.

Level of confidence? I don't thin I have the time to complete the stats with SD, SE, significance level and all. In fact, finding any free publication for the info necessary to compute that is rare. Apologize for that.

If we could get the SE, then probably we can argue further, who is right and who is wrong since level of confidence can be calculated.

p/s - i forgot to include the death rate but including the death rate will make the Malaysia population larger and hence, greater number of Malaysians and hence greater number of Malay. The pop of Singapore will be larger too but as you can see, the difference for Malaysian between 1966 and 2004 is 15 mil but Singapore is around 1 mil for the same timeframe.

[chiunlin]

Just to make it clear, I did the crude estimate to indicate the possibility of Malays not being the significant majority, not there were more Chinese than Malays at one time. If you read my previous post carefully, I have never agreed with proudmsianz's statement that " there were more Chinese than Malays". My objectives throughout were to point out that one, it might be wrong to assume Malays have always been the significant majority, and two, you can only say proudmsianz is wrong if you can prove it. I'm interested in what you all are debating on, but my posts are more of a digression than an opinion on the topic.

Another digression here: The best way to resolve this dispute about the racial ratio is to find an authoritative source with the relevant statistics.

[proudmsianz]

I stop at 1966 since the separation happened in 1965. It wouldn't make sense to continue estimation when the composition of both countries are mixed. The merger itself possibly changed the composition.

Hi _earth. I appreciate your effort in disproving what you are unable to accept, yet I wasn't making up the numbers like you were just attempting to do. I WAS MERELY QUOTING A PRE-INDEPENDENCE CENSUS CONCERNING SINGAPORE AND 11 STATES IN MALAYA PENINSULAR. I WASN'T MAKING UP NUMBERS. I still try to put the statistics here once I got my hand on that history book. Hence you don't have to use all supercomputers in the world to calculate the values in an attempt to disprove what I said. For the moment, just assume what I said isn't been proven until I present the census, OK?

After you have seen the census which I will put up you can do whatever analysis you want, but now it might be too early unless you are also able to find the census.

CHILL OUT PAL.

[__earth]

Let's keep it clean and not use the caps lock. It makes others think that you are shouting.

Hi _earth. I appreciate your effort in disproving what you are unable to accept, yet I wasn't making up the numbers like you were just attempting to do.

I'm not making up numbers. I cite everything and even use your own statistics. Just because the numbers don't support you doesn't mean I'm making up numbers. Moreover, I told you how I calculated it. The reason I made the calculation is for the sake of transparency. You asked for a counterproof, you get your proof, along with citation and now you are saying I don't have to do that?

If you want to criticize, you can the criticize the method so that the estimation will be more accurate.

And no, I didn't use a supercomputing. Just algebra and an typical machine. It's actually as easy as picking up a number out from the net.

Let's go back to why you made this statement:
3. Malays were not the significant majority in Malaysia (<50%). In fact when Singapore was counted, there were more Chinese than Malays. The same is true in North America when those treaties were signed.

Even if it's true, how does it strengthen your stand on SRJ? How does adding Singapore to increase the percentage of ethnic Chinese strengthen the reason to have SRJ in the year 2005?

I do realize when you made that statement, we were talking about Malay privileges and how the Malay and Native American are may or may not be similar.

But the question is the situation at the present time.

For the moment, just assume what I said isn't been proven until I present the census, OK?

Let's assume you were right that the Malay was at one time made up less than 50% of the population. Better yet, let's just accept for granted your assertion. Using:

In 1969 there bumiputras (Malays + other natives) 53%, Chinese 37%, Indian 10%.

Before Singapore was "kicked out" of Malaysia, Malays ratio was lower and Chinese ratio higher.

Malaysia Census 2000, Malay 53%, Chinese 26%, Indian 11.7%, Other Bumi 7.7%, Ohters 1.2%.

Right now, the Malay is the majority. And they have special privileges.

Even when we go back in time, assuming you are right that the Natives were the majority in the US as was the Malay in Malaysia (49 is less that 50 but 49 is a significant majority given that the next biggest block was 37), the Malay didn't suffer aggressive action that spans more than 2 centuries while the Natives was attacked, removed from their land and forced to relocate to Indian reserves. And the Malay have special rights as to further strengthen they political power.

Half way across the world, the Natives is neither above nor near 10% of the total population of the US. They are a true minority with having little effect on almost everything. When they were the, as you call, the majority, they suffered humiliation through military defeat countless of times and forced to relocate - many died. And they have special privileges as to bring them closer to the average American means.

Observe the following further:
Malay, majority, never really oppressed or being driven out of their land en masse, has reserve land but never force to just settle in that land, receives special rights currently.

