| 
Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email SMK Pusat Bandar Puchong 1 hits the limelight again after about 5 over years. Previously there was some news about students getting hysteria way back in 2014. Anyway, back to the issue at hand.
According to this lawyer, parents (some/few/many?) complained about the decorations done at the school for the upcoming Chinese New Year. so this guy, who is vice president of Parti Bumiputera Persaka Malaysia (why isn’t this a surprise?) wrote a letter on behalf of the parents to the school demanding that the decoration be removed.
Let’s look at the letter’s content:
Adalah kami merujuk kepada perkara yang tersebut di atas.
2. Biro Aduan Awam dan Undang-undang PUTRA telah pun menerima aduan daripada ibu bapa berkaitan dengan perhiasan berkaitan sambutan perayaan tahun baru Cina di SMK Pusat Bandar Puchong 1.
3. Aduan-aduan yang kami terima menggambarkan rasa tidak selesa dan tidak senang hati ibu bapa berkaitan dengan perhiasan yang keterlaluan di sekolah Puan untuk sambutan perayaan tahun baru Cina 2020. Ada juga ibu bapa yang membayangkan keadaan Sekolah yang seolah-olah telah di hias seumpama gedung perniagaan milik China dan terdapat unsur-unsur keagamaan Selain Agama Islam yang telah mendatangkan perasaan tidak aman dan Damai di kalangan pelajar beragama Islam dan bertentangan dengan Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan. <Me: does one expect the decoration to be different according to building? Schools must have different decoration than other premises? Only China owned buildings can decorate? Also, its not China but Cina. So far, we have learned in school that Chinese New Year is more of a cultural festival. We can read many stories in the media where converts also celebrate Chinese New Year. Unless there is some deity images or some cute pig images, nothing wrong in putting decorations in school. The only issue I can find is possibly too much decorate, but hey, that’s the whole point of wanting to experience the feeling of festival celebration. Aside: This is also the reason why you can’t simply close down vernacular schools since its not only about learning the language, but include experiencing the culture as well>
Di lampirkan gambar-gambar perhiasan yang di maksudkan di sekolah Puan.
4. Selanjutnya, PUTRA juga menyatakan bahawa tindakan Puan membenarkan perhiasan berlebihan untuk perayaan agama masyarakat Cina ini di sekolah Awam juga adalah bertentangan dengan Perkara 12(3) Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang menyatakan bahawa “tiada sesiapa boleh menerima apa2 ajaran agama atau menyertai apa2 Amalan agama Selain ugamanya sendiri”. <Me:Attempting to scare by quoting the constitution. Putting up decorations is not attempting to proselytise. Haiyo, ini pun tak faham…>
5. Selanjutnya, tindakan Puan ini juga adalah satu bentuk penyebaran dakyah agama lain di kalangan pelajar beragama Islam yang bertentangan dengan Perkara 11(4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan. <Me: yeah, another attempt to misdirect and abuse the constitution.>
6. PUTRA dengan ini memberikan masa 3 hari kepada Puan daripada Tarikh surat ini untuk menurunkan semula kesemua perhiasan perayaan keagamaan kaum Cina di SMK Pusat Bandar Puchong 1.
7. Sekiranya pihak Puan enggan untuk berbuat demikian, kami akan melaporkan kepada pihak berkuasa untuk tindakan lanjut. <Me: wonder who one should report to? Jabatan Agama?>
Oklah, consider that there exists a bunch of parents who lived under coconut shell all their lives, shocked to see red color decorations in school. They go and complain to this person. At least this person, being a learned person, could have explained that this is Chinese New Year decoration, another 3 weeks will be gone. But no…he went on to write letter. Well, wishful thinking.
But the one that takes the cake is the reply from the HM via email which the guy posted on FB and reported in the media. According to the reply, the HM claimed that she was not informed of the decoration plans (maybe done over weekend?). She also said that the relevant parties will remove the decoration after she had admonished them.
I’m not sure if this is the correct response to an factually incorrect letter. Maybe the HM should refer to district education office so as to not offend our citizens by relenting to wrong reasons. At most, maybe she can say that the decorations has been reduced but to accept that the decoration is challenging Article 3(1) – Islam as official religion of federation, 12(3) – forcing to take part in other religion, or 11(4) – propagating to Muslims, is very irresponsible. The HM should have done better especially being a person of standing in the education field.
Sad to read this kind of news right?
Edit: If anything, I would be proud of whoever it was (parents, teachers, PIBG etc) who took the effort to decorate the school.
