Silence of the mahasiswas — Lee Lian Kong
May 31, 2010
There is a Bob Dylan song that goes “I used to care, but things have changed”.
Malaysian students used to care. They used to live up to their grand Malay name “mahasiswa”; fresh, spirited, inspired. Now it is a deafening silence or, worse, clueless silence. We have become frightened and leashed. We have surpassed ourselves to become shining examples of obedience. Like dogs. If the dogs bark, the owners whip and yank on their steel collars. If they are silent, they are rewarded with treats. In time, we have forgotten how to bark.
The mahasiswas of today are like those dogs.
Historically, young people were a significant force in the development of this country.
They were heady with the victory for independence. The mahasiswas debated, protested and demonstrated for pro-justice, pro-human rights, justifying their position and manifesting the education they receive in the best institutions of the country.
Back in 1974 during the Tasik Utara issue they were reckoned forceful enough that desperate villagers look towards them to help. Twenty-six years ago, a staggering 5,000 students went to demand for the eradication of poverty in Baling.
Where are they now?
In Pavilion, sipping RM15 cappucino lattes, using a Blackberry to play “Texas Hold ‘Em”. In shopping malls, stretching daddy’s credit card to buy more things they don’t need to impress people they don’t like. Apathy, ignorance, oblivion is a pandemic amongst Malaysian youths. One can give the excuse that the mahasiswas of before were spurred by the injustice they saw when they worked as teachers in the outskirts. One can continue by saying it is not our fault that we are robbed of such experience and enlightenment. One can even cite the magic word: Akta Universiti and Kolej Universiti. Such an argument is nothing but a conscience struggling to save some face.
First-class facilities did not rob the students at the University of California, Berkeley and several other universities of their conscience. For months, theirs was a persistent effort to bring together students of all race, gender and opinions to pass a Bill to divest from any investment from companies that provided financial and military support to Israel. Compared to them, we fall short miserably in terms of empowerment, independence and desire.
Sure, AUKU is a reasonable excuse. Being expelled and blacklisted, the possibility of not graduating, not getting a job or, worst of all, the dreams of owning a BMW evaporated are deterrents. However, AUKU is a blatant disregard to Article 10 of the Federal Constitution which advocates freedom of speech, expression and assembly, an insult to Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has successfully played a part to place us at the lowest tier in terms of human rights. We proudly proclaim ourselves university students, in complete awareness of this knowledge, yet though our inaction we blindly accept this insolent law.
Aminul Rasyid, Teoh Beng Hock, Kugan, GST, subsidy cuts, economic burden on the rakyat are only a sliver of the issues insulting basic human rights. An innocent kid shot directly to the head by an irresponsible police officer. Economic terrorism leading to families not even able to have basic amenities such as water, electricity and education. We see, hear and know of all these injustices. Our awareness, if there is at all any, makes our silence all the more embarrassing when compared with our student bodies of 30 years ago, the outspoken student crowds of our neighbouring country, Indonesia, and America’s student unions divestment effort to stop Israel’s crimes towards Palestine.
Have those RM15 cappucino lattes completely numbed our conscience?
Thankfully, all is not lost. There are a few, but not enough, out there who publicly denounce AUKU and have courageously listened to their hearts and conscience, such as the recent famous four from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia caught participating in the Hulu Selangor by-election. To these brave young men and women, I salute you.
Showing posts with label University and University Colleges Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label University and University Colleges Act. Show all posts
Monday, May 31, 2010
Thursday, August 21, 2008
UUCA - Innocent Until Proven Guilty?
I have written earlier on the constitutionality as well as enforceability of the University and University Colleges Act amendments.
While UUCA decriminalised offences, i.e., students who breached its laws are no longer subjected to court action and be punishable by fines or jail sentences, they are still subjected to university disciplinary hearings, which may or may not be more fair.
At the same time, students who are charged with other offences in court, will also be subjected to such disciplinary actions, where the Vice-Chancellor or his/her deputy will have the right punish the student, including suspending him or her.
In an unrelated point, but which was validly raised by Prof Zawawi during a recent forum, was that the UUCA severely limits the way in which the University could be managed in terms of the rigidity of the University structure. Specific postions such as various posts, composition of the board of directors, senate etc. are all enshrined in the UUCA. With such control, we will only find uniformity in mediocrity.
While UUCA decriminalised offences, i.e., students who breached its laws are no longer subjected to court action and be punishable by fines or jail sentences, they are still subjected to university disciplinary hearings, which may or may not be more fair.
At the same time, students who are charged with other offences in court, will also be subjected to such disciplinary actions, where the Vice-Chancellor or his/her deputy will have the right punish the student, including suspending him or her.
Innocent until proven guilty?
Tuan Yang Di-Pertua, di bawah seksyen 15D yang baru, naib-canselor berkuasa menggantung seseorang pelajar yang “dipertuduh atas kesalahan boleh daftar dan perkara yang berhubungan dengan penahanan” mengikut budi bicara naib-canselor. Pelajar tersebut juga boleh dikenakan tindakan tatatertib.
Bukankah seksyen ini bercanggah dengan prinsip di mana seseorang adalah dengan izin, “innocent until proven guilty”? Ataupun Malaysia kini mengamalkan dua sistem keadilan, satu mengikut sistem penghakiman untuk rakyat biasa, dan satu lagi untuk pelajar institusi pengajian tinggi? Bukankah masa hadapan pelajar-pelajar ini lebih penting dan tidak patut dijejaskan, dan sebaliknya dipertahankan kecuali tuduhan-tuduhan tersebut dapat dibuktikan “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Dengan secara ternyata, Akta AUKU ini prinsip “natural justice”.
In an unrelated point, but which was validly raised by Prof Zawawi during a recent forum, was that the UUCA severely limits the way in which the University could be managed in terms of the rigidity of the University structure. Specific postions such as various posts, composition of the board of directors, senate etc. are all enshrined in the UUCA. With such control, we will only find uniformity in mediocrity.
Rigidity in University Structure
Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi berhasrat untuk membina institusi yang bertaraf dunia. Akan tetapi pada masa yang sama, Akta AUKU membentukkan struktur organisasi institusi dengan keras dan tanpa kelonggaran untuk diubahsuai mengikut prinsip pengurusan yang berbeza. Bukan sahaja naib-canselor dan timbalan-timbalannya perlu dilantik oleh Menteri, pembukaan kampus baru, perlantikan ketua kampus cawang, bursar, pendaftar dan juga seorang “penasihat undang-undang” pun perlu dikuasai oleh Menteri. Malah, jawatan “Ketua Pustakawan” pun tertakluk kepada Akta ini.
Akta AUKU ini terlalu tegang dan tidak memberikan ruang perkembangan fleksibel yang mencukupi untuk universiti tempatan untuk menetapkan ciri-ciri pengurusan tersendiri untuk mencapai matlamat kecemerlangan.
Sebaliknya, penguasaan Kementerian ke atas universiti dan kolej universiti dalam faktor-faktor yang telah dihujahkan hanya akan menghadkan dan menyeragamkan pencapaian mereka pada tahap “mediocre”.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
UUCA - Unenforceable
The second point with regards to my speech on the amendments to the University and University Colleges Act has to do with their enforceability. There's really no point putting up laws which are impossible to enforce or are meaningless in nature. Unless of course, the laws are meant to be used selectively to prosecute only those who goes againts the wishes of the vested interest parties.
Tuan Yang Di-Pertua, apabila undang-undang diluluskan, ianya mestilah berfungsi penguatkuasaan, ataupun dengan izin, “enforceable”. Apabila sesebuah undang-undang dicairkan “watered down” sehingga tidak berfungsi penguatkuasaan, ianya menjadi satu undang-undang yang tidak berguna dan tidak bermakna, “useless and meaningless”. Akta pindaan yang tengah kita berbahas ini mempunyai beberapa seksyen sebegitu.
(a)Search Committee
Saya amat mengalu-alukan penubuhan sebuah jawatankuasa pemilihan dan penilaian untuk memilih seseorang naib-canselor, akan tetapi provisi di bawah pindaan Akta ini amat mengecewakan.
Untuk menaiktarafkan mutu institusi pengajian tinggi di Malaysia, peranan seseorang naib-canselor adalah penting sekali. Hanya dengan naib-canselor yang mempunyai pencapaian akademik yang cemerlang dan juga pengurusan yang cekap, sebuah universiti dapat dipimpin ke arah cemerlang.
Kita tidak memerlukan seorang naib-canselor yang berkriteria “ahli UMNO seumur hidup” dan penerbitan akademiknya terhad kepada “Gaya Hidup Remaja Masa Kini” dalam majalah yang diterbit universitinya sendiri. Ataupun seorang naib-canselor yang sumbangannya memberikan taklimat "Gerakan Anti Kerajaan Pelajar-Pelajar di Kampus - Pengalaman UiTM" kepada ketua bahagian UMNO seMalaysia.
Dalam setiap universiti terkemuka di dunia, jawatankuasa ini adalah di lantik oleh Lembaga universiti dan permohonan diterima daripada sesiapa yang berminat. Segala usaha ditumpukan untuk menarik calon yang terunggul sekali dari segi akademik dan pengurusan untuk memimpin universiti tersebut. Jawatankuasa juga perlu memilih calon mengikut kriteria-kriteria yang tertentu seperti jumlah penerbitan dalam jurnal terkemuka antarabangsa dan lain-lain.
Akan tetapi pindaan Akta ini, jawatankuasa khas ini hanya mempunyai hak “menasihati” Menteri mengenai perlantikan. Apatah lagi, Menteri hanya diperlukan melantik jawatankuasa ini dari “semasa ke semasa” dan ianya bukan satu jawatankuasa tetap.
Apakah gunanya satu pindaan yang langsung tidak berfungsi dan tidak berlainan dengan keadaan sekarang? Menteri pun boleh melantik satu jawatankuasa
tanpa pindaan jika dikehendaki, dan kuasa jawatankuasa ini hanya terhad kepada “nasihat” sahaja iaitu Menteri tidak perlu menerima keputusan jawatankuasa.