Native, minority, once oppressed and driven out of their land, forced to be relocated in Indian Reserve, receives special rights right now.

Are the two scenarios the same?

[proudmsianz]

Let's keep it clean and not use the caps lock. It makes others think that you are shouting.

Well, those with myopia might appreciate the capital letters. Also it is a form of highlighting actually. To shout I would use supersize red letters actually.


Even if it's true, how does it strengthen your stand on SRJ? How does adding Singapore to increase the percentage of ethnic Chinese strengthen the reason to have SRJ in the year 2005?

....
Are the two scenarios the same?


OK, when I quote that figure I was merely trying to make a point of Native Americans and Malays status when Treaty Right and Malay Special Rights were decided. Actually I don't see any relationship between Malaysia demographic composition in the past and the current SJKC issue. I think those numbers or census will neither strengten nor weaken my stand on SJK; for me they don't matter at all. The idea of pondering on those "IF" questions to me seems to be farfetch and a waste of time for me, since it is something like "BACK TO THE FUTURE" which is impossible.

I feel that you might have taken the whole thing out of context by thinking (associating) too much. (Not saying that you shouldn't) Still if there is any point you try to make between the census and SJK issue, I would like to hear it.

If you have better understanding of the Malay history (I'm not sure of your ethnicity, probably not Malay I guess), you will know that even though Malays are recognized as the traditional owners of Malaya, the rising number of non-Malays immigrants is threatening the status of Malays as the majority group here, especially if Singapore with 70% Chinese was included in Malaya. This was not just the concern of the Malays but also the British in the past; both were afraid that Malaya will become the "third China". I am not making this up as it is well documented. (I do not have the source at this moment). My mentioning of the pre-independence census was to show the same numerical pressure, "threat" faced by Malays and Native Americans. Of course Native Americans faced much bigger threat from increasing Europeans (armed) than Malays from merely the increasing non-Malays (not armed). Remember I was merely trying to draw a comparison? Even though both are not exactly the same things still comparison can be made. Even though the "threat" faced by Malays was not significant when compared with the one faced by Native Americans, it was still a "threat" at that time. It was under those circumstances that Malay Special Rights was included in the Constitution and Native American Treaty Rights in the Treaties. There are differences, of course, just like how different ("perpendicular" as you might say) both cases turn out to be. Natives in Malaysia (50%+) end without being decimated like Natives in America (1%). Please note that more than half of 800 treaties signed between Native Americans and U.S. government were never ratified, many supposedly Reserved Lands were still stolen eventually. In Malaysia Malay Special Rights under our constituion are implemented. On why both ended so differently can be another topic in itself. Remember my comparison was pointing to the time when those special rights were decided.

Comparison can still be made and similarity be drawn between two different scenarios that ended differently ("perpenducularly"). Of course a communist state might dictate that this is wrong and unaccepatable.

Try to take what I said with a grain of salt. Also I think Malaysians need to have better understanding of our history, and in your case to achieve a better appreciation of Malay Special Rights.

Your calculation might be correct, yet it is still less pricise and more prone to statistical errors than the actual census conducted. I am not discounting your calculation yet I feel it would be easier just to find the original census, rather than making new numbers. I didn't mean "making up numbers" in the bad way, just take it literally in the neutral sense. May be "calculating" rather than "making up" is a better word choice, my fault.

[lyzzy]

If you have better understanding of the Malay history (I'm not sure of your ethnicity, probably not Malay I guess)

LOL :lol: This statement is funny. "Third China": That one is funny too! Out of curiousity sake, where's second China?

Anyway, it seems that proudmsianz says he has the source, yet doesn't have it right now... his entire foundation for his argument is based on his source and refuses to acknowledge anything that deviates from his source.

So, there's really no use in trying to convince otherwise, as, generally speaking, anyone can pull something out of a mythical source hat.

We should get back to this after proudmsianz provides us with his source. BTW where did you get your source from? Seems like this info isn't public.

Also, a few things to note:

1. Treaties are not constitutions (as Francis Light knows)
2. You make your argument on affirmative action between Native Americans and special rights for Malays. What about affirmative action for African Americans -> and why doesn't Malaysia have affirmative action for smaller minorities (eg. Indians)
3. In the past twenty years, the percentage of minorities have been steadily declining, Malaysia is never in danger of being "Third China", as you say. So why the special rights still? And if you mention economic reasons --> Why don't Malaysian Indians get some form of affirmative action? (I believe something of this sort was implemented a while ago, but definitely nothing major)
Why persist in keeping this archaic policy, when your so-called danger has passed?
________
Honda CB450SC specifications (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_CB450SC)

[proudmsianz]

LOL This statement is funny. "Third China": That one is funny too! Out of curiousity sake, where's second China?

