MCA should continue serving the people

My statement dated 11th June, 2013:-

Of late, there were various reports of MCA service centers being closed after MCA suffered its worst defeat in history in GE13. What is more obvious are the lights for the stage and some decorations at the Jonker Walk, Melaka, which were switched off immediately after the GE13 until now.

It is said that such acts are part of these MCA leaders’ revenge against the voters for not voting for MCA. If it is true, this is indeed a shameful act in this maturing democracy. Leaders of political parties ought to realize that we are actually servants of the rakyats. By offering ourselves in the General Election, we are actually offering to serve the people. It is pathetic that after being defeated, we are sending messages to the electorates that we will not serve them and we will punish the voters for they have not voted for us.

Sending such message is seriously flawed and instead of becoming sore losers, we ought to study why the electorates have not voted for us. Is it that our service has not been sufficient or is it that we have not been vocal enough to be the voice of the people when we were elected into power? These are serious questions which we must consider and address instead of pushing the blame to the voters. Some leaders have openly stated that the voters were duped or conned by the DAP or Pakatan Rakyat but we in MCA and Barisan Nasional are equally at fault for not countering these alleged lies and enlighten the voters with facts and truths.

Given such circumstances, MCA leaders must stop blaming the voters and try to punish the voters by not serving them. We must always keep in mind that the rakyats are the “bosses” and if we choose to try to punish them, we will only lose their support and be punished by the electorates in GE14.

Choo Wei Sern (Eric)
MCA Jasin Legal Bureau Chairman 

Another Response to the 8 LoyarBurokkers

On 20 May, 2012, a senior lawyer and a former member of the Bar Council of Malaysia, Roger Tan, wrote his thoughts on the Malaysian Bar EGM held on 11 May, 2012. His article, "Unswayed by fear or favour", was published on The Star and can be accessed here. 2 days later, 8 other  lawyers wrote in LoyarBurok an article entitled "Fallacies spun by critics of the Bar" in response to Roger, where the article can be accessed here. I have had the privilege of reading both pieces and wish to respond to the latter, my views have been published on LoyarBurok, which I reproduce below:-

The resolutions carried by the Malaysian Bar in its recently concluded EGM on 11 May, 2012 have led many to talk and debate about the Bar Council, the Malaysian Bar and its resolutions. Amongst the thoughts which I have had the opportunity of reading, I am particularly intrigued by the views exchanged between Roger Tan and 8 LoyarBurokkers, namely Edmund Bon, Fahri Azzat, Janet Chai, K Shanmuga, Mahaletchumy Balakrishnan, Marcus van Geyzel, Seira Sacha Abu Bakar and Sharmila Sekaran. I am, however, perturbed by some of the arguments of the 8 LoyarBurokkers and I wish to put forth my views here.

At the outset, whilst I am a member of MCA, which is a known fact to the likes of Edmund, Shanmuga, Marcus and Roger, I hope that this fact, when read together with this article, would not be construed as an attempt by me to be a candidate or to obtain any sort of benefit from the ruling coalition. I see it necessary to highlight this fact not because the 8 LoyarBurokkers have mocked Roger for not expressly revealing his political affiliation, but for the acts of some members of the Bar who, at the height of anger during the EGM, have conveniently made such accusations against those who spoke against the motion at the recent EGM.

With that record set straight, I shall endeavour to put forth my disagreements with some of the arguments of the 8 LoyarBurokkers.

The stand of the 8 LoyarBurokkers

The essence of the 8 LoyarBurokkers’ 2,600 words long article “Fallacies Spun by Critics of the Bar”, to my understanding, are as follows:-

(1)    The Bar did not prejudge the issues as the resolutions carried were based on the observations of the monitoring team whose credibility is undoubted; and

(2)    The Bar need not condemn the unruly behaved protesters and it was a fallacy or misapprehension that to be an independent organisation, the Bar must always be even handed or restrained in its remarks.

Whilst I may lack the wisdom of the 8 LoyarBurokkers or that of Roger Tan, it appears to me that some of the fallacies alleged by the 8 LoyarBurokkers do not hold water.

Did the Bar prejudge the issues?

In 900 or so words, the 8 LoyarBurokkers have sought to argue that the Bar did not prejudge the issues. The arguments of the 8 LoyarBurokkers were premised upon the grounds that:-

(1)    the 12 resolutions carried by the Bar were based on the observations of the 80 monitors whose credibility are without doubt, and

(2)    the political or social belief of one would not impair the ability to state fact of how excessive force was used by the police or how a fellow Malaysian was assaulted and battered by the police.