Pada masa yang sama, isu pengahlian, skop dan juga ruang lingkup “terms of reference” jawatankuasa ini juga langsung tidak dikemukakan. Apakah gunanya satu jawatankuasa di mana bidang tugasnya tidak spesifik dan kriteria pengahlian yang tinggi dan telus?
Pindaan ini langsung tidak berfungsi penguatkuasaan dari segi undang-undang dan ianya hanya satu kegiatan perhubungan awam ataupun dengan izin, public relations exercise sahaja yang tidak bermakna.
(b)Definition of students
Takrif 'pelajar' yang dipinda untuk termasuk pelajar lepas ijazah “post grad”, lepas kedoktoran “postdoctoral”, pelajar sambilan, jarak jauh, penukaran dan tidak berijazah adalah langsung tidak praktikal.
Undang-undang yang tidak dapat diperkuatkuasakan adalah undang-undang yang tidak berguna, kecuali kerajaan berniat untuk menggunakan undang-undang ini untuk menjalankan “dakwaan terpilih” ataupun “selective prosecution”.
Adakah kementerian akan memerlukan ke semua borang permohonan masuk universiti mengisytiharkan bahawa mereka adalah ahli parti UMNO, MCA ataupun PAS?
Takrif 'pelajar' ini menghinakan rakyat Malaysia dewasa yang berfikiran matang di mana hak perlembagaan mereka digantung. Ianya juga merupakan satu faktor negatif untuk menarik lebih ramai rakyat untuk melanjutkan pendidikan mereka di institusi pengajian tinggi Malaysia.
Once again, feel free to help me edit my language errors. ;-)
Tuan Yang Di-Pertua, apabila undang-undang diluluskan, ianya mestilah berfungsi penguatkuasaan, ataupun dengan izin, “enforceable”. Apabila sesebuah undang-undang dicairkan “watered down” sehingga tidak berfungsi penguatkuasaan, ianya menjadi satu undang-undang yang tidak berguna dan tidak bermakna, “useless and meaningless”. Akta pindaan yang tengah kita berbahas ini mempunyai beberapa seksyen sebegitu.
(a)Search Committee
Saya amat mengalu-alukan penubuhan sebuah jawatankuasa pemilihan dan penilaian untuk memilih seseorang naib-canselor, akan tetapi provisi di bawah pindaan Akta ini amat mengecewakan.
Untuk menaiktarafkan mutu institusi pengajian tinggi di Malaysia, peranan seseorang naib-canselor adalah penting sekali. Hanya dengan naib-canselor yang mempunyai pencapaian akademik yang cemerlang dan juga pengurusan yang cekap, sebuah universiti dapat dipimpin ke arah cemerlang.
Kita tidak memerlukan seorang naib-canselor yang berkriteria “ahli UMNO seumur hidup” dan penerbitan akademiknya terhad kepada “Gaya Hidup Remaja Masa Kini” dalam majalah yang diterbit universitinya sendiri. Ataupun seorang naib-canselor yang sumbangannya memberikan taklimat "Gerakan Anti Kerajaan Pelajar-Pelajar di Kampus - Pengalaman UiTM" kepada ketua bahagian UMNO seMalaysia.
Dalam setiap universiti terkemuka di dunia, jawatankuasa ini adalah di lantik oleh Lembaga universiti dan permohonan diterima daripada sesiapa yang berminat. Segala usaha ditumpukan untuk menarik calon yang terunggul sekali dari segi akademik dan pengurusan untuk memimpin universiti tersebut. Jawatankuasa juga perlu memilih calon mengikut kriteria-kriteria yang tertentu seperti jumlah penerbitan dalam jurnal terkemuka antarabangsa dan lain-lain.
Akan tetapi pindaan Akta ini, jawatankuasa khas ini hanya mempunyai hak “menasihati” Menteri mengenai perlantikan. Apatah lagi, Menteri hanya diperlukan melantik jawatankuasa ini dari “semasa ke semasa” dan ianya bukan satu jawatankuasa tetap.
Apakah gunanya satu pindaan yang langsung tidak berfungsi dan tidak berlainan dengan keadaan sekarang? Menteri pun boleh melantik satu jawatankuasa
tanpa pindaan jika dikehendaki, dan kuasa jawatankuasa ini hanya terhad kepada “nasihat” sahaja iaitu Menteri tidak perlu menerima keputusan jawatankuasa.
Pada masa yang sama, isu pengahlian, skop dan juga ruang lingkup “terms of reference” jawatankuasa ini juga langsung tidak dikemukakan. Apakah gunanya satu jawatankuasa di mana bidang tugasnya tidak spesifik dan kriteria pengahlian yang tinggi dan telus?
Pindaan ini langsung tidak berfungsi penguatkuasaan dari segi undang-undang dan ianya hanya satu kegiatan perhubungan awam ataupun dengan izin, public relations exercise sahaja yang tidak bermakna.
(b)Definition of students
Takrif 'pelajar' yang dipinda untuk termasuk pelajar lepas ijazah “post grad”, lepas kedoktoran “postdoctoral”, pelajar sambilan, jarak jauh, penukaran dan tidak berijazah adalah langsung tidak praktikal.
Undang-undang yang tidak dapat diperkuatkuasakan adalah undang-undang yang tidak berguna, kecuali kerajaan berniat untuk menggunakan undang-undang ini untuk menjalankan “dakwaan terpilih” ataupun “selective prosecution”.
Adakah kementerian akan memerlukan ke semua borang permohonan masuk universiti mengisytiharkan bahawa mereka adalah ahli parti UMNO, MCA ataupun PAS?
Takrif 'pelajar' ini menghinakan rakyat Malaysia dewasa yang berfikiran matang di mana hak perlembagaan mereka digantung. Ianya juga merupakan satu faktor negatif untuk menarik lebih ramai rakyat untuk melanjutkan pendidikan mereka di institusi pengajian tinggi Malaysia.
Once again, feel free to help me edit my language errors. ;-)
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
UUCA - Constitutionality
The Act to amend the University and University Collges Act 1971 will be tabled either at the end of this week or early next week for debate in Parliament. I will leading the team from DAP to debate on this act. Each of us will probably get approximately 20 minutes to debate the issue, maybe less depending on total time allocated to debate the bill.
Our key objective is to have the bill postponed or referred to a special select committee for consideration and fine-tuning before it gets passed in parliament. While the best outcome will be the abolishment of the bill in its existing form altogether, that's probably too much to ask in a parliament which the opposition do not have anywhere near majority control.
I'll be posting my work-in-progress speeches up here first, part by part. Yes, it's in Bahasa Malaysia (Malay). There are really a lot of points to add, but it's useful to be concise as there just wouldn't be sufficient time to say everything we'd like to say. I'd also not be covering every issue as some of the points will be raised by my other colleagues in Parliament.
The first point (out of about 6) I'd like to make in the speech is the fact that many parts of the Act actually possess clauses which are actually unconstitutional i.e., they conflict with our Federal Constitution. (Oh, and corrections to grammar and language are welcome)
Pertama sekali, banyak antara seksyen-seksyen dalam Akta AUKU adalah dengan secara langsung, bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Malaysia. Jika pindaan ini diluluskan dalam Dewan ini, ia akan merupakan satu tanda hitam “black mark” dan menjadi satu bahan jenaka “laughing stock” seluruh dunia.
Perlembagaan kita melalui Artikel 10 (1a) dan (1b) mempertahankan hak kebebasan “speech and expression” dan juga hak berhimpun secara aman tanpa senjata untuk rakyat Malaysia kecuali dalam isu spesifik seperti bahasa kebangsaan dan kedaulatan raja-raja Melayu.
Akan tetapi, mengikut Seksyen 15(6), seorang pelajar hanya boleh “membuat penyataan mengenai sesuatu perkara akademik yang berhubungan dengan perkara yang pelajar itu terlibat dalam pengajian.” Malah, kebenaran tersebut hanya sah untuk penyataan “pada sesuatu seminar atau simposium seumpamanya yang tidak dianjurkan atau ditaja oleh mana-mana parti politik, sama ada di dalam atau di luar Malaysia”, dan juga “mana-mana pertubuhan, badan atau kumpulan orang yang ditetapkan oleh Menteri”.
Artikel 8 juga menjamin bahawa dengan izin, “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law”. Hak sebuah badan pendidikan, akademik dan juga pelajar tidak dikecualikan daripada artikel tersebut.
Oleh itu, mengapa pelajar kita menghadapi hak yang terhad berbanding dengan rakyat yang bukan pelajar, khususnya dari segi speech dan perhimpunan? Dan mengapa pelajar Malaysia dalam negeri dipinggirkan berbanding dengan pelajar Malaysia di luar negeri, yang mempunyai hak yang penuh, termasuk mencampuri kelab politik UMNO, MCA dan lain-lain?
Apa gunanya Dewan ini meluluskan satu Akta yang nyata sekali bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Malaysia yang patut dipertahankan oleh setiap ahli parlimen? Adakah ahli parlimen Barisan Nasional sanggup menutup satu mata dan meluluskan satu Akta Undang-Undang yang salah dari segi perlembagaan?
Our key objective is to have the bill postponed or referred to a special select committee for consideration and fine-tuning before it gets passed in parliament. While the best outcome will be the abolishment of the bill in its existing form altogether, that's probably too much to ask in a parliament which the opposition do not have anywhere near majority control.
I'll be posting my work-in-progress speeches up here first, part by part. Yes, it's in Bahasa Malaysia (Malay). There are really a lot of points to add, but it's useful to be concise as there just wouldn't be sufficient time to say everything we'd like to say. I'd also not be covering every issue as some of the points will be raised by my other colleagues in Parliament.