Anyway, it seems that proudmsianz says he has the source, yet doesn't have it right now... his entire foundation for his argument is based on his source and refuses to acknowledge anything that deviates from his source.

So, there's really no use in trying to convince otherwise, as, generally speaking, anyone can pull something out of a mythical source hat.

We should get back to this after proudmsianz provides us with his source. BTW where did you get your source from? Seems like this info isn't public.

Also, a few things to note:

1. Treaties are not constitutions (as Francis Light knows)
2. You make your argument on affirmative action between Native Americans and special rights for Malays. What about affirmative action for African Americans -> and why doesn't Malaysia have affirmative action for smaller minorities (eg. Indians)
3. In the past twenty years, the percentage of minorities have been steadily declining, Malaysia is never in danger of being "Third China", as you say. So why the special rights still? And if you mention economic reasons --> Why don't Malaysian Indians get some form of affirmative action? (I believe something of this sort was implemented a while ago, but definitely nothing major)
Why persist in keeping this archaic policy, when your so-called danger has passed?

First of all, please tell me when have I "refuses to acknowledge anything that deviates from [my] source"? Where is your "anything" that "deviates" from my source? Perhaps there are some that I miss and I don't mind you bringing them up again, unless you were merely trying to defame me with baseless accusation.

By the way, have you acknowledge my counter evidences towards many of your faulty arguments like Native American Treaty Rights is for "economic reasons and economic reasons only" and Native Americans "Special rights were NOT started since centuries ago."? I believe I have quoted online sources to refute your arguments yet I fail to see any "acknowledgements" as you would have expected from me. Is someone practising double standards or just throwing baseless accusation at me?

Just pointing out that treaties are not constitutions doesn't make any sense to your point at all. If you were trying to say that a treaty doesn't always have to be ratified (perhaps by your definition), then let me tell you that Constitution can also be violated. Native Amerian Treaty Rights are a form of agreement between Natives and non-Natives. Similarly Malay Special Rights in Constitution are also agreements between Malays and non-Malays. Of course there are differences but I was merely pointing out the similarities.

Second China is Taiwan. Try not to digress into the debate of "whether Taiwan is part of PRC." This thread is already confusing enough. Other than the source I quote, Lee Kuan Yew's memoir mentions "Third China" a few times. This is not something "funny" as you think. If you are so desperate in labelling something you don't know as "funny", perhaps you can put a "funny" label on your ignorance.

The reason I couldn't quote the source immediately is because I rely more on books rather than the Internet. Also I do not have those books around me because I am currently living outside Malaysia. Feel free to ignore what I said until sources presented. You can call them "funny", but other people would really think you are the truely "funny" one.

The internet is not a good substitute of books, I hope you realize this. A lot of information isn't available on the web, especially those concerning Malaysiana. If it is available on the Internet, you could have easily found the conter evidence from the web too. Obviously in many cases you weren't able to do so when trying (or not at all?) to refute my point, since you and I face the same problem of not having sufficient web-based sources.

By the way, those points that I presend are in fact public information. They are not "mythical source" as you were trying to allude. Many of them are taken from government statistics and report. What you need is a good library in Malaysia to find the evidence.

Understanding the rational of including Malay Special Rights in our consitution when we achive independence doesn't justify anyone abusing it. Clearly when I talk about appreciation of Malay Special Rights I don't mean people can freely abuse it.

I drew comparison between Native American Treaty Rights and Malays Special Rights. This has disproved your earlier notion that Native American Treaty Rights is "economic reasons and economic reasons only." About the matter of non-bumi minorities in Malaysia, yes I think economic assistance should be given to them.

[__earth]

Let's keep it clean and not use the caps lock. It makes others think that you are shouting.

Well, those with myopia might appreciate the capital letters. Also it is a form of highlighting actually. To shout I would use supersize red letters actually.

It's forum ethics actually. Never caps. To highlight, usually ppl use bold or italic.

I feel that you might have taken the whole thing out of context by thinking (associating) too much. (Not saying that you shouldn't) Still if there is any point you try to make between the census and SJK issue, I would like to hear it.

Me? Remember, I'm the one that oppose such comparison. You are the one that first start the comparison on Malay and the Natives. Moreover, you are the one that introduced that census, not me. I again, merely disputing such figure.

In fact, I'm the first one to ask what does the census has to do with SRJ. I quote myself;

Even if it's true, how does it strengthen your stand on SRJ? How does adding Singapore to increase the percentage of ethnic Chinese strengthen the reason to have SRJ in the year 2005?