Firstly, in support of the 8 LoyarBurokkers’ contention that the credibility of the monitors of the Bar are without doubt, the 8 LoyarBurokkers have cited the names of 5 notable, respectable senior lawyers who were also members of the monitoring team. It is not my intention to challenge the credibility of these 5 respected senior members of the Bar but the fact remains that the Bar has, intentionally or otherwise, left out the names of the remaining 75 or so monitors.

What is the rationale behind the Bar’s action to hide the identities of these remaining 75 or so monitors? Is it because the Bar Council is fully aware of the fact that at least 1 of its monitors was playing the role of both a prosecutor and a judge, when the monitor is also a member of Bersih’s steering committee?

At this juncture, before any form of attack is hurled at me, I have no qualms confessing that, despite my known political affiliation, I was part of the Melaka Bar monitoring team that observed the Bersih 3.0 protest in Dataran Pahlawan, Melaka. After I submitted my report, I also informed the person in charge, the Melaka Bar Representative to the Bar Council, Desmond Ho, that some of my observations may have been worded in what some may perceive as a biased manner, and I left it to him to make necessary amendments before he compiles all the observations and submitted to the Bar Council.

Hence, I am of the honest belief that a monitor’s political or social belief do, to a certain extent, affect the observations recorded.

This leads me to the second point where the 8 LoyarBurokkers appear to be undisturbed by the political or social beliefs of the individual monitors. Whilst I wish to thank them for indirectly having that sort of confidence in me that I would have been able to report my observations as they were, I am perplexed by the fact that some of these 8 LoyarBurokkers have just, not too long ago, criticised the appointment of Tun Hanif Omar as the head of the Government-appointed panel which is tasked with investigating the events and allegations surrounding the Bersih 3.0 rally.

For the record, I share similar concerns on Tun Hanif’s appointment as the chairman of the panel, as the panel ought to be free and independent from the interested parties i.e. the Government, the police and the participants. As such, I am of the view that the former Chief Justice of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Steve Shim would have been a better person to lead the so-called independent panel, with the former IGP Tun Hanif Omar assisting the panel by sharing his knowledge from his experience as a former IGP.

In the same vein, I also believe that whilst it may be difficult or impossible for the Bar to form a completely neutral monitoring team, the Bar ought to have at least disclosed identities of the members of the monitoring team who may have vested interests. The Bar ought to be open about it and, I am sure, has nothing to hide. This is particularly so when the Bar must not only be independent, but also be seen as independent.

Moving on, in their article, the 8 LoyarBurokkers have also asked important factual questions- who ordered the closure of the nearby LRT stations so as to prevent the people from dispersing; who ordered the destruction of cameras belonging to journalists; what justified the 4 hours of continued attacks. Ironically, when the 8 LoyarBurokkers claimed that the Bar did not prejudge, they have also admitted in their article that answers to these questions have yet to surface. Yet, without answers to such important factual questions and with the factual matrix in dispute, the Bar had for instance, made the finding that the police had fired tear gas in a manner to box in the protesters rather than to disperse. As a matter of fact, when the tear gas cannisters were fired, were the police fully aware of the fact that access to the nearby LRT stations have been closed thus preventing people from dispersing since the persons instructing the police and those in charge of the LRT stations are different?

Notwithstanding the fact that we have yet to obtain any answer to such pertinent factual question, the Bar in its Resolution 1 (c), however, has condemned the police of, amongst others, “trapping… the participants with water cannon and tear gas instead of permitting them to disperse”. If this is not prejudging, then I ought to be guided by the more senior members of the Bar of the meaning of prejudging, hoping to earn some CPD points in the process.

The unruly protesters were less blameworthy?

In their article, the 8 LoyarBurokkers have also argued that there was no need to condemn members of the public who turned violent for, amongst other reasons, “most thinking Malaysians who have access to the alternative media… are not convinced that these so called ‘rioters’ are as blameworthy as the police”.

This is a dangerous notion as it seeks to create a sort of “pecking order” of blameworthiness. Section 42(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 1976 impels members of the Bar to uphold the cause of justice without fear or favour and the Bar is not to allow its interests or that of its members to affect them in any way.