The first point (out of about 6) I'd like to make in the speech is the fact that many parts of the Act actually possess clauses which are actually unconstitutional i.e., they conflict with our Federal Constitution. (Oh, and corrections to grammar and language are welcome)
Pertama sekali, banyak antara seksyen-seksyen dalam Akta AUKU adalah dengan secara langsung, bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Malaysia. Jika pindaan ini diluluskan dalam Dewan ini, ia akan merupakan satu tanda hitam “black mark” dan menjadi satu bahan jenaka “laughing stock” seluruh dunia.
Perlembagaan kita melalui Artikel 10 (1a) dan (1b) mempertahankan hak kebebasan “speech and expression” dan juga hak berhimpun secara aman tanpa senjata untuk rakyat Malaysia kecuali dalam isu spesifik seperti bahasa kebangsaan dan kedaulatan raja-raja Melayu.
Akan tetapi, mengikut Seksyen 15(6), seorang pelajar hanya boleh “membuat penyataan mengenai sesuatu perkara akademik yang berhubungan dengan perkara yang pelajar itu terlibat dalam pengajian.” Malah, kebenaran tersebut hanya sah untuk penyataan “pada sesuatu seminar atau simposium seumpamanya yang tidak dianjurkan atau ditaja oleh mana-mana parti politik, sama ada di dalam atau di luar Malaysia”, dan juga “mana-mana pertubuhan, badan atau kumpulan orang yang ditetapkan oleh Menteri”.
Artikel 8 juga menjamin bahawa dengan izin, “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law”. Hak sebuah badan pendidikan, akademik dan juga pelajar tidak dikecualikan daripada artikel tersebut.
Oleh itu, mengapa pelajar kita menghadapi hak yang terhad berbanding dengan rakyat yang bukan pelajar, khususnya dari segi speech dan perhimpunan? Dan mengapa pelajar Malaysia dalam negeri dipinggirkan berbanding dengan pelajar Malaysia di luar negeri, yang mempunyai hak yang penuh, termasuk mencampuri kelab politik UMNO, MCA dan lain-lain?
Apa gunanya Dewan ini meluluskan satu Akta yang nyata sekali bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Malaysia yang patut dipertahankan oleh setiap ahli parlimen? Adakah ahli parlimen Barisan Nasional sanggup menutup satu mata dan meluluskan satu Akta Undang-Undang yang salah dari segi perlembagaan?
Sunday, August 10, 2008
NST piece on the UUCA amendments
Good NST piece on the UUCA amendments. One of the posts from this blog was quoted.
OPINION: 'Superficial' changes to UUCA Bill criticised
YONG HUEY JIUN
The highly anticipated Universities and University Colleges Act (Amendment) Bill has generated much interest among academics and varsity students alike since it was tabled in Parliament on July 16. YONG HUEY JIUN examines the core issues
STUDENT bodies eagerly await a key parliamentary debate this month on their rights, hoping for greater freedom of expression and association.
At the heart of the controversy is Section 15 of the Universities and University Colleges Act, which deems that any student joining any off-campus societies -- including political parties -- commits a criminal offence that carries a jail term. Although the new bill would decriminalise this, the student could still face disciplinary action from the university.
The Universities and University Colleges Act (Amendment) Bill, set for second reading in the next session of Parliament, would allow students to join any lawful society, organisation or group, except for "any organisation the minister has specified in writing to vice-chancellors as unsuitable to the interests and well-being of the students or university".
At issue is the latter phrase, which confers the minister full powers in decision-making.
"The ultimate power still lies with the minister," says Shazni Munir Mohd Ithnin, a member of the University Students' Movement to Abolish UUCA (GMMA). "Nothing much has changed."
Critics condemn the bill as "superficial". Some call for the act not just to be amended but repealed entirely.
"The act, if at all relevant, needs to be completely overhauled," argues Tony Pua, DAP's Petaling Jaya Utara MP.
The amendments do not go far enough, says Human Rights Commission of Malaysia's Datuk N. Siva Subramaniam, who stresses students' right to political participation.
Shazni agrees: "If other 21-year-olds can join political parties, why is it that we can't just because we are in university?"
The act in its present form emerged from anti-government student protests in 1974, when the UUCA was amended to include more restrictive clauses to curb student activism. But student activism can be a powerful force for positive change, contends commentator and educationist Ong Kian Ming.
"While I don't think student activism is highly correlated with the quality of a university," he says, "I'm convinced that having academic and student freedom to organise and freely express their thoughts is a necessary condition towards establishing a world-class university.
"Different universities in the United States and Britain have taken different routes towards making themselves world-class, but all of them have one thing in common -- academic freedom for students and lecturers to express their thoughts and views and to organise if and when necessary."
Although almost half of the 10.9 million registered voters are under 40, past studies show a low level of political awareness and involvement among youth.
The Malaysian Youth Index surveyed 4,000 Malaysians between the ages of 14 and 40 in 2006, and found that only 45 per cent of them voted in the 2004 general election and only 19 per cent were involved in a political party.
Academics, politicians and student leaders attribute the lack of interest to the UUCA. If students are not allowed to join organisations while they are in college, they say, they are unlikely to be active after graduation.
That's why National Student Consultative Council president Afandy Sutrisno Tanjung supports the amendment, calling it "a great first step". However, he worries that universities, with their own sets of campus regulations, may contain conflicting rules that could undermine reform.
"We certainly hope the deletion of the presumptive Section 15C will apply to university regulations as well," says the varsity student.
One thing's for sure: loosening control is going to take time. Some tread the line more cautiously than others, recognising that with greater freedom comes greater responsibility.
Professor Datuk Dr Sharifah Hapsah Syed Hasan Shahabudin, vice-chancellor of Universiti Kebangsaan Malay-sia, supports academic freedom and autonomy with "reasonable measures of accountability and responsibility".
Her carefully measured words reflect the views of those who are chary of granting untrammelled political freedom to students and want to see a gradual liberalisation instead.
Academics, however, laud the initiative to grant greater autonomy to university boards. The new amendment will see the appointment of vice-chancellors through a select committee on the recommendations of the boards.
Proponents and critics alike agree, of course, that the act's overarching goal is to enhance competitiveness among universities and turn them into centres of human capital development.
OPINION: 'Superficial' changes to UUCA Bill criticised
YONG HUEY JIUN
The highly anticipated Universities and University Colleges Act (Amendment) Bill has generated much interest among academics and varsity students alike since it was tabled in Parliament on July 16. YONG HUEY JIUN examines the core issues
STUDENT bodies eagerly await a key parliamentary debate this month on their rights, hoping for greater freedom of expression and association.
At the heart of the controversy is Section 15 of the Universities and University Colleges Act, which deems that any student joining any off-campus societies -- including political parties -- commits a criminal offence that carries a jail term. Although the new bill would decriminalise this, the student could still face disciplinary action from the university.
The Universities and University Colleges Act (Amendment) Bill, set for second reading in the next session of Parliament, would allow students to join any lawful society, organisation or group, except for "any organisation the minister has specified in writing to vice-chancellors as unsuitable to the interests and well-being of the students or university".
At issue is the latter phrase, which confers the minister full powers in decision-making.
"The ultimate power still lies with the minister," says Shazni Munir Mohd Ithnin, a member of the University Students' Movement to Abolish UUCA (GMMA). "Nothing much has changed."
Critics condemn the bill as "superficial". Some call for the act not just to be amended but repealed entirely.
"The act, if at all relevant, needs to be completely overhauled," argues Tony Pua, DAP's Petaling Jaya Utara MP.
The amendments do not go far enough, says Human Rights Commission of Malaysia's Datuk N. Siva Subramaniam, who stresses students' right to political participation.
Shazni agrees: "If other 21-year-olds can join political parties, why is it that we can't just because we are in university?"
The act in its present form emerged from anti-government student protests in 1974, when the UUCA was amended to include more restrictive clauses to curb student activism. But student activism can be a powerful force for positive change, contends commentator and educationist Ong Kian Ming.
"While I don't think student activism is highly correlated with the quality of a university," he says, "I'm convinced that having academic and student freedom to organise and freely express their thoughts is a necessary condition towards establishing a world-class university.
"Different universities in the United States and Britain have taken different routes towards making themselves world-class, but all of them have one thing in common -- academic freedom for students and lecturers to express their thoughts and views and to organise if and when necessary."
Although almost half of the 10.9 million registered voters are under 40, past studies show a low level of political awareness and involvement among youth.
The Malaysian Youth Index surveyed 4,000 Malaysians between the ages of 14 and 40 in 2006, and found that only 45 per cent of them voted in the 2004 general election and only 19 per cent were involved in a political party.
Academics, politicians and student leaders attribute the lack of interest to the UUCA. If students are not allowed to join organisations while they are in college, they say, they are unlikely to be active after graduation.
That's why National Student Consultative Council president Afandy Sutrisno Tanjung supports the amendment, calling it "a great first step". However, he worries that universities, with their own sets of campus regulations, may contain conflicting rules that could undermine reform.
"We certainly hope the deletion of the presumptive Section 15C will apply to university regulations as well," says the varsity student.
One thing's for sure: loosening control is going to take time. Some tread the line more cautiously than others, recognising that with greater freedom comes greater responsibility.
Professor Datuk Dr Sharifah Hapsah Syed Hasan Shahabudin, vice-chancellor of Universiti Kebangsaan Malay-sia, supports academic freedom and autonomy with "reasonable measures of accountability and responsibility".
Her carefully measured words reflect the views of those who are chary of granting untrammelled political freedom to students and want to see a gradual liberalisation instead.
Academics, however, laud the initiative to grant greater autonomy to university boards. The new amendment will see the appointment of vice-chancellors through a select committee on the recommendations of the boards.
Proponents and critics alike agree, of course, that the act's overarching goal is to enhance competitiveness among universities and turn them into centres of human capital development.
Friday, August 08, 2008
UUC more permissive : An alternative view
A different take on the changes to the UUCA by Prof Faruqi. He argues that there have been significant changes made to the UUCA.