Despite its irrelevence to SRJ issue, if you decided to post your source, do include the standard error so that we can calculate how good pre-independence census is. Judging from every other model I've seen, the SE should say 49% is not much different from 50%.

If you have better understanding of the Malay history (I'm not sure of your ethnicity, probably not Malay I guess)

FYI, since you keep bringing it up despite its irrelevence to the argument, I'm a Malay. And it is ironic actually to see a Malay thinks Malay special privilege as unfair isn't it? I've always consider myself Malaysian first.

The people back in kampung always think that the Malay is the original and the others are immigrants still. Mind you, when I was last in Malaysia, I still hear that. And think they are wrong and I think, despite the races, we are all Malaysians first.

But if you agree with people in my kampung, fine. I'm actually tired of arguing and I actually need to do some research on retail market for some consulting competition. I also still need to start off the lagging remag back.

If I keep posting here, I'll never be able to do both of them

You will know that even though Malays are recognized as the traditional owners of Malaya...

I'll tell you what.

Israel and Palestine have been fighting each others for decades now despite the two of them come from the same root. As in right now, the only viable solution is two-state solution. That solution disregards the historical fact the the area now known as Israel was mainly consisted of Arab.

China and South Korea meanwhile keeps blaming Japan for WWII atrocity and still asking for compensation despite Japan having done so in the past. But that was 50 years ago. Japan itself is growing tired of China and it has been clearly seen when the Koizumi himself went to the war shrine and ignored China and South Korea's protest.

China keeps claiming Taiwan while Taiwan is pretty much independent. Taiwan has everything a sovereign country could have except name.

The Philippines still hasn't disolved its claim on Sabah while in fact, Sabah has already been internationally recognized as a Malaysian state. Right now, nobody cares about the past when in fact, Sabah was under the Sulu Sultanate.

However, I'm sure you can give a counterexample where the past is important. But the crux is life goes on. A lot of time, we need to put the past behind and take the step forward. The Malaysian system is outdated and need a new system, or at least, a patch.

[proudmsianz]

But if you agree with people in my kampung, fine. I'm actually tired of arguing and I actually need to do some research on retail market for some consulting competition. I also still need to start off the lagging remag back.

If I keep posting here, I'll never be able to do both of them

Let's just agree to stop discussing this issue for a while, at least until I present the census, OK? Seriously I am also tired of arguing.

I agree I have been digresing for a while, especially since I started talking about Malay Special Rights. Just let it stop here, agree? The question about Malay Special Rights could be in itself a lengthy discussion that will further mess up this already complicated thread. I would surely want to know your stand and opinion on Malay Special Rights, but let's do it in another thread, shall we?

[Thirdshifter]

lol...

They way i look at it is, the more people that realize our politicians are full of shit..the better the public is off.

It's only a matter of time..

P/S: Met badawi at sepang, he actually sat few meters away from me. If he didn't have his 10 body guards I would've "duku calit" him just to knock some sense into the guy.

[misled_youth]

P/S: Met badawi at sepang, he actually sat few meters away from me. If he didn't have his 10 body guards I would've "duku calit" him just to knock some sense into the guy.

If you are refering to the PM, his name is Abdullah, his father's name is Badawi.

Spending to much time in the states aye?
________
Syanna (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Syanna)

[proudmsianz]

1947 Census, including 11 States in Malaya and Singapore

Malay: 43.3%
Chinese: 44.9%
Indian: 10.4%

[SOURCE]
Census of population 1947.
Malaya. Superindentent of Census.
Malaya, comprising the Federation of Malaya and the Colony of Singapore : a report on the 1947 census of population / M.V. Del Tufo. London : Crown Agents for the Governments of Malaya and Singapore, [1949].


Unfortunately I have been unable to locate any online source for the 1947 Census. Those who are skeptical should pay a visit to any major library in Malaysia, Singapore and UK.

http://perdana.pnm.my/bib_kemerdekaan/Sumber%20Media.htm
http://www.lib.nus.edu.sg/bib/sh/sing1945.html


1957 Census of Peninsular Malaysia (Singapore excluded)

[PRIMARY DATA]

Total: 6385.3 thousands
Malay: 3148.5 thousands
Chinese: 2398.0 thousands
Indian: 722.7 thousands

[CALCULATION]
Total: 100%
Malay: 49.3%
Chinese: 37.6%
Indian: 11.3%

This further confirms the article Izzi quoted earlier on.