It then begs the question of how could we speak out only for the wronged protestors and not for the wronged police officers? We cannot treat the sacrosanct principle of equality before the law as something economical that can be altered to suit a manufactured “pecking order” of culpability. As such, it is my honest belief that all members of the Bar, including the 8 LoyarBurokkers, share my view that a wrong is a wrong regardless of who the culprits are and the scales of justice cannot be tipped simply because we feel one is less culpable than the other.

Having said that, it is only prudent to come to such a drastic conclusion after a thorough probe had been conducted. At the very least, we ought to let the Courts decide whether or not the alleged offences have been committed and the amount of damages suffered. In this respect, instead of urging the Government to pay “just and proper compensation” to the victims, as was stated in Resolution 7, the Bar ought to have urged the victims to come forward and assist them to go through the due process of law to obtain compensation.

Notwithstanding the above, the Bar’s carefully worded resolutions have also omitted the fact that the Bersih protests were conducted in 11 cities in Malaysia whereby no untoward incident was reported except in Kuala Lumpur. Given that the respective state Bars have also sent their respective monitoring teams to observe the various protests around the country, it begs the question why weren’t the reports from the monitoring teams in the other states tabled to aid members in developing a more complete view of the events that took place in Kuala Lumpur and 10 other cities on 28 April 2012?

Further, in the unholy haste to compile the final report, the Bar has neglected to at least mention an incident in Melaka where a DAP state assemblyman breached the barricade in Dataran Pahlawan, Melaka. Hence, it is only natural for some to question the impartiality of the Bar because we have been perceived as selective in our use of facts and in our condemnation; contravening long-cherish legal principles. While I accept this may have been inadvertent given the hurried manner in which the report was compiled, it is not too late to correct this.

Also, I wish to raise a procedural matter with regards to the EGM where we were compelled to vote for the resolutions en-bloc rather than opening each of the 12 resolutions to be voted individually, allowing us to vote in favour of the neutral ones and voting against the ones some of us found to be contentious and lop-sided.

I do hope in future, the Bar will allow greater degree flexibility in such matters, in line with the democratic values we rightly demand others to respect and uphold. This, I believe, is what the so-called detractors of the Bar want and will, in the long run, makes the Bar a better partner in the administration of justice in this country.

Peaceful Assembly Bill: Najib Not Breaking Any Promises

My article which appeared on LoyarBurok, The Malaysian Insider and Malaysiakini earlier.

The Peaceful Assembly Bill ("the Bill") which was recently tabled in the Parliament has attracted many criticisms. More so, this was due to the fact that the Bill was, and still is, supposed to be a fulfilment of one of the many promises made by the Honourable Prime Minister's on Malaysia Day 2011. Critics, most notably the Bar Council, however, have accused the Honourable Prime Minister of not living up to his promises and has broken his promises made on Malaysia Day 2011 (for instance, here). But is this really the case?

Due to my background as a member of MCA, I will be deemed to be far from neutral when I attempt to voice my views on this. The current political situation, it seems, has been shaped in such a way that few, if any, are seen to be able to be objective when dealing with issues surrounding us. Truth is, there are many who are apolitical and neutral when they look at the issues revolving around us. I am not saying that I am one, but there are some who would not just toe by their party lines, and there are also many who would not put on the partisan lenses when looking at those issues, whether or not they are members of any political party.

With that record set straight, I now wish to propose my contention that the Honourable Prime Minister did not break his promise made on Malaysia Day 2011 and I shall put forth my justification below.

To my mind, the crux of the Bar Council’s contention that the Honourable Prime Minister has reneged on his promises was based on a part of the Honourable Prime Minister’s speech made on Malaysia Day 2011. Through its Press Release dated 24^th November, 2011, the Bar Council has quoted the Honourable Prime Minister at great length. One of the most important part, which appears at paragraph 4 of the said Press Release, reads as follows:-

"The Government will also review section 27 of the Police Act 1967, taking into consideration Article 10 of the Federal Constitution regarding freedom of assembly and so as to be in line with international norms on the same matter... (emphasis added)"

It is my honest believe, however, that this was not the promise made by the Honourable Prime Minister on Malaysia Day 2011. Before I move on to why, I wish to emphasise that I am not accusing the Bar Council, or any other person or organisation who has adopted the same part of the speech, of manipulating the words of the Honourable Prime Minister. Rather, I believe that there was a mistake on the website of the Prime Minister’s Office.

