 |
达祖丁希望透过文章提醒他的马来亲友，他们对华人
的认知其实是错的。-Yusof
Mat Isa摄-
|
（吉隆坡11日讯）知名时评人、思特雅大学（UCSI）建筑系讲师达祖丁拉斯迪教授（Tajuddin
Rasdi）表示，现今一些马来人对华人的误解甚至仇恨，是源自于巫统和伊斯兰党一些不道德的政客，以及宗教师所灌输的观念。
他以自身的经历，讲述他从1976年至1980年在太平华联华中求学期间，不曾受到华裔学生欺负，也从未受到种族主义言论攻击。
达祖丁拉斯迪在这篇刊登于《自由今日大马》、题为〈在华裔之间生活的马来男孩〉的社评中，开宗明义地表示：“文章意在提醒我的许多马来友人和亲戚，他们对华人的认知其实是错的——由不道德的政客、可疑的宗教领袖以及他们本身的傲慢和无知建立的形象和观念。”
达祖丁是于1976年6月进入了华联华中这所华语源流的公立学校就读。他说：“正是我在那里求学的岁月让我有了今日的成就：一个生活在大马华人之间的马来穆斯林，他也熟悉并热爱那里的许多朋友。”
达祖丁说：“我在华人之间生活，我从来没有感受到他们对我有任何的愤怒，也没有让我感到害怕他们。”
据他叙述，当时该校上下午班总共有2000名华裔学生，但巫裔学生只有3名。
他插班进入了中二最后一班——中二D1班，因为那一班有两个马来男孩，“想象一下，一个瘦小的14岁马来男孩，在一班结实的15岁华裔男孩之间。自此，我展开了冒险之旅。”
华人爱吃爱打赌
达祖丁在文章表示，他发现华人很喜欢打赌，几乎任何事情都可以打赌。例如，他看见班上的同学为了足球比赛打赌，“他们会邀我一起赌赛事和足球比赛，但父亲教我永远不能赌博，而我也没那么多钱来下注。”
当时达祖丁每周都把零用钱花在他最喜欢的动作漫画和伊妮德布莱顿（Enid
Blyton）故事书，而他慷慨的华裔朋友，总是会请（belanja）他吃红豆冰。
达祖丁说，由于他的英文好到足以指出老师的语法错误，因此每逢月考，其他同学都会问他答案；他也会和和班上的男孩一起踢足球。
他说：“虽然男孩们会通过摧毁学校桌椅来展示他们的踢腿和空手道技巧，但他们一直照顾我。如果怀疑有人试图欺负我时，他们会警告其他学生远离我。”
“虽然所有男孩的功课有些落后，行为也有些粗暴，但他们从未对我说过种族主义之类的任何坏话。”
“我从我朋友那里学会了唱中文歌，还学会一些华语和福建词汇。”
他表示，他注意到华人都很喜欢吃，“他们都会把钱花在食堂”。
当他的英语成绩“打败了中二A1班和中二A2班的书呆子”获得最高分成绩时，班上的同学都他欢呼，班主任也引以为豪。
华裔同学教数理化
在考完初中教育文凭考试（LCE）后，达祖丁升上了中四理科1班，之后升上了中五理科1班。在1979年，他是理科班里唯一的马来男孩，一直到他考获大马教育文凭。
“我的书呆子华裔朋友教我数学、物理和化学，这些科目我都不太擅长。我终于学会他们的学习方式，并最终在这三个科目上取得A1和A2的优秀成绩。”
达祖丁在大马教育文凭考获6A的成绩，并在160名应届考生中进入前10名，更是唯一一位在国外升学资格考试的英语书写（English122）科目中获得优秀成绩的学生。他的成绩也比每次几乎每科都拿满分的巡察员团长还好。
1980年，达祖丁获得了公共服务局奖学金前往美国。
达祖丁指出，他想为这个国家的马来社会提出一些问题和看法。“当一名身处在华裔学生之间的马来小男孩，可以一次都不受欺负或受到种族主义言论攻击而安然度过5年求学岁月时，这意味着什么？”
“当我那些曾经留学海外或在本地大学就读、如今成了政府和官联企业高管，甚至是学术界教授的马来友人，鄙视、怀疑和憎恨华人时，我想知道他们为何这样想。”
“这种仇恨来自哪里？它是来自巫统、伊斯兰党的政治人物、他们的宗教师，还是来自他们自己愚蠢、傲慢和对社会的恶意，他们认为他们知道很多却没有真正对此事有一丁点的认识？如果他们能够像我一样在华人之间生活几年。”
“在消化这种想法的同时，再想想为何一位成绩中上的马来学生能够进入前十名，而他的老师多数是华人。再想想帮助他学习科学和数学直到考到最高分的华裔朋友。”
“当一个男孩被灌输他是一个国家而不是一个种族的男孩时，这意味着什么？”
他也在文中感谢母校的所有华裔老师和朋友，他们让他的求学生涯过得非常愉快，且影响深远。
他表示，他今日的立场导致他受到马来友人的指责，当他在为一些被视为是马来人和穆斯林敌人的种族辩护时，他们认为他同情华裔且不忠于马来人。
他说：“我远离那些不信任和仇视华人的朋友，因为我曾经与这个种族一起生活、玩乐和学习长达5年。大多数的马来人都没有这种经历。”
（精彩大马）
How does the UEC jeopardise nation-building?
I was asked to appear before a task force set up by Maszlee
Malik on the issue of the Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) and its impact
on nation-building. The main concern, as I understand, is that the UEC has not
been recognised as a positive development in nation-building because it
originated from the Chinese school system which has refused any nationalisation
efforts.
It was a unique situation, for me to be asked for my opinion
in this matter, because I did not know much about either the UEC or the Chinese
school system.
But I went because of one simple reason: I think there is a
