CEKU MSLS Special Edition
CONTENTS
FOREWORD
2
Chrystal Loh
INTRODUCTION
3
Michelle Tan
HAPPENINGS
4
THE THREAT OF CYNICISM
6
Farquar Haqqani
THE NEW FACE OF DEMOCRACY
8
Ian Chew
MY CHAIR IS SCARED: ARE WE LIVING IN FEAR?
10
Yizhen Fung
TAKING RIGHTS SERIOUSLY
13
Joe-Han Ho
I. A STUDENT’S TWO CENTS ON WORLD CLASS UNIVERSITIES IN MALAYSIA
16
Chang Da Wan
II. UNIVERSITY RANKINGS – TO BE OR NOT TO BE?
19
Kah Keng Wong
DARI KEBENARAN KE KEBATILAN
21
Hizami Iskandar
COMMENTARY: SHOULD UPSR AND PMR BE ABOLISHED?
23
Yizhen Fung
ENTER EMPLOYMENT. ENTER… DEBT.
27
Wilson Wong
THIS CALLS FOR EXPLANATIONS
29
Ahnaf Azmi
1
FOREWORD
CEKU began as a humble portal for outspoken, dynamic individuals to voice their
unbarred, raw opinions to eager readers, who in turn, found this opportunity to share
their thoughts. Years on, opinionated young Malaysians are still talking, and many of us
are still listening.
The first step of action is recognition. The fact that we are not ignorant neither are we
subdued will pave the way for a more aware society. It is within this awareness that fuels
the passion within our youth to drive our Malaysia, charting the Way Forward.
And it is on this note that the team moves forward in the publication of this year’s special issue, CEKU: Charting
the way forward. We aim to serve as a supporting medium to Duke’s ultimate objective in this year’s summit of
nurturing future leaders of Malaysia via intellectual discourse; a responsible platform in which the idealism of
Malaysia’s youth can find expression whilst remaining grounded to the realities and challenges that our beloved
nation is faced with.
I am pleased to be a part of the team that brings to you a special MSLS edition of CEKU which complements the
4th Annual Malaysian Student Leaders Summit. I thank the diligent team, lead by the CEKU Chief Editor, Michelle
Tan who has worked so hard to materialize this year’s publication. I also extend my gratitude to the contributors
of articles and also this year’s MSLS organising committee who has put in constant effort into ensuring the
success of this event. To our sponsors, thank you for believing in us and for your support.
To the readers, thank you for allowing us to share with you our favourite CEKU articles. I hope these articles
would encourage you to widen your perspectives and voice your thoughts, as they did mine.
Chrystal Loh
Vice Chairman of UKEC (UKEC Cares)
2
INTRODUCTION
What a time it has been for Malaysia this past year.
We have seen the tabling of the New Economic Model, one that is poised to leverage
Malaysia’s strengths to even greater competitive heights, even as we witness major
global players such as the US and the UK struggle to regain economic footing after
the recent crisis. However, we also watched as the nation questioned the foundation
of its racial-religious harmony as attacks on places of worship crept relentlessly into
the news and religious sensitivities were encroached upon to the distress of many.
Needless to say, as a country, we still have quite a distance to go.
The young voices of the various authors in this compilation all share one thing in
common: they possess an opinion for the betterment of the country, one they strongly believe in; one they are
not afraid to say.
Farquar Haqqani sets the tone with an apt but sobering reminder on the need to set aside our cynicism if change
is to be effectively achieved – that the future is most definitely “up to us”, no matter how miniscule we think our
contribution might be. Following this train of thought is Ian Chew’s simple but sound observation that a majority
cannot exist without a minority; a democracy cannot overlook the latter in its pursuit of the former. Rightfully,
Yizhen Fung then urges us to discard any excessively irrational fears of the city in our quest for progress. In
addition, more than ever, there is a growing need for governments to seriously acknowledge the position of
human rights in a democratic society, as Joe-Han Ho’s analysis reveals.
Education remains a crucial topic for discussion as we move towards the goal of a developed country status, as
our authors CD Wan and Kah Keng Wong underscore in their two-part complementary analysis on university
rankings and what they mean for our local institutions. After that, it is back to the serious stuff as Hizami Iskandar
takes a deep, long look at the racial tensions that occurred in December and pleads to his people to stop the
blame game, while Yizhen Fung picks up the pen again to analyse the ongoing debate on the abolishment of UPSR
and PMR that have featured prominently in our schooling years. Wilson Wong then joins the chorus of voices
emerging in the wake of the financial crisis in cautioning against excessive use of credit.
Last but not least, Ahnaf Azmi rounds us off by reminding you, dear reader, of the very purpose of MSLS itself,
urging us to rediscover the true value in imparting our knowledge to others.
Together, these insightful opinions form the core of this year’s MSLS special edition of CEKU. It is my hope that by
giving voice to these young minds, their thoughts will provoke your mind and inspire you, dear reader, but also
that they may be ultimately be heard.