Those who have sat in front of the televisions or by the radios on that historical day would recall that the Honourable Prime Minister had actually spoke on Malaysia Day 2011 in Bahasa Malaysia. As such, the promises made by the Honourable Prime Minister on Malaysia Day 2011 must, as a matter of fact, have been made through Bahasa Malaysia, as opposed to English. In the same vein, if there is any conflict as to the transcript of the Honourable Prime Minister’s speech in Bahasa Malaysia and that in English, the transcript in Bahasa Malaysia shall prevail.

I do not have a single doubt that the part quoted by the Bar Council was in fact taken from one of the transcripts of the Honourable Prime Minister’s speech on Malaysia Day 2011. In fact, it appears on the website of the Prime Minister's Office. However, it differs from the actual speech made by the Honourable Prime Minister, which was made in Bahasa Malaysia.

For ease of reference, I wish to reproduce that part of the Prime Minister's speech on Malaysia Day 2011 in Bahasa Malaysia (and my translation of it in English), which corresponds with that quoted by the Bar Council above and reads, at paragraph 28 of the transcript, as follows:-

"Kerajaan juga akan mengkaji semula seksyen 27 Akta Polis 1967 dengan mengambil kira peruntukan Perkara 10 Perlembagaan Persekutuan tentang kebebasan berhimpun dengan prinsip menentang sekeras-kerasnya demonstrasi jalanan. Namun, kebenaran berhimpun diberi selaras dengan kaedah-kaedah yang akan ditetapkan kelak di samping mengambil kira norma-norma di peringkat antarabangsa." (my emphasis added)

When translated into English, the same part of the transcript should read as follows:-

"The government will also review Section 27 of the Police Act 1967 by taking into consideration the provision under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution on freedom of assembly, but with a principle that is strongly against street demonstration. Nevertheless, the approval to assemble will be given in accordance with methods that will be outlined later while taking into consideration international norms." (my emphasis added)

Based on the above, it is my honest belief that the accusation against the Honourable Prime Minister of breaking his promises made on Malaysia Day 2011 was mistaken, and premised on a flawed basis. Given the high standing of the Bar Council, a body highly regarded for its credibility and impartiality, I verily believe that the Bar Council would reconsider its view formed against the Honourable Prime Minister as stated in its Press Release dated 24^th November, 2011. This, again to my honest belief, would be in line with the Bar Council’s objective of upholding the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour.

That aside, what is more important at hand is the contents of the Bill, which will, if passed, significantly affects the rights and freedom of many Malaysians. In this respect, I share many of the ideals of the Bar Council which are contained in its memorandum.

Firstly, considering the importance and significance of the Bill, it would be farcical if the passing of the Bill would be rushed through. From what it appears on the papers, it is hard to believe how the Bill is already going through its second reading when it was only tabled two days ago. Any sensible mind would tell you that something is amiss, given how long it took the Government to review section 27 of the Police Act 1967 which requires a permit for assembly to be held. Surely, we would not want our children and grandchildren to be bogged down by a piece of legislation which is not properly considered. As such, I agree with the Bar Council’s recommendation that the Bill be referred to a Parliamentary Select Committee which would engage in a public consultation process.

Secondly, one of the most controversial parts of the Bill is the outright, total prohibition of street protest. To set the record straight, I am not a firm supporter of street protest. It is my belief that the right and freedom to assemble, including that of street protest, must be balanced against the rights and freedoms of those who will be affected. It is simply because of this I believe the Government has, through its draftspersons, formulated sections 5 and 12 of the Bill to take into consideration the objection of those who will be affected. A total prohibition of street protest, however, is not a balance between the right and freedom of those to assemble and the right and freedom of those who will be affected. Rather, it is overly in favour of the right and freedom of those who will be affected. This is probably the reason why many civil society activists argue that the Bill is unconstitutional.

Support for the arguments that the Bill is unconstitutional, strictly based on section 4 of the Bill which prohibits street protest, can be found from the cases of Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Peguam Malaysia & Anor [2010] 3 CLJ 507 and Cheah Beng Poh & Ors v Pendakwa Raya [1983] 1 LNS 65.