Trusting students with freedoms
REFLECTING ON THE LAW
By SHAD SALEEM FARUQI
The spirit of the law is one of evolutionary change towards more open, free and democratic campuses.
AFTER a gestation period of nearly two years, the long-awaited amendments to The Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 are finally before Parliament.
Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin deserves congratulations, in that immediately after assuming the mantle of leadership at the ministry, he set ambitious time-schedules, tackled some lingering, tough issues with aplomb and, with a very short notice, succeeded in placing the Bill before the Cabinet and Parliament.
As with all laws, the amendments are full of negotiated compromises. There is a mixture of idealism and pragmatism. Though there is some understandable caution, a lot of risks are being taken to trust the young with rights and freedoms hitherto unknown.
The spirit of the law is one of evolutionary change towards more open, free and democratic campuses. Of course, the critics will find many flaws. But there is something worthwhile for everyone in the proposals.
Consultative processes: The Amendment puts in place a number of democratic consultative processes as a pre-condition to the making of decisions on key university appointments.
The minister, in appointing the chairman and members of the board of directors, the Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellors and directors of campuses, will now have to consult with a committee.
The Vice-Chancellor in appointing deans and heads will be obliged to hear out the faculty members. In addition, he will have to inform the board of his choices. All this should promote more transparency and more quality appointments.
Good governance: University autonomy is improved by transferring some ministerial powers to the university’s board of directors. For example, student discipline appeals, at present heard by the minister, shall now be heard by a committee of the university’s board.
The Amendment demarcates clearly the powers and functions of the board, the senate and the Vice-Chancellor. But if any jurisdictional dispute still arises there is in place a non-judicial dispute resolution mechanism.
Hitherto, the university senate’s powers were subordinate to that of the board. The Amendment changes this. The role of the university senate as the primary academic body of the university is strengthened.
On academic matters, the board can transmit its opinions to the senate. But the senate will have the final say.
Staff welfare: Employees with grievances can file appeals with the board on matters of appointment, renewal and promotion.
The minister is now authorised, on the application of a requesting organisation, to allow a consenting university employee to be seconded or transferred to another institution if that would serve the national interest in education and research.
This should facilitate greater sharing of expertise.
Democratic representation: At present, the Vice-Chancellor appoints 20 professors to the senate. The Amendment empowers professors and associate professors to elect 20 of their colleagues to the university’s senate.
In addition, it charts a new course by permitting a senior academician to sit on the board of directors. The university’s senate is empowered to nominate one of its elected senators to the board of directors to represent the academic perspective and to provide a link between the senate and the board.
There will now be an employee welfare committee of the board and employee association representatives shall be members of this committee. Likewise, student representatives shall have membership on the board’s student welfare committee.
Student rights: In a break with the past the new law reflects confidence in our students’ growing maturity to handle freedoms. Educationists have always known that young people can become whatever we expect them to become. The height of their achievement is often determined by the trust reposed in them.
The Act recognises students’ constitutional right to speech and association. In their individual as well as collective capacities, students will now be free to join youth and social organisations and non-governmental organisations. Unlike as at present, they will require nobody’s prior permission to make these affiliations.
However, on the authority of the Federal Constitution’s Article 10(3), which permits restrictions on freedom of association in the field of education, students are still forbidden from membership of political parties, unlawful organisation and any group that the minister has declared to be unsuitable for student affiliation.
However, serving politicians and working adults who enrol at universities to further their education may seek exemption from the Vice-Chancellor to be allowed to continue their political affiliation.
These provisions will, undoubtedly, be criticised. But what must be noted is that a sea change has indeed taken place.
Previously students could not join any outside organisation unless they made a formal application, which could be approved or refused at discretion.
Now, freedom is inherent. No prior permission is needed. Everything is permitted unless it is prohibited.
Previously, everything was prohibited unless it was expressly permitted!
The Amendment enlarges the space for free speech for academic research and comment. It permits student interaction with outside organisations, politicians and political parties on academic occasions.
The right to participate in student democracy and to dabble in student politics as a training ground for future participation in national politics is preserved.
The Amendment protects student organisations by surrounding the power of the Vice-Chancellor to suspend or dissolve a student organisation with procedural safeguards and permitting an appeal to the minister.
The new law de-criminalises the Act by replacing all criminal sanctions with disciplinary penalties.
It removes provisions for automatic suspension or expulsion of a student who is charged with a criminal offence or who is convicted, or who is detained or restricted under preventive detention and restricted residence laws.
The university is given discretion to handle these cases as it sees fit, depending on whether the offence is a registrable criminal offence or a minor offence unrelated to academic character.
The Amendment removes provisions that provide for presumption of guilt, criminal liability even without conviction and collective criminal liability of office bearers of student organisations.
It safeguards the fundamental right to education by providing that a student who is acquitted of a charge in a court of law has a right to return to the university.
If he was excluded from a public university he has a right to enrol in a private institution or, with the permission of the minister, in any other public university.
Extensive changes have been made to provide for fairer student disciplinary procedures. The grounds on which the university may revoke a student’s degree or diploma have been reduced and this exceptional power has been surrounded with procedural safeguards.
The electorate for student elections has been expanded by enfranchising post-graduate students.
Hopefully there is something in the amendment for every sector of the university community.
Dr Shad Faruqi is Professor of Law at UiTM
Trusting students with freedoms
REFLECTING ON THE LAW
By SHAD SALEEM FARUQI
The spirit of the law is one of evolutionary change towards more open, free and democratic campuses.
AFTER a gestation period of nearly two years, the long-awaited amendments to The Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 are finally before Parliament.
Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin deserves congratulations, in that immediately after assuming the mantle of leadership at the ministry, he set ambitious time-schedules, tackled some lingering, tough issues with aplomb and, with a very short notice, succeeded in placing the Bill before the Cabinet and Parliament.
As with all laws, the amendments are full of negotiated compromises. There is a mixture of idealism and pragmatism. Though there is some understandable caution, a lot of risks are being taken to trust the young with rights and freedoms hitherto unknown.
The spirit of the law is one of evolutionary change towards more open, free and democratic campuses. Of course, the critics will find many flaws. But there is something worthwhile for everyone in the proposals.
Consultative processes: The Amendment puts in place a number of democratic consultative processes as a pre-condition to the making of decisions on key university appointments.
The minister, in appointing the chairman and members of the board of directors, the Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellors and directors of campuses, will now have to consult with a committee.
The Vice-Chancellor in appointing deans and heads will be obliged to hear out the faculty members. In addition, he will have to inform the board of his choices. All this should promote more transparency and more quality appointments.
Good governance: University autonomy is improved by transferring some ministerial powers to the university’s board of directors. For example, student discipline appeals, at present heard by the minister, shall now be heard by a committee of the university’s board.
The Amendment demarcates clearly the powers and functions of the board, the senate and the Vice-Chancellor. But if any jurisdictional dispute still arises there is in place a non-judicial dispute resolution mechanism.
Hitherto, the university senate’s powers were subordinate to that of the board. The Amendment changes this. The role of the university senate as the primary academic body of the university is strengthened.
On academic matters, the board can transmit its opinions to the senate. But the senate will have the final say.
Staff welfare: Employees with grievances can file appeals with the board on matters of appointment, renewal and promotion.
The minister is now authorised, on the application of a requesting organisation, to allow a consenting university employee to be seconded or transferred to another institution if that would serve the national interest in education and research.
This should facilitate greater sharing of expertise.
Democratic representation: At present, the Vice-Chancellor appoints 20 professors to the senate. The Amendment empowers professors and associate professors to elect 20 of their colleagues to the university’s senate.
In addition, it charts a new course by permitting a senior academician to sit on the board of directors. The university’s senate is empowered to nominate one of its elected senators to the board of directors to represent the academic perspective and to provide a link between the senate and the board.
There will now be an employee welfare committee of the board and employee association representatives shall be members of this committee. Likewise, student representatives shall have membership on the board’s student welfare committee.
Student rights: In a break with the past the new law reflects confidence in our students’ growing maturity to handle freedoms. Educationists have always known that young people can become whatever we expect them to become. The height of their achievement is often determined by the trust reposed in them.
The Act recognises students’ constitutional right to speech and association. In their individual as well as collective capacities, students will now be free to join youth and social organisations and non-governmental organisations. Unlike as at present, they will require nobody’s prior permission to make these affiliations.
However, on the authority of the Federal Constitution’s Article 10(3), which permits restrictions on freedom of association in the field of education, students are still forbidden from membership of political parties, unlawful organisation and any group that the minister has declared to be unsuitable for student affiliation.
However, serving politicians and working adults who enrol at universities to further their education may seek exemption from the Vice-Chancellor to be allowed to continue their political affiliation.
These provisions will, undoubtedly, be criticised. But what must be noted is that a sea change has indeed taken place.
Previously students could not join any outside organisation unless they made a formal application, which could be approved or refused at discretion.
Now, freedom is inherent. No prior permission is needed. Everything is permitted unless it is prohibited.
Previously, everything was prohibited unless it was expressly permitted!
The Amendment enlarges the space for free speech for academic research and comment. It permits student interaction with outside organisations, politicians and political parties on academic occasions.
The right to participate in student democracy and to dabble in student politics as a training ground for future participation in national politics is preserved.
The Amendment protects student organisations by surrounding the power of the Vice-Chancellor to suspend or dissolve a student organisation with procedural safeguards and permitting an appeal to the minister.
The new law de-criminalises the Act by replacing all criminal sanctions with disciplinary penalties.
It removes provisions for automatic suspension or expulsion of a student who is charged with a criminal offence or who is convicted, or who is detained or restricted under preventive detention and restricted residence laws.
The university is given discretion to handle these cases as it sees fit, depending on whether the offence is a registrable criminal offence or a minor offence unrelated to academic character.
The Amendment removes provisions that provide for presumption of guilt, criminal liability even without conviction and collective criminal liability of office bearers of student organisations.
