Josh Hong's tirade against the Chinese education movement, ( Humbugs in the Chinese education movement ), is as interesting from the psychoanalyst's viewpoint as it is a sample of quaint logic.

The bee in his bonnet is the fact that a Chinese education leader did not send his son to Chinese school. This warrants his denunciation of the "humbugs" in the movement. From his hardly concealed delight at "uncovering" this "second-hand scoop", he seems disappointed that the Umno papers have not picked it up.

As someone who knows the leaders Hong so dismissively calls "humbugs", who has been in the movement for close to 20 years, who knows the context in which this 'parable' was told, and last but not least whose two children were educated in Malaysian Chinese schools, I think I have the qualifications to explain the Chinese education movement and its leaders.

First, a cautionary note to Hong: Calling someone a "humbug" is rather strong. It is equivalent to calling him a fraud and a cheat.

The second lesson about honest journalism is getting the facts right and the context of what was said. In the case in point, this leader told his audience about his first son who did not go to Chinese school during the 1950s when conditions were still rough. Now, the fact that this leader sent all his other children to Chinese schools when conditions were better is not divulged by Hong. He either does not know this fact because he has relied o­n "second-hand scoop" (sic) or else this fact would soften the image of these "humbugs" in the Chinese education movement.

Hong is being patronising when he "commends this leader for his courage and honesty in making known to the public that his son did not receive any Chinese education..."

This leader was not doing anything of the sort. He did not expect to have a clap o­n the back by people like Hong for "coming out of the closet", so to speak. He was merely telling this parable of his first son and the price he is now paying for not knowing Mandarin. The audience did not gasp "Shock! Horror!" at the disclosure.

What's the big deal? This person has led the Chinese education movement ably and courageously for the last 10 years or so. He has not been afraid to defend the right to mother tongue education against official sanctions and he has been accredited with many constructive projects including the New Era College campus costing RM30 million, all donated by the public. To be the leader of the Chinese education movement, you have to be elected by representatives of all the states and to earn the trust of the grassroots.

The other Chinese education leader Hong calls a humbug has, o­n the first anniversary of his passing, been given the accolade of "Father of the Unified Examination Certificate" (UEC) by the Chinese education movement and credited with the revival of the Chinese independent secondary schools.

This is because he courageously stood his ground even when he was threatened with ISA detention by the then education minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 1975 if he went ahead with the UEC. He also took the government to the highest court in the land over the Merdeka University issue. Last but not least, he was prepared to suffer the consequences by leading a group of civil rights activists into the opposition Barisan Alternatif in 1990 even though he was a successful businessman.

These are the credentials of the two leaders Hong so carefreely calls "humbugs" of the Chinese education movement.

For those who know the Chinese community in Malaysia, the Chinese education movement is the o­nly movement there is and which commands the respect and trust of all sections of the community. And as someone who was in politics before, I dare say that the grassroots of this movement are more organised than any of the Chinese-based political parties in Malaysia. We may not be liked by Umno but parties such as Keadilan, PRM and PAS also sympathise with our cause.

So what is Hong so uptight about? That someone who does not send his children to Chinese schools should not champion the cause of Chinese education? o­ne must understand the circumstances under which these two leaders lived and when they came into the Chinese education movement. I wasn't in the movement when I could see the injustice of the government's rejection of Merdeka University. So before I had sent my children to Chinese schools, would I have been called a "humbug" as well? Clearly, Hong's reasoning needs to be more dialectical.

Perhaps, as I said before, we need to psychoanalyse Josh Hong. Let's look for clues. He relates: "may I be allowed to confess the gleeful joy that ran through my nerves and veins when, not so long ago, some ex-Chinese educationist by the name of Dr Too Chee Cheung called a press conference and deplored in no uncertain terms the hypocritical behaviour of the many leaders in the Chinese education movement".

That he harbours a "primordial loathing" for the Chinese education movement is quite clear from this rather graphic description of his reading of CC Too's j'accuse . It's interesting that through the years, CC Too (not to be mistaken for his more famous brother who led the psychological warfare against the communists in Malaya and Vietnam) has harboured a morbid loathing for the Chinese educationist leaders.