In the Cheah Beng Poh case, Hashim Yeop A Sani FJ held at the Kuala Lumpur High Court as follows:-

“The court as guardian of the rights and liberties enshrined in the Constitution is always jealous of any attempt to tamper with rights and liberties. But the right in issue here i.e. the right to assemble peaceably without arms is not absolute for the Constitution allows Parliament to impose by law such restrictions as it deems necessary in the interest of security and public order. In my view, what the court must ensure is only that any such restrictions may not amount to a total prohibition of the basic right so as to nullify or render meaningless the right guaranteed by the Constitution.” (my emphasis added)

This was supported by the Federal Court in the case of Sivarasa Rasiah where the Federal Court, speaking through Gopal Sri Ram FCJ, held as follows:-

“Now although the article says ‘restrictions’, the word ‘reasonable’ should be read into the provision to qualify the width of the proviso… The correct position is that when reliance is placed by the State to justify under one or more of the provisions of Article 10(2) of the Federal Constitution, the question for determination is whether the restriction that the particular statute imposes is reasonably necessary and expedient for one or more of the purposes specified in that article.” (my emphasis added)

It is thus my considered view that the Government should not and cannot impose a total prohibition against street protest. In order to achieve the balance I have mentioned earlier, it is my humble suggestion that the Government should add to the restrictions and conditions, under Section 15(2) of the Bill, the following clause or clause(s) to the following effect:-

“In respect of street protest, it shall not take place within the radius of 1 kilometre from hospitals, fire stations and, if there is objection from person who has interests, such streets that would severely affect their trade activities and businesses.”

Thirdly, the prohibition of children from assembly and the definition of “child” under the Bill. As the Bar Council has correctly pointed out, under Articles 1, 13 and 15 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (“CRC”), which Malaysia withdrew its reservations on 6^th June, 2010, children are entitled to “the freedom to have their say, and the right to form associations and assemble peacefully”. However, it is my humble belief that these Articles of the CRC should also be read together with Art. 12 of the CRC which states that “State Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely…”.

As I have written on the need to strike the right balance earlier, I believe that the prohibition against the participation of children from assembly should not apply to those who are able to form their own views. In this respect, there is no doubt that the maturity and ability of each and every child differ from one another. It is thus difficult for the Government to set an age limit. However, I strongly believe that most children of 15 years old today are sufficiently matured and able to form their own views. As an example, I recently discovered a Facebook group created by these young children where I was taken by surprise by how they have articulated and reasoned their views for and against the abolition of PPSMI in stages. As such, while seeking to strike the right balance, I propose that the definition of “child” under the Bill should be amended to apply only on children who are of the age of 12 and below.

Similarly, set at the minimum age of 21 years old, the restriction as to who can organise an assembly is unnecessarily restrictive. I strongly believe that the Government should have in mind that when we speak of assembly, it is not only limited to assembly for political causes. There are, often, other causes where people assemble. For instance, there may be young children who wish to hold a peaceful assembly to raise awareness of cervical cancer.

Further, the Government should also take into consideration that education for our young children do not, and should not, depend solely the education system. Organisational skill is one of those skills which they will need to succeed in their lives in the future. Stopping from them learning, practising and sharpening such skill outside school will only impede the healthy development of their minds and thoughts. Ideally, therefore, the age limit should be set at the age of 15 instead of 21, allowing the young children a buffer zone of 3 years to participate in any assembly, and observe and learn the skills of organising it, if they so wishes to.

Fourthly, the powers given the police under the Bill is too wide where the police “may take such measures as he deems necessary” and impose such restrictions and conditions as he “deems necessary or expedient”. Whilst the Bar Council has referred to several models of other jurisdictions to replace this, I personally prefer the British model. Therefore, it is my humble proposal that Sections 8 and 15 of the Bill should be amended in such a way that the police can only take such measures or impose such restrictions and conditions “to prevent serious public disorder, serious criminal damage or serious disruption to the life of the community”.

Fifthly, the notification of the planned assembly. Due to the choice of words used in both the Bahasa Malaysia and English versions of the Bill, there are confusions as to whether notifications are to be given at any time within 30 days before the proposed assembly, or at least 30 days before the proposed assembly. Section 9(1) of the Bill was very vague where it only states “within” or, in Bahasa Malaysia, “dalam tempoh”. If at all the word “within” could be interpreted to mean “at least”, like how it has been interpreted by some of the Opposition members and even senior lawyers, I am of the opinion that this will set a bad precedent which will severely prejudice the commercial contracts in this country which could be worth billions of dollars. For instance, to put things in perspective, under a standard Sale and Purchase Agreement for a property, the purchaser will usually have to pay to the vendor the balance purchase price “within” 3 months from the execution of the agreement. If, and only if, “within” could mean “at least”, would that not mean that the purchaser is supposed to pay the balance purchase price at least 3 months before the completion date? Nonetheless, given such confusion, I believe that the Government should amend the said provision so as to mean “at any time within 30 days before the proposed assembly”.