huge problem with our public schools in relation to nation-building. It is very
strange, from my point of view, that the Malays are finding fault with the UEC
and the vernacular school system and philosophy when the main problems stem
directly from the public schools themselves.
I will make four arguments on how I find the public school
system has jeopardised the very foundation of our nation-building philosophy
and approach. I will speak about the culture of administration, then about the
level of religious and cultural sensitivities between races, the subject of
History and the subject of Bahasa Melayu.
First, the culture of administration. As Dr Mahathir Mohamad
himself has said many times, public schools in Malaysia already resemble
religious or Islamic schools. To many Malays in Umno or PAS, or even PKR and
Amanah, this may be a welcome assertion. Unlike in my days, most teachers now
comprise Malays in what is a racial imbalance in the teaching force.
Next we have administrators who are also mostly Malays, and
they determine the culture and value system in schools, such as the insistence
on the so-called Islamic dress code and the reading of Muslim prayers during
events and assembly.
When Christians once did the same at missionary schools, the
Malays complained of religious pollution in education institutions. But when
the Malays do it, it seems all right because the education ministry is full of
pious Muslims.
Events such as Qia mu lail and Yaasin reading to ask for
Allah’s help in examinations are rife. These events are fine if conducted
outside of school compounds and hours. This kind of culturalisation frightens
non-Malay and non-Muslim parents away from public schools.
Have the UEC and Chinese schools introduced a non-Islamic
administrative culture? I have not heard of any Bible reading or Confucian
wisdom and Buddhist meditative practices being part and parcel of the
day-to-day activities of any school. From the administrative culture
perspective, Chinese schools using the UEC have no ethnic preference or
religious impetus.
Secondly, there is a proliferation of Muslim religious
rituals like prayers at school, halal canteens or stalls. Students who are not
fasting must eat in the toilet, there are halal and haram drinking glasses,
issues with saris and many others.
Parents are understandably frightened at these acts of
outward religiosity and have moved their children to private or vernacular
schools. I have not heard of any religious rituals of incense burning or
processions of deities in Chinese schools, thus I assume that such outward
shows of religious piety or reverence do not exist.