It safeguards the fundamental right to education by providing that a student who is acquitted of a charge in a court of law has a right to return to the university.
If he was excluded from a public university he has a right to enrol in a private institution or, with the permission of the minister, in any other public university.
Extensive changes have been made to provide for fairer student disciplinary procedures. The grounds on which the university may revoke a student’s degree or diploma have been reduced and this exceptional power has been surrounded with procedural safeguards.
The electorate for student elections has been expanded by enfranchising post-graduate students.
Hopefully there is something in the amendment for every sector of the university community.
Dr Shad Faruqi is Professor of Law at UiTM
Saturday, August 02, 2008
How to develop our students
I agree wholeheartedly with the new Minister of Higher Education, Khaled Nordin, that "that allowing university students to join political parties will restrict their development into holistic first-class human capital". In addition, I also agree that "another reason for the continued ban was that the Government did not want public university students, who are heavily subsidised, to “play around” and waste taxpayers' money."
In addition, to fulfill the objective of developing our university students, I hope that the esteemed minister can consider the following proposals. I propose that:
(i) The esteemed Minister considers banning students from going to mamak stalls and coffee shops. These are places where nonsensical and unproductive coffee shop 'chatter' takes place much of it involving the topics of political interest of the day. Since we do not want our best and brightest to corrupt their ears and to waste their time by listening to this nonsense, we need to ban our students from going to these places.
(ii) The esteemed Minister considers banning students from watching football matches especially those involving foreign teams. Watching football matches, which lasts for approximately 1 hour 45 minutes (including the break), and more, if we take into account the prematch and postmatch shows, is an extremely unproductive use of time. Our students could use this time more productively, for example, in discussing the latest developments in biotechnology and nanotechnology and in collaborations to build Proton a new hybrid engine. In addition, we do not want our young minds to be influenced by the teams of the decadent West who are not only footballers but also flaunt their decadent lifestyles off the field. However, we should make exceptions for our students to watch matches involving Malaysian teams since this shows their solidarity with their own 'local' teams and contributes to nation building and increases their patriotism.
(iii) The esteemed Minister considers banning students from watching movies in the cinemas. Watching movies is another big waste of time, time that could be better spent on academic pursuits and developing one's own human capital. In addition, many movies produced in the West promote decadent values and values which are not consistent with our Asian culture. For example, we would not want our students to be unduly influenced by the portrayal of vigilante justice and 'cool' criminals in the latest Batman movie. However, again, exceptions should be made for movies produced locally since we are supporting local industry by watching these movies. However, local movies which promote values that are not in line with national values should be banned including movies such as Sepet (which promotes inter-racial dating) and The Big Durian (which glorifies the struggles of the communists in Malaysia).
(iv) The esteemed Minister considers blocking access to websites such do not promote the development of human capital in all public universities and if possible in all private colleges as well. Websites which provides access to disturbing information on matters of little importance such as the BBC, Malaysiakini, the New York Times, should be at the top of such a list. In doing so, the minister will prevent students from wasting countless number of hours spent surfing on these sites, time that could be better spent on coming up with inventions that will promote the growth of industry and technological advancement in the country.
(v) The esteemed Minister considers implementing a rule which requires all students in public universities to carry at least one book where ever they go on and off campus. This is so that students do not waste previous time when they are waiting for buses or sitting in their friend's cars or waiting in a queue or even sitting in the john, time that could be spent reading and developing their human capital. To further encourage this kind of behavior, the esteemed Minister require all public universities to have a monthly contest to reward a 'lucky' student who is seen to be carrying more than 5 books (either in his or her bag or in his or her hands) in public view. The 'reward' should be in the form of a 1000RM book voucher, to be spent in the university bookshop.
(vi) The esteemed Minister considers hiring unemployed graduates from public universities to carry out a massive surveillance plan that would ensure that the above mentioned rules are followed. They will be posted at strategic locations in and around the campus including mamak shops, cinemas, bus stops and shopping malls. This way, not only will it solve the problem of unemployed graduates in our country, but it will more than pay for itself through the development of human capital that will inevitably occur once the attention of our students are diverted from such unproductive activities including politics, sports, movies and so forth.
I sincerely hope that the esteemed Minister considers at least some of my recommendations made above and implement them as soon as possible.
In addition, to fulfill the objective of developing our university students, I hope that the esteemed minister can consider the following proposals. I propose that:
(i) The esteemed Minister considers banning students from going to mamak stalls and coffee shops. These are places where nonsensical and unproductive coffee shop 'chatter' takes place much of it involving the topics of political interest of the day. Since we do not want our best and brightest to corrupt their ears and to waste their time by listening to this nonsense, we need to ban our students from going to these places.
(ii) The esteemed Minister considers banning students from watching football matches especially those involving foreign teams. Watching football matches, which lasts for approximately 1 hour 45 minutes (including the break), and more, if we take into account the prematch and postmatch shows, is an extremely unproductive use of time. Our students could use this time more productively, for example, in discussing the latest developments in biotechnology and nanotechnology and in collaborations to build Proton a new hybrid engine. In addition, we do not want our young minds to be influenced by the teams of the decadent West who are not only footballers but also flaunt their decadent lifestyles off the field. However, we should make exceptions for our students to watch matches involving Malaysian teams since this shows their solidarity with their own 'local' teams and contributes to nation building and increases their patriotism.
(iii) The esteemed Minister considers banning students from watching movies in the cinemas. Watching movies is another big waste of time, time that could be better spent on academic pursuits and developing one's own human capital. In addition, many movies produced in the West promote decadent values and values which are not consistent with our Asian culture. For example, we would not want our students to be unduly influenced by the portrayal of vigilante justice and 'cool' criminals in the latest Batman movie. However, again, exceptions should be made for movies produced locally since we are supporting local industry by watching these movies. However, local movies which promote values that are not in line with national values should be banned including movies such as Sepet (which promotes inter-racial dating) and The Big Durian (which glorifies the struggles of the communists in Malaysia).
(iv) The esteemed Minister considers blocking access to websites such do not promote the development of human capital in all public universities and if possible in all private colleges as well. Websites which provides access to disturbing information on matters of little importance such as the BBC, Malaysiakini, the New York Times, should be at the top of such a list. In doing so, the minister will prevent students from wasting countless number of hours spent surfing on these sites, time that could be better spent on coming up with inventions that will promote the growth of industry and technological advancement in the country.
(v) The esteemed Minister considers implementing a rule which requires all students in public universities to carry at least one book where ever they go on and off campus. This is so that students do not waste previous time when they are waiting for buses or sitting in their friend's cars or waiting in a queue or even sitting in the john, time that could be spent reading and developing their human capital. To further encourage this kind of behavior, the esteemed Minister require all public universities to have a monthly contest to reward a 'lucky' student who is seen to be carrying more than 5 books (either in his or her bag or in his or her hands) in public view. The 'reward' should be in the form of a 1000RM book voucher, to be spent in the university bookshop.
(vi) The esteemed Minister considers hiring unemployed graduates from public universities to carry out a massive surveillance plan that would ensure that the above mentioned rules are followed. They will be posted at strategic locations in and around the campus including mamak shops, cinemas, bus stops and shopping malls. This way, not only will it solve the problem of unemployed graduates in our country, but it will more than pay for itself through the development of human capital that will inevitably occur once the attention of our students are diverted from such unproductive activities including politics, sports, movies and so forth.
I sincerely hope that the esteemed Minister considers at least some of my recommendations made above and implement them as soon as possible.
Friday, August 01, 2008
More updates on UUCA 'revisions'
More reports from the Star on the 'revisions' to the UUCA can be found here, here and here. These amendments are pretty much useless, in my view, since the activities of university students will still be monitored closely by the university authorities and they are still not allowed to participate in political activities. Just look at the recent treatment of three UM students for distributing leaflets about Anwar. The only pseudo bright spot was Koh Tsu Koon's proposal to redefine students to exclude post docs and those doing off campus programs. But this doesn't go far enough. What we need is for the restriction against students joining political parties to be abolished.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Will We See UUCA Reforms?
The University and University Colleges Act (1971), and its much awaited amendments is one of the few questions which has been asked frequently by parliamentarians in the current sitting. Off my head, I remember reading the standard answers received by Sdri Fong Po Kuan of Batu Gajah as well as Nurul Izzah Anwar of Lembah Pantai.
The question by BATU GAJAH was to asking the Minister of Higher Education
It is also obvious from the tone of the answer above that political participation will remain a no-go for students, and likely academics. The funny bit however, is with the excuse that it's the parents who are objecting to their participation as it may cause the students to fail their studies.
The excuse is however, almost laughable because:
What increased freedom will create however is a more aware set of students who will understand better what is happening in their society and country, increasing their civic mindedness and ultimately being more attached to the idea of making Malaysia a better place for everyone.
Well, the next parliamentary session starts at the end of June, so we wouldn't have to wait too long to hear what the Higher Education Minister have got to say ;-)
The question by BATU GAJAH was to asking the Minister of Higher Education
...mengapakah pindaan kepada Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti masih enggan dibentangkan di Parlimen untuk memberi kelonggaran kepaad para pelajar Universiti melibatkan diri di dalam politik.The reply by the Minister was
...deraf kajian cadangan pindaan Akta Universiti dan Kolej Unviersiti 1971 (AUKU) telah memasuki fasa akhir. Kementerian menjangkakan akan membentangkan deraf tersebut di Mesyarat Parlimen yang akan datang.While reforms to the AUKU (UUCA) has been mooted since 2 years ago, the progress of the proposed amendments has been painstakingly slow. There has been requests in the Parliment to first review what the Ministry plans to change before tabling the amended bill, but this has been rejected by the Minister on the basis that consultation has already been conducted.
