作者：阿兹利·拉曼
译者：KenShi Lee
我以关注的态度，细读董总所列出政府对华校采取的种种歧视动作。
为何优质教师和丰富的资源依然只输送到马来学校？这所谓的“教员派遣”动作，到头来只有剥夺孩子们享有优质母语教育的机会。在华校求学的孩子们何以必需饱受如此罪犯般的对待？否决学生以本身母语受教育的权利，这种举止表现的到底是什么样的病态？这些立法的专家们，是否真的了解文化、认知、意识、以及公民身份之间的关系？
这年头，国族主义到底是怎么一回事？我们是如何透过学校采用的语言，在课堂上了解这所谓国族主义的含义？被弄成主流的那一套国族主义，贴上的是谁的招牌？这牌子的国族主义，必需是什么样子的？华校多年来师资要求的呼吁，这背后到底是什么问题？孩子们是如何因着这一大箩问题而饱受罪犯似的对待？教育作为一门非暴力行业，在这课题上，和平方案在何方？
当我思考教育课题的时候，我最在乎的，视为最首要的，就是孩子们。我视每个孩子为赐予人间的礼物。我考虑的，是包括这孩子的文化以及认知特征、抚养这孩子长大的家庭给予他的尊严、以及那个叫做“国家政府”的有关方面到底想把这孩子搓成什么模样。
学校这过程，在一个资本主义社会，就是一个庞大的托儿机制，让一个孩子在每周的七天、每天的八个钟头，给别人看顾，就像以色列的基布兹社群那样，让家长们可以去上班，把辛劳成果卖给国家政府。
而，这孩子，就必需学习待人接物之道，以及学习了解新事物。与此同时，家长们则必需唯命是从的成为良好工人，为国家政府生产利益。这些家长／工人靠着疏离性质的劳动生产的产品，就让国家政府透过各种管道和机制加以使用，按照政治与经济领域的精英们想象出来的“发展”定义，去“发展”他们的国家。
这孩子进到学校去，学习的就是混得变成这国家政府山头内的一个公民。那庞大产量的托儿机器，不管是叫做公共学校、私人学校、还是宗教学校，都是由一群叫做“教师”（还有就是寄宿学校的“舍监”）的“美德经理人”看管。其中用意，就是确保这孩子培养得热爱族群，或是根据国家政府意识形态阐述的那种“爱国”。在马来西亚，最新版本的官方意识形态，大概就是那套叫做“1个大马”的东西。
学校是否一个让孩子快乐地求知的地方？在这地方，孩子的思想品德应该如何模塑？这孩子应该精通哪一种语言？他在学校领受的文化，应该是谁的文化？在马来西亚的学校，这文化是否马来文化？抑或，是马来穆斯林混合文化？这孩子应该领受的好处，是由谁来规定？
在这时代，人们日益渴望激烈且彻底的改革、强调立场和见解的包含性、语言的多元化和竞争。在这样的一个时代，再加上全球化世界的种种需求，马来西亚的教育哲学到底是什么？
何不让孩子在学校以熟悉的母语好好学习，培养文化尊严，然后在中学阶段再以英文为主要教学媒介？
何不连课堂的伊斯兰研究以及道德教育都一律以英语授课，装备孩子应付以英语为媒介语言的大专教育，以及那些列为新生必修课的哲学、伦理、以及文化研究？
诸位马来西亚人，当我们试图为孩子的成长而设计一套最适当的文化以及认知环境，让他们日后能够成为有所作为并且具备成熟处世态度的公民，我们不应该以欺骗、无知、伪善的态度建构这环境。我们眼前的马来西亚教育体系，就是因着种族分化政策的基础，而不断的极端化。
如今，马来西亚教育系统工厂生产线已经出货不知多少遍了。种族关系课题每况愈下，其中原因之一，就是那些策划教育政策的人们的无能，导致无法设计出一套以和平为基础，让人们学习尊重并欣赏彼此、并且让这种文化茂盛成长的教育制度以及教育环境。
如今，各个种族/法西斯主义团体，为了维护那所谓的“马来主权”——我称之为“伪马来蠢货尊严”的观念，把公共言说空间弄得日益污烟漳气。这种观念，不但价值破产，也是造成道德破产以及国家破产的祸首。
教育部到底可曾为着多元文化教育而付出努力？
马来西亚政治的本质，是从一种以派系旗帜为个别社群凝聚点的政治模式，演变成一种与非理性、贪婪、以及贪污泛滥现象毗邻的种族精神病理状态。在这样的政治环境下，教育部可曾对多元文化教育给予丝毫的重视？
身为一位从事教导文化、哲学、以及教育原理的教育工作者，我希望看见马来西亚的孩子们，可以满有尊严的把他们自己的民族文化带到学校去，在充满着创意和互动的学习环境，彼此分享他们的文化。
如此，我们就可以在学习过程之中加入哲学家查尔斯泰勒（Charles Taylor）所说的“真伪之伦理”，让这些对文化深感好奇的孩子们懂得辨别道德传统其中的真伪，不至于在面对个别招牌的极民族中心主义（ultra-ethnocentricism）的时候就只懂得选择鼓吹或追打。
就让我们拭目以待，看看教育部能否在另一个懂得认真看待教育课题的政权掌舵之前，一次过彻底解决这董总课题。
原文如下：
Beyond the 'Dong Zong issue'
Beyond the 'Dong Zong issue'
by Azly Rahman
in Malaysiakini
I read with interest about ongoing governmental
discrimination against Chinese schools, as highlighted by Dong Zong.Why are quality teachers and an abundance of resources still channeled only to Malay-dominated schools? Why are children in Chinese schools criminalised by the ‘sanction on teaching staff” which will ultimately deprive students of a good mother-tongue education?