[SOURCE]

Estimates of the Inter-Censal Population By Sex, Community, and Age-Groups: Peninsular Malaysia, 1957 to 1970: Research Paper No. 9, Department of Statistics, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 60 pp.

http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/charles/pubs/EstimatesInterCensalPopulation.pdf

[jbboy88]

what's just as bad as MARA/chinese independent schools? why do you say MARA schools are bad? FYI, the top 3 (maybe top 5) schools in malaysia are MRSM's....... sorry if i misunderstood the word 'MARA schools'......... i'm the product of MRSM and i think their education system is better than government schools...... as for the international schools, it's not wrong to send your children to the schools...but chances are they will become high-class jerks.. :lol:

[digimushu]

what's just as bad as MARA/chinese independent schools? why do you say MARA schools are bad? FYI, the top 3 (maybe top 5) schools in malaysia are MRSM's....... sorry if i misunderstood the word 'MARA schools'......... i'm the product of MRSM and i think their education system is better than government schools...... as for the international schools, it's not wrong to send your children to the schools...but chances are they will become high-class jerks.. :lol:

Read this thread thoroughly before you comment. This is recom. We will hold u to what you say.

The crux of the matter is that it is bad for national integration. plus, it clearly shows how the money from the taxpayers are being used in an un-transparent manner. I wonder, how many of this year's straight A students come from all the MARA schools? Someone should put it up.

Imagine this, lets say we have bumiputera A and bumiputera B. Bumi A is:
- City boy/girl
- promoted to MRSM because of good results in primary.

Bumi B is:
- Kampung boy/girl
- did not get to go to MRSM because he/she came from a less equipped school, hence weaker result.

Is the fact that A get all A1s better tha B getting a few A1s less?

i let u to judge.

[lolilo]

I wonder, how many of this year's straight A students come from all the MARA schools? Someone should put it up.



straight A1 ----- 100 students ( 15.11% from all straight A1 student)

11A1 ------11 student

straight A's------ a lot man, tak terkira........pening

not in the papers, thought i would just post it.

[jbboy88]

what's just as bad as MARA/chinese independent schools? why do you say MARA schools are bad? FYI, the top 3 (maybe top 5) schools in malaysia are MRSM's....... sorry if i misunderstood the word 'MARA schools'......... i'm the product of MRSM and i think their education system is better than government schools...... as for the international schools, it's not wrong to send your children to the schools...but chances are they will become high-class jerks.. :lol:

Read this thread thoroughly before you comment. This is recom. We will hold u to what you say.

The crux of the matter is that it is bad for national integration. plus, it clearly shows how the money from the taxpayers are being used in an un-transparent manner. I wonder, how many of this year's straight A students come from all the MARA schools? Someone should put it up.

Imagine this, lets say we have bumiputera A and bumiputera B. Bumi A is:
- City boy/girl
- promoted to MRSM because of good results in primary.

Bumi B is:
- Kampung boy/girl
- did not get to go to MRSM because she came from a less equipped school, hence weaker result.

Is the fact that A get all A1s better tha B getting a few A1s less?

i let u to judge.

actually, FYI, there're more kampung boys/girls than city b/g in mrsm's...seriously... & why do you say it's bad for national intergration? starting from the 2004/2005 batch, 10% of the places in MRSM will be allocated to non-bumis..... actually, even my batch (o3/04) have non-bumis..... we didn't have any problems mixing with each other....... two of my best friends is are indian...... it's really cool making friends with people from other races.... we can learn their languages & respect other people's culture...... and FYI, in my school (MRSM Jasin) alone, they're over 120 students who got straight A's.....even with that achievements, we're ranked no 3 among all MRSMs....that means the 1st ranked MRSM (Beseri..) has even more straight A students.......

[digimushu]

..actually, FYI, there're more kampung boys/girls than city b/g in mrsm's...seriously... & why do you say it's bad for national intergration? starting from the 2004/2005 batch, 10% of the places in MRSM will be allocated to non-bumis...


Really? I think first you have to qualify to be admitted to MRSM first right? How bout the kids from the orang asli family and the longhouses in Sarawak and Sabah? I have stayed there to teach primary achool kids English and Math for one summer span and i have to tell you, versus kids in th city, these kids have little chance of scoring all As in UPSR because they dont have good schools with proper blackboards and books or even good teachers. I'm saying, instead of offering a place where you put all the money in, why isn't the funds dispersed to helping those kids in the really rural areas?

How do you know they really kept to the 10%? Are they accountable or transparent? or is that just a publicly issued statement?

Any racist discriminatory policy is bad for national integration. Even the affirmative action program in the US is being challenged. As i say, i let u be the judge.