Memandangkan AUKU 1971 adalah suatu Akta yang amat sensitif sifatnya dan mendapat perhatian semua pihak sama ada parti politik, pelajar, pensyarah, ibubapa atau masyarakat amnya, maka proses pindaan AUKU sudah pasti akan mengambil masa yang agak lama. Maka adalah tidak tepat jika dikatakan Kementerian enggan membentangkan pindaan AUKU di Parlimen.
Pindaan AUKU mesti diperhalusi dengan mengambil kira setiap sudut penilaian dan kependingan 'stakeholders'. Kementerian tidak mahu nanti apabila AUKU dipinda akan timbul ketidakpuasan hati ibubapa yang pada hemat Kementerian lebih mengharapkan anak mereka menimba ilmu dan tidak terlibat dengan parti politik atau sebagainya yang boleh mengakibatkan kegagalan dalam pengajian universiti.
It is also obvious from the tone of the answer above that political participation will remain a no-go for students, and likely academics. The funny bit however, is with the excuse that it's the parents who are objecting to their participation as it may cause the students to fail their studies.
The excuse is however, almost laughable because:
- Just because there are parents objecting to certain activities in school does not mean that they should be forcibly outlawed (we are not talking about immoral activities here)
- If these students will fail in their studies, it doesn't take political activities to do so, it can very well be anything else from sports, to lepaking, to boy-girl relationships etc.
What increased freedom will create however is a more aware set of students who will understand better what is happening in their society and country, increasing their civic mindedness and ultimately being more attached to the idea of making Malaysia a better place for everyone.
Well, the next parliamentary session starts at the end of June, so we wouldn't have to wait too long to hear what the Higher Education Minister have got to say ;-)
Friday, March 21, 2008
5 Priorities on Higher Education Issues
With a stronger opposition in the parliament and hopefully a more reform minded PM moving ahead, I want to list out what I think are 5 priorities on higher education issues which the opposition as well as the government should move on. I want to emphasize that these priorities cannot be achieved by opposition pressure alone or by the BN.
1) Revamping the UUCA
- It is ludicrous that students in public universities, a majority of which are over 21, could have voted in the recently concluded elections but cannot join a political party or be involved in political campaigns.
- This law is especially ludicrous to me given that so many college students who were formerly politically apathetic have been galvanized into political action by Barack Obama's campaign here in the US.
- The demobilization of the public universities have led to a decrease in voter registration among the young people. Revamping the UUCA would be a step in arresting this trend.
- I'm pretty optimistic that something can be done in regards to the UUCA for two reasons. The first is that there had already been indications during Tok Pa's time as Minister for Higher Education that the government was looking at revamping the UUCA, albeit probably in not a very radical fashion. The second is that the opposition, together with civil society, is more capable of pressuring the government to revamp the UUCA. Imagine a Bersih type rally but of university students! Now that would be something.
2) Ensuring at least one VC appointment process that involves a respected committee
- Tony has blogged about this in the past on numerous occasions. I'm not sure which VC from one of the major public universities (UKM, UM, USM, UPM) will come up for renewal first but when it does, I hope that there will be a stringent and open process by which their performance is evaluated.
- If a new VC needs to be appointed, hopefully a well respected committee can be established to oversee this process.
3) Ensure that the process of selecting government sponsored PhD students is open and and transparent
- As mentioned in this blog many times in previous postings, the government is on an aggressive campaign to increase the number of PhDs in the local universities and is spending tons of money sending students overseas to obtain their PhDs.
- This process has been less than transparent in the past and qualified candidates have been denied this opportunity in favor of less qualified candidates because of racial quotas. Given the new political environment, one hopes that this practice can be cut down if not totally eradicated and students can be sent overseas based on merit.
4) Ensure that the key initiatives started by Tok Pa in the Higher Education Strategic Masterplan is followed through
- I've been generally positive about the MOHE Higher Education Action and Strategic Plans in previous posts. I hope that the new Minister, Khaled Norin, will be able to see through these key initiatives instead of taking the path of the Minister of Education which had a new Education Blueprint written after he became the Minister. I think continuity is important and the opposition should support this initiative where possible.
5) Ensure that the process of tendering contracts by public universities are transparent
- This is an issue which I've not written about that much but have heard a lot of anecdotal evidence on. Many academics and insiders have complained that VCs and other administrators in public universities sometimes 'benefit' from the allocation of certain projects or contracts in the public universities.
- I'm not sure how this can be done but perhaps the opposition or the government can seek 'whistleblowers' who can notify the authorities if they hear of such wrongdoing. Or the board of governors, which is supposed to be revamped under the Higher Education Strategic and Action Plan, can have a bigger advisory role.
I'm not sure if Tony agrees with any or all of these priorities in regards to Higher education in Malaysia but I'm sure he'll chime in when he has a bit of time on his hands.
1) Revamping the UUCA
- It is ludicrous that students in public universities, a majority of which are over 21, could have voted in the recently concluded elections but cannot join a political party or be involved in political campaigns.
- This law is especially ludicrous to me given that so many college students who were formerly politically apathetic have been galvanized into political action by Barack Obama's campaign here in the US.
- The demobilization of the public universities have led to a decrease in voter registration among the young people. Revamping the UUCA would be a step in arresting this trend.
- I'm pretty optimistic that something can be done in regards to the UUCA for two reasons. The first is that there had already been indications during Tok Pa's time as Minister for Higher Education that the government was looking at revamping the UUCA, albeit probably in not a very radical fashion. The second is that the opposition, together with civil society, is more capable of pressuring the government to revamp the UUCA. Imagine a Bersih type rally but of university students! Now that would be something.
2) Ensuring at least one VC appointment process that involves a respected committee
- Tony has blogged about this in the past on numerous occasions. I'm not sure which VC from one of the major public universities (UKM, UM, USM, UPM) will come up for renewal first but when it does, I hope that there will be a stringent and open process by which their performance is evaluated.
- If a new VC needs to be appointed, hopefully a well respected committee can be established to oversee this process.
3) Ensure that the process of selecting government sponsored PhD students is open and and transparent
- As mentioned in this blog many times in previous postings, the government is on an aggressive campaign to increase the number of PhDs in the local universities and is spending tons of money sending students overseas to obtain their PhDs.
- This process has been less than transparent in the past and qualified candidates have been denied this opportunity in favor of less qualified candidates because of racial quotas. Given the new political environment, one hopes that this practice can be cut down if not totally eradicated and students can be sent overseas based on merit.
4) Ensure that the key initiatives started by Tok Pa in the Higher Education Strategic Masterplan is followed through
- I've been generally positive about the MOHE Higher Education Action and Strategic Plans in previous posts. I hope that the new Minister, Khaled Norin, will be able to see through these key initiatives instead of taking the path of the Minister of Education which had a new Education Blueprint written after he became the Minister. I think continuity is important and the opposition should support this initiative where possible.
5) Ensure that the process of tendering contracts by public universities are transparent
- This is an issue which I've not written about that much but have heard a lot of anecdotal evidence on. Many academics and insiders have complained that VCs and other administrators in public universities sometimes 'benefit' from the allocation of certain projects or contracts in the public universities.
- I'm not sure how this can be done but perhaps the opposition or the government can seek 'whistleblowers' who can notify the authorities if they hear of such wrongdoing. Or the board of governors, which is supposed to be revamped under the Higher Education Strategic and Action Plan, can have a bigger advisory role.
I'm not sure if Tony agrees with any or all of these priorities in regards to Higher education in Malaysia but I'm sure he'll chime in when he has a bit of time on his hands.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Positive changes to the UUCA
Read this on the Star today. Tok Pa announced that there will be significant changes in the UUCA or the Universities and University Colleges Act soon and these changes will be reflected in the amendments to the UUCA Act 1971 which will be tabled in parliament soon. I think this is positive news, especially for those who have been advocating for significant change in this area. But do these changes go far enough? I think we'll have to wait and see until the actual amendments are tabled.
Some of the changes reported in the Star include:
1) Lecturers do not need to ask for permission to speak on academic matters
(Not really know what this means except perhaps to say that a lecturer can express his or her views about certain academic policies in class?)
2) Removing provisions for the automatic suspension and dismissal of students convicted of criminal offenses and substituting them with the university’s discretion to proceed with disciplinary measures.
3) Decriminalize student disciplinary laws (which means offenses already classified as criminal under other legislation will no longer be classified as such under the Act)
(I think 2 and 3 are similar and I guess that if a student is charged / arrested under the ISA or the Seditions Acts, it means that he or she will not be automatically suspended by the university?)
4) Provide for fairer student disciplinary procedures
5) Provide for staff and student representation on the university’s governing bodies.
6) There are also proposals seeking to enhance the roles of the board of directors, senate and vice-chancellor and to provide for more accountability.
(6 is consistent with the the National Higher Education Action Plan blogger about here)
Other more controversial issues which have not been reported include:
1) The ability of students in universities both public and private to engage in political affairs including joining political parties, a right which should be afforded to all active citizens who are above the age of 21 and are eligible to vote
2) The fairness of campus elections including allegations that 'pro-government' factions or groups have received the support or aid of university administrators
So far, I've been slightly agnostic in regards to the impact of 'student activism' on the quality of a university. I don't think student activism is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to be a world class university (or even an 'Asian class' university). LSE was a hotbed of social / leftist activism in the 50s and 60s but is now one of the most 'capitalistic' of British universities with lots of business tie-ups, a higher number of foreign students to increase the revenue and so on. It was a well known university when it was a hotbed of activism and it has gone from strength to strength under a more 'capitalistic' model. Berkeley was the center of the 'flower-power' movement in the US in the 60s and is still one of the more 'radical' campuses in the US (thought nothing like what it was in the 60s) along with Columbia but Harvard and MIT were by comparison, much more 'conservative'.
