警方传召了国立大学（UKM）张国祥教授，以针对他发表“多源流学校阻碍国民团结”的煽动言论指控。这也为他提供了反驳指控的机会。
现在的问题是：当局会继续对他不断指多源流学校阻碍国家团结的指控视而不见吗？
除此之外，张国祥教授也在《独立时报》网站的一段影片中声称，华校的存在是华社看不起马来人的原因，从而引发了更大的种族和政治分裂。
在张国祥发表评论之前，联邦法院维持了上诉庭的裁决，即多源流学校符合宪法，并承认多源流学校或国民型学校使用华语和泰米尔语是合法的。
非马来社交媒体的读者一片倒谴责了张国祥的言论，他被贴上了各种各样的名字，较“客气”者质疑张国祥在没有证据或学术论据支持下发表如此的观点，妖魔化母语教育和华人社会的动机。也有人指出，张国祥的观点与极端主义政客，以及一些学者如邱家金和郑全行等的观点是相呼应的。这些人利用母语学校课题制造社会分裂，以作为国家面对著的种族和宗教问题的替罪羊。
在张国祥的支持者中，较特出的观点是捍卫学术自由和表达不同观点的权利。学术式非政府组织，大马学术人员运动（GERAK）认为，尊重学术自由对于发展一个有凝聚力、有见识、成熟和理智的社会至关重要。然而，该组织也重申了其信念，即不应将国民不团结归咎于多源流学校。反之，该组织指出，多源流学校提供了更大的机会，通过交流促进跨种族理解。这两种立场都与张国祥截然相反。
该非政府组织也指出，马来西亚的种族政治体制使这个问题变得两极化，尤其政客利用这些课题来争取支持。大马学术人员运动（GERAK）应知道，有些学者也不能免于如不少政客一样为了自身利益的机会主义，熟练玩起种族“游戏”。也许，以后可能会有一条以张国祥命名的小巷或街道。毕竟，他已经获得了拿督头衔。
对于张国祥和他在反母语学校团伙中主要的马来人支持者来说，随著法院的判决，这场争议的时机是完美的。现在，张国祥有一个绝佳的机会，可以将他的案件带到法庭以外的学术界以及政策制定者面前。希望这能一劳永逸地解决华小和泰小的存在问题。否则，这将继续成为我们国家“溃烂的伤口”。
对母语教育没有研究
迄今为止，张国祥有关母语教育主题的文章主要出现在马来媒体上。尽管他获得了慷慨的研究资助，但他在母语教育主题上的研究似乎相当少。
张国祥将自己定位为多产的学术评论员。他在马来西亚国立大学网站上的简历，洋洋洒洒，列了一堆，展示了其在《马来西亚前锋报》、《每日新闻》、《语文月刊》和其他非学术媒体上的许多专栏文章。然而，在他的履历中，没有证据表明，他对本身在马来媒体上发表的争议性言论和文章的课题，有进行了大量研究，甚至任何研究。
由于没有实证和精准的社会科学工具和研究，张国祥似乎依赖道听涂说和自己的观点，以及他的朋友圈和学术伙伴的偏见和歧见，得出了他关于教育和种族关系的结论。张国祥除了在马来文学方面的专长外，没有任何指标显示，他在其他课题的学术著作，曾出现在任何受人尊敬的学术出版物或期刊上。
涉及这些争议的单位，例如对上诉法院的裁决提出异议的伊斯兰教育发展理事会（Mappim）和马来西亚作家协会联合会（Gapena）；国立大学、全国教授理事会和国大的民族研究所 (KITA) 可以透过出版张国祥有关这方面的学术研究，以及主办有关教育和民族团结的论坛和研讨会，为张国祥辩护，发挥关键作用。
除了考量华社（张国祥攻击的主要目标）的观点外，其他利益关系者的立场，尤其是在约2000所华小和泰小就读的超过10万名非华裔，主要是马来学生（及其家人）的立场也至关重要。据一些评论所言，这些母语学校长期以来一直被国家教育体系所忽略，在拨款、校地分配、设施等方面长期受到政府不公对待。对此，张国祥或许有专家的见解可以分享。
自独立以来，数百万马来西亚人，包括相当数量的非华人和非印度人，从华泰小毕业。没有任何证据表明这些学校构成了分裂力量，或者它们滋生了“傲慢”或种族优越感或蔑视其他种族。同样，张国祥这种毫无根据的指控，其实也可以轻易地用于针对其对应的国小或国家教育体系的其他领域，包括张国祥所在的大学。
董总的数据显示，从1989年到2020年，华小非华裔学生人数稳健成长。华小的非华裔学生人数从1989年的1万7309名（占华小学生总数的3.05%）增加到1994年的3万2203名（占华小学生总数的5.52%）；1998年的5万2043或8.66%、2011年的7万1644或12%、2012年8万0024或13.32%、2014年的8万7463或15.31%，以及2017年的9万4608或18%，2020年估计为10万1011人，即 19.75%。华小马来学生的增加可能是极端马来民族主义者所关注的问题。
今天，华泰小尽管面对著庞大的反对行动，但仍然有如此多的马来学生进入这些学校，这无可辩驳地证明了公众和马来人对这些学校质量的信心，以及他们相信华小和泰小比国小，提供了更优越的非种族主义的学校教育。
当这个国家的主要和主导群体著迷于不明智和扭曲的民族团结观念和文化论战时，大马就永远不会实现成为一个安全、自信和包容的国家。这种文化论战，包括庆祝圣诞节、情人节、肉骨茶和当下的袜子事件，分散了我们所有人的注意力，使人们无法处理更严重的教育改革和经济落后的问题。事实上，这些针对种族和宗教的论战，最终会对本应所要保护或维护的社群产生负面影响。
林德宜《对多源流学校新一轮攻击》原文：Starting A New Fire Against Vernacular Schools
Prof. Teo Kok Seong met the police recently to respond to the reports against him for making a statement with the intention to incite. This is providing him the opportunity to refute the charge.