Whilst we are at this, the requirement of notification to replace the initial requirement of permit by the police is probably one of the biggest steps the Government has taken to march closer to greater, better democracy. The Bill as it is allows the organiser to organise an assembly at any time as long as it was notified to the police in the prescribed form. The police, under section 14 of the Bill, must respond to the notification within 12 days of the receipt of the notification where they can impose the restrictions and conditions under section 15, if any. However, if the police do not respond, section 14(2) of the Bill allows the assembly to proceed as proposed in the notification.

For the purpose of illustration, if the Bar Council plans to hold a candlelight vigil at Dataran Merdeka on 29^th November, 2011, at 8 p.m., they only need to notify the police at 7.30 p.m. using the prescribed form under the 4^th Schedule of the Bill. By 8 p.m., if the police fails to respond to the said notification, the candlelight vigil can proceed as planned.

That, I believe, is probably one of the best things under the Bill. If the Government is willing to take another step closer to greater democracy in such method as suggested above, the Bill will certainly be a much greater reflection of the want and efforts of the Honourable Prime Minister to transform the political landscape of this country. It is in such belief for the better growth and development of our beloved country that I pray that the Honourable Prime Minister and his Cabinet members will refer to the Parliamentary Select Committee, consult and adopt the public’s views on the provisions in the Bill.

教育与种族和谐

自古以来，华裔家庭都很重视教育。华裔父母之所以对于育秉持着强烈的坚持是因为其相信只有经历过正统教育孩子们方可成才，而且只有完整和完善的教育才能确保孩子前途似锦 。因此父母对孩子们的学业和成绩表现都抱负着很大的期望，并不惜为筹集孩子们的教育经费而任劳任怨的付出和牺牲。有些父母甚至为了提供孩子上大学的经费，而把自己辛辛苦苦用血汗赚回 来的房子给卖了。有的更是动用自己多年茹苦含辛储蓄的养老金来支付子女升学开销。由此可见，华裔家庭望子成龙望女成凤的爱子心切，都一一呈现在为子女教育上作出的无限牺牲。

也正因为如此，许多 的大马华人，尤其是政治人物，针对巫青团团长凯利最近涉及母语源流教育的一番言论而在媒体平台上唇枪舌战，闹得轰轰烈烈。

前几天，各大华文报章都有报导凯利针对母语源流教育作出的一项献议。他提及了实行单一源流学校制的制度能有效的改善国内整体教育制度。凯利的出发点不过是来自于一颗想促进各族人民团结的心。他相信在现在的多源流教育制度下，许多父母都把自己的孩子送入自己母语源流的学校，无形中导致孩子们在学习环境成长过程里只是接触到与自己一样族群的朋友而已。这个现象对于国家各族人民的团结虽然未必会造成有害的局面但对于巩固团结各民族的基础必当弊多于利。当然，就如像凯利随后所作出的澄清，这个建议应待由各族的大马人以公投的方式来探讨各族人民的支持率后，才作出决定是否要废除个源流母语教育系统。

这番言论无奈引起了各方华裔政坛人物的积极反对。行动党议员倪可敏在推特上更以“一只终于露出尾巴的狐狸”来形容凯利，当中马青团团长拿督魏家祥博士更是再度声明马华对于多源流母语教育制度的支持。笔者也有幸能在推特上与魏家祥博士 作出交流，从中了解他对于多源流母语制度的坚持的背后因素。魏家祥博士阐明在多源流母语教育制度下，学生方有机会能够更深入的学习自己的母语。这是因为华小或者淡小的教学媒介语，除了国语和英语课，其他科目均以母语来传授。魏博士也表示，多源流母语教育制度是受到宪法保证和保障，而马华也会不辞劳苦的捍卫先贤争取到的权益。