The school environment of those taking the UEC seems, to me,
more balanced in respecting religious sensitivities. This would be a point in
favour of accepting the UEC as a good nation-building effort.
The argument against accepting the UEC comes to a head over
the subject of History. Although the UEC has been accepted by overseas and
international universities of worth all over the world, Malaysia rejects it on
grounds that its history syllabus does not contain “adequate” local content.
I accept the fact that the UEC History subject covers a more
global perspective as well as some local content, showing the idea of
globalisation and localisation at the same time. We must get used to the idea
that our children will likely not be working in Malaysia. They will spread
their wings outside the country of their birth.
I learnt about Christianity and the Greeks in my day, and it
was useful when I went to the US for my architectural degrees. On the other
hand, the public school curriculum, to my mind, contains too much historical
content that may be skewed towards creating a narrative of one race over the
others.
I would prefer that both the UEC and the national school
History curriculum concentrate more on the history of different peoples rather
than one of them being a long-winded narrative of colonialism and the political
struggle for independence with heroes being ministers and prime ministers as
well as political leaders, most of whom were Malays.
I would prefer that our children know about the rise of each
people – the Chinese, the Indians, the Orang Asli, the Kadazans, the Muruts –
and their anthropological make-up of social values and rituals in the past as
well as adaptations and innovations of the present.
If I were to ask pupils about the history of Christianity or
the Buddhist faith in Malaysia, would they be able to answer? There is also the
history of technology and the rise of cities that form important aspects of
history and would help us better perceive the present social and environmental
issues.
My conclusion here is that both the UEC and the national
curriculum are flawed in their understanding of history in a narrow construct.
Our present curriculums fail miserably in educating our youth about the history
of their own peoples.
The other point of contention is the subject of Bahasa
Melayu. The so-called unacceptability of the UEC is also on grounds that
curriculum expectations of the certificate are apparently lower than those of
the national curriculum. I would like to present a totally different view of
this matter.
First of all, I assume that most public universities with
the exception of perhaps UKM and one or two others, require students to attend
lectures and complete assignments in English. Even UiTM, the bastion of
Malay-only education, strongly insists on this matter. So students of the UEC
should steer away from UKM and apply only to UTM, UPM, USM, UM and others which
emphasise English over Bahasa Melayu.
What is the problem here? It was not the Chinese
educationists who decided on this line of medium of instruction. It was the
Malay vice-chancellors who opened up their universities to foreigners thus
dealing a death blow to Bahasa Melayu as Bahasa Ilmu. They should close down
Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka for it no longer has any academic relevance. The rug
was pulled from under its feet by the Malay educationists themselves, for the
sake of international rankings and the idea of a “world-class” education.
Secondly, what level of Bahasa Melayu do we expect from our
children? I took the Standard Six exam and the LCE and MCE, but the level of
Bahasa Melayu doubled in complexity in my children’s time. I have been writing
books, articles and even journals using my MCE Bahasa Melayu, which is “lower”
in quality than that of my children. Can UEC students carry out a conversation
with a Malay? Can they write a simple job application letter in Bahasa Melayu?
If yes, what else should we be asking for? Do we want the Chinese to spout
classical Malay or speak in proverbs all the time, in addition to understanding
the intricate novels of Malay national laureates? Tak payah lah. I pun tak
faham. I do love the classical language of Hang Tuah and Munshi Abdullah. Such
beautiful and soft expressions, not mechanical like modern Malay. But the
question remains: what level do we or should we expect of an 18-year-old
looking for a clerical job in the public service?
In conclusion, I do not see the relevance of the arguments
against accepting the UEC as part of a nation-building curriculum. If my
arguments still appear lacking in substance, I ask Malaysians to remember that
Azwandin, Jamal Yunos, Zamihan, Ibrahim Ali, Tajuddin Abdul Rahman and Bung
Moktar never sat for the UEC examination. They all came from the national or
religious school system. Need I say more?
The views expressed are those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect those of FMT.
（FMT NEWS）