What actually is our illness with regard to
denial of the students’ right to their own language? Do policy makers
actually understand the relationship between culture, cognition,
consciousness and citizenship?What does nationalism mean these days, and how do we understand it vis-a-viz use of language in schools? Whose brand of nationalism is being made dominant and what should an inclusive one look like?
What is the real issue behind the age-old request for the Chinese schools to have more teachers? How are the children criminalised by all this? Where is the peaceful path to this gentle profession called education?
When I think of education, I think of the children first and foremost. I think of each child as a gift brought into this world in all his/her cultural and cognitive complexities and of the pride of the family raising the child independent of what the ‘state’ wants the child to become.
Schooling is a process of mass babysitting in a capitalist state, such that the child will be provided a place for eight hours a days, seven days a week, to be taken care of, like in a kibbutz, while the parents go to work, selling their labour to the state.
The child is supposed
to behave and learn new things while the parents are supposed to be
obedient and, as good workers, bring profit to the state. The state,
through its apparatuses, uses the profits and products of ‘alienated
labour’ of parents/workers and ‘develops’ the country according to what
the political and economic elite imagines what ‘development’ means.The child gets to be socialised to become citizens of the state. The mass baby-sitting agencies called public, private or parochial schools, tended by ‘managers of virtue’ called teachers - and wardens’ in boarding schools.
Their role is to ensure that the child learns to become nationalistic or even ‘patriotic’ in accordance to what this means vis-a-viz state ideology. In Malaysia, the current ideology is perhaps called ‘1Malaysia’.
Polarised education system
Are schools a happy place for the child? How shall the child be moulded? What language will he/she be proficient in? Whose culture will he/she inherit? In Malaysia, will it be the culture of the Malays? Or a hybrid of the Malay-Muslim culture? Who defines what will be it in the best interests of the child?
What actually is Malaysia's philosophy of education in this age and time of growing restlessness demanding for radical change, inclusiveness, linguistic diversity and competency, and the demands of a globalised world?
Why not let the child be schooled well first
in his/her mother-tongue to develop cultural pride, and next let the
medium of instruction at the secondary level be in English primarily?Why not teach even the subject of Islamic Studies and Moral Education in English, and next prepare the child well for tertiary education that is predominantly English-speaking, with courses such as Philosophy, Ethics, and Cultural Studies as compulsory first-year subjects?
Malaysians: Let us not be dishonest, ignorant or hypocritical in the way we design the best cultural and cognitive environment for the child to grow up to become world-wise and productive citizens. As it is now, Malaysia's education system is polarising and inspired by the apartheid system.
The products of the Malaysian educational system have for several batches passed through the conveyor belt. The issue of race relations has become more and more exacerbated, partly as a consequence of the inability of the education policy makers to design peaceful educational settings and peaceable learning environments to allow respect and appreciation for each other’s culture to flourish.
Public discourse is
becoming more plagued with calls by this or that racist-fascist groups
in defence of the bankrupt and morally and nationally bankrupting
ideology of Ketuanan Melayu or ‘pseudo-Malay idiotic pride’ as I would
translate it.Has there been any effort by the Education Ministry to design and implement a curriculum on multicultural education? Has there been an interest in it at all, given the nature of Malaysia’s communal politics that has evolved into the state of ethno-psychopathology bordering on irrationality, greed and massive corruption?
As an educator involved in the teaching of cultural perspectives, philosophy, and education, I’d like to see children in Malaysian schools bring their culture with pride into the classroom, to be shared with others in a deeply engaging creative learning context.
This is so that we bring in what the philosopher Charles Taylor would call the “ethics of authenticity” - of the ethical traditions of culture - into the learning process and not have these young curious cultural minds evolve into become ‘knockers or boosters’ of this or that brand of ultra-ethnocentrism.
Let us see how the Education Ministry will resolve this Dong Zong issue once and for all, before another regime takes this important task more seriously.
DR AZLY RAHMAN, who was born in Singapore and grew up in Johor Baru, holds a Columbia University (New York) doctorate in International Education Development and Master’s degrees in the fields of Education, International Affairs, Peace Studies and Communication. He has taught more than 40 courses in six different departments and has written more than 300 analyses on Malaysia. His teaching experience spans Malaysia and the United States, over a wide range of subjects from elementary to graduate education. He currently resides in the United States.
摘自 http://azlyrahman-illuminations.blogspot.com/2012/03/beyond-dong-zong-issue.html