NUS in Singapore is clearly taking the more 'conservative' approach of making NUS a world class university by providing lots of monetary incentives to attract good people and promote good research but keeping a close tab on political activities of both students and lecturers. (For those who want an insight to the workings of the Spore government against lecturers, just google 'Christopher Lingle' and you'll see what I mean)
While I don't think student activism is highly correlated with the quality of a university, I'm convinced that having academic and student freedom to organized and freely express their thoughts is a necessary condition towards establishing a world class university. NUS will encounter resistance when it tries to break into the ranks of recruiting world class academics some of whom might not like working in a country where political freedoms and freedoms of expression are restricted. Different universities in the US and the UK have taken different routes towards making themselves world class but all of them have one thing in common - that there is academic freedom for students and lecturers to express their thoughts and views and to organize if and when necessary. Hence, the UUCA needs to be reformed such that it can be part of an overall package of initiatives to improve the level of academic freedom in our public universities. I can imagine that in a situation of greater academic freedom, UM, given its location in KL / PJ, will have greater student activism compared to let's say UUM in Sintok. But both universities will have the opportunity to create an environment which is conducive to academic freedom for both students and academics.
I think some of the moves made by Tok Pa in terms of reforming the UUCA should be applauded. But given some of the restrictions he faces (both internal, within the university system and external, within the constraints of the BN, especially UMNO), I won't be surprised if the amendments to the UUCA won't go far enough, at least for now, to create an environment where students and lecturers can freely express their views and opinions.
Some of the changes reported in the Star include:
1) Lecturers do not need to ask for permission to speak on academic matters
(Not really know what this means except perhaps to say that a lecturer can express his or her views about certain academic policies in class?)
2) Removing provisions for the automatic suspension and dismissal of students convicted of criminal offenses and substituting them with the university’s discretion to proceed with disciplinary measures.
3) Decriminalize student disciplinary laws (which means offenses already classified as criminal under other legislation will no longer be classified as such under the Act)
(I think 2 and 3 are similar and I guess that if a student is charged / arrested under the ISA or the Seditions Acts, it means that he or she will not be automatically suspended by the university?)
4) Provide for fairer student disciplinary procedures
5) Provide for staff and student representation on the university’s governing bodies.
6) There are also proposals seeking to enhance the roles of the board of directors, senate and vice-chancellor and to provide for more accountability.
(6 is consistent with the the National Higher Education Action Plan blogger about here)
Other more controversial issues which have not been reported include:
1) The ability of students in universities both public and private to engage in political affairs including joining political parties, a right which should be afforded to all active citizens who are above the age of 21 and are eligible to vote
2) The fairness of campus elections including allegations that 'pro-government' factions or groups have received the support or aid of university administrators
So far, I've been slightly agnostic in regards to the impact of 'student activism' on the quality of a university. I don't think student activism is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to be a world class university (or even an 'Asian class' university). LSE was a hotbed of social / leftist activism in the 50s and 60s but is now one of the most 'capitalistic' of British universities with lots of business tie-ups, a higher number of foreign students to increase the revenue and so on. It was a well known university when it was a hotbed of activism and it has gone from strength to strength under a more 'capitalistic' model. Berkeley was the center of the 'flower-power' movement in the US in the 60s and is still one of the more 'radical' campuses in the US (thought nothing like what it was in the 60s) along with Columbia but Harvard and MIT were by comparison, much more 'conservative'.
NUS in Singapore is clearly taking the more 'conservative' approach of making NUS a world class university by providing lots of monetary incentives to attract good people and promote good research but keeping a close tab on political activities of both students and lecturers. (For those who want an insight to the workings of the Spore government against lecturers, just google 'Christopher Lingle' and you'll see what I mean)
While I don't think student activism is highly correlated with the quality of a university, I'm convinced that having academic and student freedom to organized and freely express their thoughts is a necessary condition towards establishing a world class university. NUS will encounter resistance when it tries to break into the ranks of recruiting world class academics some of whom might not like working in a country where political freedoms and freedoms of expression are restricted. Different universities in the US and the UK have taken different routes towards making themselves world class but all of them have one thing in common - that there is academic freedom for students and lecturers to express their thoughts and views and to organize if and when necessary. Hence, the UUCA needs to be reformed such that it can be part of an overall package of initiatives to improve the level of academic freedom in our public universities. I can imagine that in a situation of greater academic freedom, UM, given its location in KL / PJ, will have greater student activism compared to let's say UUM in Sintok. But both universities will have the opportunity to create an environment which is conducive to academic freedom for both students and academics.
I think some of the moves made by Tok Pa in terms of reforming the UUCA should be applauded. But given some of the restrictions he faces (both internal, within the university system and external, within the constraints of the BN, especially UMNO), I won't be surprised if the amendments to the UUCA won't go far enough, at least for now, to create an environment where students and lecturers can freely express their views and opinions.
Monday, September 17, 2007
B. A. (Hons) Thuggery (II)
Well, remember about a year back when I wrote on degree and masters programmes offered by some of our local universities on Thuggery? Well, it appears that the course is being taught seriously, at least at Universiti Putra Malaysia.
As reported in Malaysiakini and widely circulated via emails, first-year UPM student Yee Yang Yang has to consider legal action to get back his laptop which was seized by the campus security on Friday night. In addition to his laptop, the security officers also carted away Yee’s mobile phone, MP3 player and 10 other items valued at RM6,000 during a spot check of his hostel room. Documents were also confiscated.
Even his attempts to lodge a police report over the matter has been refused, clearly demonstrating the bias of the police force over the matter - especially when successive Inspector General of Police have promised that all reports will be duly received and acknowledged.
And it is most unfortunate that UPM has been designated as one of Malaysia's four premier universities, a "Research University" by the Minister of Higher Education. To use the description of the Parliamentary Opposition Leader, Sdr Lim Kit Siang, UPM will probably be more aptly termed as a "Mat Rempit University".
As reported in Malaysiakini and widely circulated via emails, first-year UPM student Yee Yang Yang has to consider legal action to get back his laptop which was seized by the campus security on Friday night. In addition to his laptop, the security officers also carted away Yee’s mobile phone, MP3 player and 10 other items valued at RM6,000 during a spot check of his hostel room. Documents were also confiscated.
"They (security officials) wanted me to give them the password for my phone and laptop so that they could check the contents," he told reporters outside the campus security's office this afternoon.Can you believe that this university has a "special task unit" under the almighty Student Affairs Unit, which is a "big-brother-like" student-monitoring outfit, forming part of the campus security? See the video on his attempts to retrieve his belongings from the "security officers" here.
"I refused. I want them to return my things and to apologise to me publicly because they did not follow proper procedures when they took away my belongings.
Even his attempts to lodge a police report over the matter has been refused, clearly demonstrating the bias of the police force over the matter - especially when successive Inspector General of Police have promised that all reports will be duly received and acknowledged.
And it is most unfortunate that UPM has been designated as one of Malaysia's four premier universities, a "Research University" by the Minister of Higher Education. To use the description of the Parliamentary Opposition Leader, Sdr Lim Kit Siang, UPM will probably be more aptly termed as a "Mat Rempit University".
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Academics against Akujanji
A Malaysiakini report yesterday highlighted the campaign by academics in Malaysia against the Akujanji pledge. Not only does it call for Akujanji to be abolished with immediate effect but it also calls for Dr. Azly Rahman, Dr. Mutiara Muhamed and other academics who have been dismissed because of their opposition to Akujanji to be reinstated. This campaign is being headed by Dr. Syed Husin Ali and Dr. Lim Teck Ghee.
Tony has blogged passionately about this issue here, here, here and here.
I've been a little more agnostic about 'Akujanji' believing that it is possible aka NUS to create a public university where academic freedom is not exactly free flowing but I think that Tony is probably right in saying that Akujanji needs to be revoked as part of a larger, comprehensive move to create more dynamic and open minded universities in Malaysia.
I would certainly prefer to work in a university, especially in my field, where Akujanji does not exist and I would think most other academics would as well. I certainly support the petition circulated by Dr. Syed Husin Ali and Dr. Lim though I don't see how Ong Kian Ming, a PhD candidate at Duke University, would add value to the cause. (Dr. Lim sent me the petition but I forgot to reply to him. Apologies, Dr. Lim)
The actual petition circulated by Dr. Syed Husin Ali and Dr. Lim reads as follows:
Petition for Revocation of University Akujanji
We, the undersigned - former university staff members, present university staff members (who cannot include their names here for fear of victimization by the authorities) and civil society organizations - call on the Government to revoke the imposition of the Akujanji pledge with immediate effect.
This requirement of loyalty to the Government – found only in a few repressive university systems in the world – has stifled academic freedom in our country to an unprecedented extent. It has also inculcated a culture of fear, passivity and uncritical thinking in the campuses which is antithetical to the development of our universities and to the quality of teaching and scholarship.
Government leaders, including the Prime Minister, have called on the universities to take up the challenge of upgrading their standards and producing quality teaching and research that will help the nation meet the goals of 2020, including the goals of a matured, liberal, scientific and progressive society. The Aku Janji stands as a major obstacle in the way of our universities rising to this challenge.
In this regard we also call on the Government to reinstate Dr. Azly Rahman, Dr.Mutiara Mohamad and other academicians who have been dismissed as a result of their opposition to the Akujanji. Similarly, others who have suffered in their career development due to the Akujanji should have their cases reviewed and should be provided with justice and redress. These are our academic prisoners of conscience who have been unjustly victimized and whose continued exclusion is a black mark against academia and our democratic system and values.
Our concern is not the first voiced on this issue - academic staff associations and numerous other concerned individuals and organizations have during the past three years spoken out and asked for the abolition of the pledge which is also against the fundamental rights of freedom of association and expression. We hope with this petition that we will be the last to take up this issue.
We feel that this is an urgent matter not simply of academic interest and concern but of national importance too and call on the Government to respond in a fair and enlightened manner and to place the interests of the universities and nation ahead of partisan political ones. The revocation of the pledge is a vital step in ensuring that fundamental rights of freedom of association and expression are not further eroded and that our academicians can play their rightful role in helping our nation advance.