The question now is: will the authorities continue to turn a blind eye to his unceasing allegations that vernacular schools are an obstacle to national unity.
In addition to this claim, he has provoked greater racial and political division by asserting in the Merdeka Times video that the existence of Chinese schools is the reason why the Chinese community thinks badly of the Malays.
Teo’s comments follow the Federal Court’s decision in support of a ruling by the Court of Appeal which states that vernacular schools are constitutional and recognised the use of Chinese and Tamil languages in vernacular schools or national-type schools as legal.
Readers in the non-Malay social media have upbraided his comments. He has been labelled with all kinds of names. The more charitable have questioned his motive in demonising vernacular education and the Chinese community without providing evidence or scholarship to support his viewpoint. Others have noted that his views echo those of extremist politicians and fellow academics such as Khoo Kay Kim and Riduan Tee. These characters are seen as the ones creating disunity by using the vernacular schools as the scapegoat for the nation’s racial and religious problems.
Amongst his supporters, those standing out have argued the case for academic freedom and Teo’s right to voice alternative views. Academic NGO, Pergerakan Tenaga Akademik Malaysia (GERAK), argued that respect for academic freedom is essential towards developing a society that is cohesive, knowledgeable, mature and intellectual. However, at the same time it reiterated its belief that vernacular schools are not to be blamed for disunity. It noted that the vernacular schools offer greater opportunities to foster interracial understanding through dialogue. Both these positions are diametrically opposed to Teo’s.
The NGO also noted that the issue had been polarised by Malaysia’s race-based political system, with politicians using it to woo support. GERAK should have acknowledged that some academics are not exempt from playing the race game with more than a few equally as adept as politicians and for the same opportunistic reasons of self advancement. Perhaps Teo may have a lorong or side street named after him. He already is a recipient of a datukship.