Michelle Tan
Chief Editor, CEKU
3
HAPPENINGS
MDec ‘Think out of the
Box’: Entrepreneurship
Talk
Sachin Bhanot
This event was held on the 19th
of February 2010 at the
Malaysian Student’s
Department. It saw an
attendance of 30 students.
Majority of the audience were
students studying in various
universities across London such
as University College London,
Imperial College and London
School of Economics. We also
had students who had already
finished their studies and are
interested in entrepreneurship;
some students came as far as
Dublin to attend this talk.
A simple dinner was provided by
UKEC prior to the official start of
the talk which served as a
networking and ice breaking
session between all parties in
attendance.
Encik Roslan Bakri headed the
informal discussion
accompanied with a power
point presentation highlighting
key issues about the topic. The
format of the talk/discussion
was very interactive with En
Roslan Bakri constantly calling
for input from his team mates to
share experiences and stories
with the audience. Malaysia’s
One World delegate, Micheal
Teoh was also present sharing
his inspirational experience at
the One World Conference and
the Malaysian Report to One
World.
Content wise, the speakers
shared their own personal
experiences, the need for
passion, current opportunities in
Malaysia and abroad for
entrepreneurs, managing
people, growing businesses and
managing them.
The speakers managed to
engage with the audience very
well as especially towards the
end there were many questions
raised to the speakers on
practical advice and technical
advice as well. In a nutshell, this
talk was very mind provoking
and motivational as a big part of
the message delivered was for
students to have passion for
what they do, and not to live by
the dogma of others.
UKEC North East Forum
“A Colour Blind
Malaysia”
give a unique chance to
students to speak out on issues
dear to their hearts. Too
frequently, we have "top
leaders" and "higher-ups" giving
us speeches on "how things
should be", but as we should be
well aware, it's always far more
fascinating and relevant to hear
someone of our own age group
speaking out on issues.
For this forum, there was a
panel featuring a broad cross
section of the Malaysian society,
from the bright lights and
urbanity of KL to the rural
backwaters of Sabah, guided by
the expert hand of the
moderator, Safwan.
The forum explored the issues
and themes that affect us, as
young people, as we will be
handed the reins of power by
our elders when we go home to
serve. Racial integration in
Malaysia was one of the main
topics of discussion in the forum.
Teh Wai Ming
This forum themed ‘A Colour
Blind Malaysia’ was geared to
The forum was unique as it was
conducted fully in Malay. Too
often, we neglect our own
national language, scoffing at it
4
in favour of English. However,
the harsh reality is that, unless
we begin conducting our
intellectual discourse in Malay,
and unless we as a nation
master a common language, we
will continue to be divided on
fundamental issues if we cannot
even speak to each other. This is
a baby step in the direction of a
growing Malay intelligentsia
movement, participated in by
approximately 50 Malaysian
students in the North East
region.
All participants present were
motivated to hear the fresh
voices of our own youth, sharing
what we have learnt from our
UK experience and our dreams
and visions for a Malaysia that is
colour blind.
honour YB Dato’ Seri Mustapha
Mohamed.
Individual dreams and visions
for our country resounded on
stage that Sunday night. On a
whole, the event was a great
success.
UKEC Amazing Race:
London Edition
UKEC’s Amazing Race: London
Edition was a first step we took
to widen UKEC’s activities from
not being limited to merely
career-based and intellectual
events, but also to encompass
more social activities with
Malaysian students around the
UK. The idea was first mooted
by Supreme Councillors around
London during a regional
meeting and was later helmed
by UKEC’s London Regional
Chairman in collaboration with
the UKEC Connect and UKEC
Cares divisions.
The event began at 9.15 am on
the 13th of March with a short
briefing and breakfast for all the
participants as well as the
distribution of participant tshirts. This was then followed
with the flag-off by our guest of
The participants went on a
gruelling race around central
London; followed by our
volunteers and media team at
certain points before arriving
back at the Malaysian Students
Department. They were
compelled to undergo certain
activities which they might not
usually undertake such as
busking, boat-paddling and
teaching locals how to sing our
national anthem.
Overall, despite a few mishaps
throughout the day, the event
can only be classified as a
success as not only did it give
the participants the chance to
go out and have fun but it also
opened up UKEC to students
who had previously not been
too interested in the events it
organised. The event has now
been placed in good stead to
become an annual event and a
tradition of UKEC.
5
The Threat of Cynicism
Farquar Haqqani
I
was privileged enough to
attend a referendum by the
Warwick Student Union a month
back. Privileged, not so much
because of the exclusivity of the
event (it was held in the oncampus club, by setting a few
rows of chairs and placing a
microphone on a stage. Definitely
not an exclusive event), but
because I had a glimpse into the
workings of a typical cynic. The
Brits are all self-proclaimed cynics,
after all. The particular motion of
the day was with respect to a
solidarity
movement/twinning
programme with the Islamic
University of Gaza (IUG), the
largest university in Palestine. The
proposition were arguing on the
basis of human rights, and the
right for education for all, given
how the IUG was recently bombed.