冒着就此被套上民族叛徒或是巫统走狗之名的风险，笔者想在此为赞成单一源流校制的建议作出全面的解释。笔者来自华小，自幼受到了5年的母语教学熏陶成长。随后，基于交通因素而选择升上了以国语教学的国中，并接受了5年的国语教育。笔者在国中学习时观察到由华小迁升的同学与源自国小的同学在交流的时候必定因语言和文化分歧和产生明显的鸿沟。团结问题的主要来源也许并非因异族关系紧绷所致，但同时多源流母语教育也应证了不同的教育背景确实会促使各族之间产生不必要的分歧。

以上的例子足以证明源流母语教育制度多多少少对于人民的团结造成负面影响。因此，我国应更应该推行单一源流校制以催化整体团结过程。与此同时， 笔者希望读者不要误解此概念的用意。笔者也深深相信在推行单一源流校制的当儿，母语一定不可以被边缘化。在单一源流校制里，母语可以被纳为其中一项选修科，让友族朋友也可以接触不同的语言，并由此更了解各族文化背景。笔者希望这个方针能够有效的促使各族群之间的关系，不再因为不同的种族和不同的教育背景，而在了解各族文化时有所停歇。唯有这样才能真正实现首相所推崇的一个马来西亚理念。

注意：这只是笔者的个人看法，希望能够引起大家的思考，想想怎么能够让多元化的马来西亚人民能够活得更融洽。笔者也想声明，要促善各族之间的关系，除了教育方面，其他能影响人民的政策都需加以改善，例如在经济领域里。希望笔者下次有缘再和大家分享笔者的拙见。

The Report Card

Those who have gone through the Malaysian education system like myself would no doubt agree that it is no secret that our education system place a great emphasis on results. From primary school up to secondary education, we are judged by how we performed in UPSR, PMR, SPM, STPM, A-levels and so forth. Even if not by these major examinations, the results of our monthly tests, mid-year and year-end examinations would be recorded in our report cards. And I vividly remember how nervous it used to be to hand the report card for my dad to sign it (I don’t usually perform well in examinations). One of the occassions where I still remember how nervous I was, was when I handed over my report card which contained a red number 38 for my additional mathematics in the first monthly test in Form 4. I was forced to go for additional mathematics tuition for the next 2 years but allow me to brag about it, I scored 93 for the following month and eventually an A1 in additional mathematics in SPM.

Recently, I have had the opportunity to meet a fellow LoyarBurok-ker, Edmond Bon. An activist and a former council member of the Bar Council who has been very active in championing human rights and constitutional rights. For the record, whilst he was the Chairperson of the Bar Council’s Constitutional Law Committee, he started the now famous MyConsti campaign. A campaign which was designed to inform most, if not all, Malaysians of what is contained in the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land and the highest law of the country. At our short but elaborate meeting, I have had the opportunity to hear from the man himself on his views on the types of rights in Malaysia and how it was not, or rather not properly, exercised. One of such rights is our right to vote. Hence, being an activist, and a rather aggressive one, he formed a group known as Undi Malaysia. A group, which to my understanding, asks and encourages people to vote. As I have mentioned earlier, Edmond is an aggressive activist. Not only did he form the group and got many on board, he went on to get a place for the group to operate, a place which is now known as the Pusat Rakyat.

So, what has Undi Malaysia or Pusat Rakyat got to do with the title of this article- the Report Card? To my understanding, part of the aims of Undi Malaysia is to set up a website which works like a report card for all our Members of Parliament. Essentially, the website shall contain the election pledges of our elected MPs and how far they have fulfilled their election pledges. From there, voters can they give marks and gauge how good/ effective their MPs are. That, I thought, was a fantastic and great idea.

To date, despite being independent for over 54 years, sadly, we do not have any sort of measurement to gauge the effectiveness of our elected representatives, or how many of the election promises were not just empty promises but promises that were acted upon. As such, far too often, we let our elected representatives off the hook. We rely merely on what they say at ceramahs year in year out. We do not know, and there is no platform for us to verify, the actual past record(s) of our elected representatives. This certainly isn’t right and shouldn’t be continued. When we speak of accountability, when we speak of holding our elected representatives to account, we need a record of what they have promised, we need a record of what they have done. In short, we need that report card of our elected representatives and not just the sweet words uttered at ceramahs. We need their results. Therefore, I wish to call upon all brothers and sisters to come join this noble cause- participate in Undi Malaysia and/ or provide the details for us to evaluate our elected representatives. Let us keep our politicians at check. Let us be smart voters who will not be persuaded simply by words without actual results. Undilah, Undi Malaysia!