I just want to make three observations in regards to the signatories of this petition
Firstly, most of the signatories are social scientists (especially political scientists) or academics from the humanities. I recognize many of the names on the list (and indeed, know some of them) who are social scientists including - Dr. Collin Abraham, Dr. Azmi Sharom, Dr. Sharon Bong, Dr. Cheah Boon Kheng, Dr. Stephen Chee, Dr. Farish Noor, Dr. Terence Gomez, Dr. Khoo Boo Teik, Dr. Khoo Kay Jin, Dr. Patricia Martinez, Dr. Maznah Mohamad, Dr. Lim Teck Ghee, Dr. Francis Loh, Dr Mavis Puthucheary, Dr. Ramasamy, Dr. Johan Saravanamuttu, Dr. Shirley Lim, Dr. Syed Husin Ali, Dr. Toh Kin Woon, Wong Chin Huat and Dr. Diana Wong.
If the momentum from 'within' to abolish Akujanji is to continue, there needs to be more support for its abolishment across the academic fields including the engineering and science faculties. If not, the impression that this movement is only support by trouble making social scientists and those from the humanities will only be reinforced.
Secondly, as noted by the Malaysiakini report, out of the 40 academics who signed on to this petition, 29 are retired. Obviously, one needs to ask why there are not more signatories among active academics. Is it out of fear that reprisals might be carried out against them similar to those carried out against Dr. Azly Rahman and Dr. Mutiara Muhamed? This is not out of the question. To overcome this fear, there must be a concerted gathering of support among active academics so if a large enough number of them do sign this petition, it is not possible to carry out reprisals against all of them. In other words, achieve some sort of 'critical mass'.
Easier said than done but perhaps one can start by asking academics from the engineering and science faculties whether Akujanji has hurt them in any way (recruitment, funding, research proposals) or why they might feel that Akujanji might be needed (or no need for it to be abolished). From here, one can hopefully move forward to achieve the 'critical mass' necessary for such a movement to be taken seriously.
Thirdly, even among those signatories who are not retired (the 11 brave souls), I know of only 2 who are relatively young in regards to their academic careers. (Apologies for Azmi and Terence) The two are Dr. Sharon Bong and Wong Chin Huat, who are both teaching at Monash Sunway now, a private university. This of course calls into question the level of support for such a movement against Akujanji among the younger academics in our public universities. I'm quite sure that the 'pressure' which can be exerted on them would be higher compared to the more established i.e. older academics.
Of course I could be making too much out of this. Perhaps the petition didn't circulate to the younger academics because Dr. Lim and Dr. Syed Husin Ali didn't know enough of them (the same argument can be made in regards to the lack of outreach to the scientists and engineers). The level of support against Akujanji could be as great if not more so among the younger, perhaps more idealistic, academics in our public universities.
I do hope that Akujanji can be abolished as part of a comprehensive move to change the mindset and structure of our public universities. But like all things in Malaysia, change for the better tends to happen slowly and incrementally, if at all. I wish Dr. Lim and Dr. Syed Husin Ali all the best in this endeavor.
Tony has blogged passionately about this issue here, here, here and here.
I've been a little more agnostic about 'Akujanji' believing that it is possible aka NUS to create a public university where academic freedom is not exactly free flowing but I think that Tony is probably right in saying that Akujanji needs to be revoked as part of a larger, comprehensive move to create more dynamic and open minded universities in Malaysia.
I would certainly prefer to work in a university, especially in my field, where Akujanji does not exist and I would think most other academics would as well. I certainly support the petition circulated by Dr. Syed Husin Ali and Dr. Lim though I don't see how Ong Kian Ming, a PhD candidate at Duke University, would add value to the cause. (Dr. Lim sent me the petition but I forgot to reply to him. Apologies, Dr. Lim)
The actual petition circulated by Dr. Syed Husin Ali and Dr. Lim reads as follows:
Petition for Revocation of University Akujanji
We, the undersigned - former university staff members, present university staff members (who cannot include their names here for fear of victimization by the authorities) and civil society organizations - call on the Government to revoke the imposition of the Akujanji pledge with immediate effect.
This requirement of loyalty to the Government – found only in a few repressive university systems in the world – has stifled academic freedom in our country to an unprecedented extent. It has also inculcated a culture of fear, passivity and uncritical thinking in the campuses which is antithetical to the development of our universities and to the quality of teaching and scholarship.
Government leaders, including the Prime Minister, have called on the universities to take up the challenge of upgrading their standards and producing quality teaching and research that will help the nation meet the goals of 2020, including the goals of a matured, liberal, scientific and progressive society. The Aku Janji stands as a major obstacle in the way of our universities rising to this challenge.
In this regard we also call on the Government to reinstate Dr. Azly Rahman, Dr.Mutiara Mohamad and other academicians who have been dismissed as a result of their opposition to the Akujanji. Similarly, others who have suffered in their career development due to the Akujanji should have their cases reviewed and should be provided with justice and redress. These are our academic prisoners of conscience who have been unjustly victimized and whose continued exclusion is a black mark against academia and our democratic system and values.
Our concern is not the first voiced on this issue - academic staff associations and numerous other concerned individuals and organizations have during the past three years spoken out and asked for the abolition of the pledge which is also against the fundamental rights of freedom of association and expression. We hope with this petition that we will be the last to take up this issue.
We feel that this is an urgent matter not simply of academic interest and concern but of national importance too and call on the Government to respond in a fair and enlightened manner and to place the interests of the universities and nation ahead of partisan political ones. The revocation of the pledge is a vital step in ensuring that fundamental rights of freedom of association and expression are not further eroded and that our academicians can play their rightful role in helping our nation advance.
I just want to make three observations in regards to the signatories of this petition
Firstly, most of the signatories are social scientists (especially political scientists) or academics from the humanities. I recognize many of the names on the list (and indeed, know some of them) who are social scientists including - Dr. Collin Abraham, Dr. Azmi Sharom, Dr. Sharon Bong, Dr. Cheah Boon Kheng, Dr. Stephen Chee, Dr. Farish Noor, Dr. Terence Gomez, Dr. Khoo Boo Teik, Dr. Khoo Kay Jin, Dr. Patricia Martinez, Dr. Maznah Mohamad, Dr. Lim Teck Ghee, Dr. Francis Loh, Dr Mavis Puthucheary, Dr. Ramasamy, Dr. Johan Saravanamuttu, Dr. Shirley Lim, Dr. Syed Husin Ali, Dr. Toh Kin Woon, Wong Chin Huat and Dr. Diana Wong.
If the momentum from 'within' to abolish Akujanji is to continue, there needs to be more support for its abolishment across the academic fields including the engineering and science faculties. If not, the impression that this movement is only support by trouble making social scientists and those from the humanities will only be reinforced.
Secondly, as noted by the Malaysiakini report, out of the 40 academics who signed on to this petition, 29 are retired. Obviously, one needs to ask why there are not more signatories among active academics. Is it out of fear that reprisals might be carried out against them similar to those carried out against Dr. Azly Rahman and Dr. Mutiara Muhamed? This is not out of the question. To overcome this fear, there must be a concerted gathering of support among active academics so if a large enough number of them do sign this petition, it is not possible to carry out reprisals against all of them. In other words, achieve some sort of 'critical mass'.
Easier said than done but perhaps one can start by asking academics from the engineering and science faculties whether Akujanji has hurt them in any way (recruitment, funding, research proposals) or why they might feel that Akujanji might be needed (or no need for it to be abolished). From here, one can hopefully move forward to achieve the 'critical mass' necessary for such a movement to be taken seriously.
Thirdly, even among those signatories who are not retired (the 11 brave souls), I know of only 2 who are relatively young in regards to their academic careers. (Apologies for Azmi and Terence) The two are Dr. Sharon Bong and Wong Chin Huat, who are both teaching at Monash Sunway now, a private university. This of course calls into question the level of support for such a movement against Akujanji among the younger academics in our public universities. I'm quite sure that the 'pressure' which can be exerted on them would be higher compared to the more established i.e. older academics.
Of course I could be making too much out of this. Perhaps the petition didn't circulate to the younger academics because Dr. Lim and Dr. Syed Husin Ali didn't know enough of them (the same argument can be made in regards to the lack of outreach to the scientists and engineers). The level of support against Akujanji could be as great if not more so among the younger, perhaps more idealistic, academics in our public universities.
I do hope that Akujanji can be abolished as part of a comprehensive move to change the mindset and structure of our public universities. But like all things in Malaysia, change for the better tends to happen slowly and incrementally, if at all. I wish Dr. Lim and Dr. Syed Husin Ali all the best in this endeavor.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Porn @ Lim Kit Siang's Blog?
Update: A reader has informed me that he has had no problems accessing Sdr Lim Kit Siang's blog from the USM network. Hence, the University has either removed the classification, or I could have received a hoax. If it is the latter, then I must apologise to the university for having publicised this matter.
Well, that's apparently how Parliamentary Opposition Leader, Sdr Lim Kit Siang's blog has been classified in Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), as shown in the screen capture above ;)
Apparently, the web administrator of Pusat Pengetahuan, Komputer dan Telekomunikasi (PPKT) have decided that Sdr Lim's blog should not be accessed by USM students. Hence not only are university students not allowed to participate in political activities under the UUCA, but even viewing it online is now prohibited.
Several students have made complaints to the university authorities, and we'll see if the policy gets reversed (or has been reversed, as I've gotten this 3 days back) ;)
Well, that's apparently how Parliamentary Opposition Leader, Sdr Lim Kit Siang's blog has been classified in Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), as shown in the screen capture above ;)
Apparently, the web administrator of Pusat Pengetahuan, Komputer dan Telekomunikasi (PPKT) have decided that Sdr Lim's blog should not be accessed by USM students. Hence not only are university students not allowed to participate in political activities under the UUCA, but even viewing it online is now prohibited.
Several students have made complaints to the university authorities, and we'll see if the policy gets reversed (or has been reversed, as I've gotten this 3 days back) ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)