The timing of this controversy is perfect for Teo and his largely Malay supporters in the anti vernacular school gang who are intent on fighting against the most recent court decisions. Teo, now, has the golden opportunity to take his case beyond the courts to the academic community as well as to policy makers. Hopefully this will resolve the issue of the existence of SRJK (C) and (T) once and for all. Otherwise it will continue as a festering wound in our nation.
Teo’s Research on Vernacular Education and Schools
So far, Teo’s writing on the subject of vernacular education has mainly appeared in the Malay media. His research work on the subject appears quite scanty despite his being the recipient of generous research funding grants.
Teo has marketed himself as a prolific academic commentator. His curriculum vitae in the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia website runs to many pages (see https://ukmsarjana.ukm.my/main/muatturun_cv/SzAwNDc2OQ==). Dominated by the many columns that appear in his name in Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian, Dewan Bahasa and the other non-academic outlets he has diligently listed for all viewers his university record. However it does not appear in his c.v. much evidence to show that he has done extensive or indeed, any, research on the controversial subjects that he has been expounding on which are regularly published in the Malay media.
Without empirical and well designed social science tools and research, it looks like he has relied on hearsay and his own, and the bias and prejudice of his circle of friends and academic associates, to arrive at his conclusions on education and race relations. There is also no indication that his academic work, apart from his expertise in Malay literature, on these subjects has appeared in any respectable academic publication or journal.
Interested parties in this controversy such as the Islamic Education Development Council (Mappim) and Confederation of Malaysian Writers Association (Gapena) which contested the Court of Appeal’s ruling; and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, the National Association of Professors and Institut Kajian Etnik (KITA) can play a key role in Teo’s defence by publicising his academic work as well as by organising forums and workshops in relation to education and national unity.
Besides taking into account the views of the Chinese community - the prime target of Teo’s attack - the position of other stakeholders, especially the more than 100,000 non-Chinese primarily Malay children enrolled in the nearly 2,000 SRJKCs and SRJKT (and their families) must be given weight. According to critics, these schools have long been the step children of the national educational system and continue to be discriminated against by the government in funding, land allocation, facilities, etc. Perhaps Teo may have an expert analysis to share on this.
Since independence, several millions of Malaysians, including a considerable number of non-Chinese and non-Indians, have graduated from vernacular schools. There is absolutely no evidence that the schools comprise a disunifying force or that they have bred “arrogance” or a sense of racial superiority or disparagement of other races. Such baseless charges can similarly be easily hurled against their counterpart SJKs or other sectors of the educational system, including Teo’s university.
Data from Dong Zong has tracked the steady increase of non Chinese student enrolment from 1989 to 2020. From a small enrolment of 17,309 students or 3.05 per cent of total SJKC students in 1989, non-Chinese students at SJKC have increased to 32,203 or 5.52 per cent (1994), 52,043 or 8.66 per cent (1998), 71,644 or 12 per cent (2011), 80,024 or 13.32 per cent (2012), 87,463 or 15.31 per cent (2014), 94,608 or 18 per cent (2017), and an estimated 101,011 or 19.75 per cent (2020). It is this increase in Malay enrolment in SRJK (C) that is possibly the key underlying concern for the ultra Malay nationalists.
Today, the enrollment of so many Malay students in the vernacular schools, despite the massive propaganda campaign against them, is irrefutable proof of the public and Malay confidence in the quality of these schools and their belief that SRJKCs and SRJKTs provide a superior non-racist schooling to their children than is available from the SJKs
Moving Beyond The Culture War and Perversion of National Unity
Achieving a secure, confident and inclusive nation will never come about when the major and dominant community in the country is consumed by and is obsessed with this form of culture war and its ill informed and perverted conception of national unity. Such culture wars, including on the celebration of Christmas, Valentine day, bakkut teh and now socks, distract all of us from dealing with the far more serious issues of educational reform and the lagging economy. In fact these wars focusing on race and religion ultimately negatively impact the community that they are supposed to protect or uphold.