The opposition were arguing that
there are alleged links between
the IUG and Hamas, and their
opposition was to terrorism, even
though they supported education
for all. This same motion was
debated
in
several
other
universities as well, such as UCL,
LSE, and King’s College. The
difference between the debates in
these other universities and the
debate in Warwick was that the
majority of the student population
voted against the motion, in a
comprehensive majority.
The opposition, which were made
up of a coalition of several “liberal
parties” (as described by members
of the proposition) had a pretty
effective campaign plan. Instead
of arguing much, they played on
the sentiments of the people, with
taglines like “Say no to IUG, Say no
to Hamas”. Despite not actively
participating in the whole
democratic process, I bore witness
to attempts of the proposition
campaigners to reach out to the
students only to be responded to
with a template question; the
opposition says that there are links
between the university and Hamas,
if this is true should we be
condoning such a twinning
initiative? The fear of terrorism
really does play a major part in the
decision-making of many in the
Western World, which explain
why they really didn’t care if they
supported the right to education
or not.
And this fear is coupled with a
typical cynical outlook. While the
opposition were quick to find fault
with the proposal to twin with
students from the IUG, and while
they are quick to announce their
support and commitment to the
right to education for all, just like a
cynic, they talk more than they act.
A huge number of people were
sympathetic to the threat of
terrorism, but they were also keen
on an action plan to help the IUG
students. When posed the
question of “what can be done
instead?”,
the
response
was, ”There are many other ways
to help, but we just cannot
support
this
twinning
programme.”
Conveniently
dismissive, if I may say so.
“We have so many
different opinions
when it comes to the
occurrences in our
country, yet when it
comes the time for us
to do something
about it, we wish to
turn our backs
against the place we
call home, and give
up.”
I realised something about being
cynical that day; being cynical is
tantamount to escapism. When
we become cynical, we will find
1001 excuses why something is
bad or why something cannot
work. Very rarely, if ever, does a
cynic find fault with something
and then tries to come up with a
solution to the problems he/she
6
just listed. A cynic escapes from
looking at the main issues and
thinking of solutions. In the case
of the Warwick SU Referendum,
the cynics who make up the
opposition are able to give so
many excuses why twinning with
the IUG is a bad idea. But when
asked to look at the bigger picture,
which is a solution to the
restrictions to education in
Palestine, they have no answer,
they have no solution. They spend
so much time thinking why the
twinning initiative cannot work,
yet they didn’t waste a thought on
how to best help the Palestinians
striving for education.
I draw parallel to the situation
among us youth in Malaysia. We
are adamant that in many ways,
our country is not achieving levels
that we hope it can. Every other
week, a new political issue props
up and floods our newsfeed
toolbars (pardon my lack of
computing lingo).
“The economic
model that we use is
perpetually debated,
not only by
politicians but also
among ourselves.
1Malaysia is driving
everyone crazy.”
The economic model that we use
is perpetually debated, not only by
politicians but also among
ourselves. 1Malaysia is driving
everyone crazy. It’s almost no
wonder we have become the most
cynical generation of Malaysians.
There are no two ways about it;
we have become cynical because
we have started to lose faith in the
ruling echelons of our country. No
longer can we look at a new
incentive from the government as
a source of optimism. We end up
looking at it as a greed-motivated
tool for political mileage. We look
at it as a means to get an
overwhelming majority in the next
elections. And everything the
opposition say or do is merely so
that they can get in power in the
next elections. There is no trust at
all that politicians are actually
trying to do something for the
people.
“There are bigger
things at stake than a
brain drain when we
choose to leave, there
is a morality drain.”
As a result of our increasing
cynicism, plenty of us have made
up our minds that we do not want
to go back to Malaysia once we
graduate. We want to migrate to
the UK, or Australia, or Singapore,
where everything is (supposedly)
not as messed up as it is in
Malaysia. We don’t have to deal
with the perpetual drama that is
Malaysian politics and we can earn
a significantly higher income.
But really, isn’t such a choice, as
the one aforementioned, merely
an escape route from dealing with
the problems? Aren’t we running
away from the issues at stake?
There is no difference between us
and the British, actually. We are
quick to comment that the
religious intolerance is something
we have to do away with, that we
have to stop judging each other by
our race, and that we have to start
helping out the poorest in our
society. That will not happen
when the most educated among
us would prefer to move out of
the country, rather than come
back and do something about
things. There are bigger things at
stake than a brain drain when we
choose to leave, there is a
morality drain. Less and less
people will care about the issues
in our society if more people start
to become cynics and migrate out
of a lack of faith in Malaysia.
Nobody left behind will want to
correct the mess we are in. We
will be headed down a downward
spiral,
with
the
situation
worsening and the people losing
faith. Overdramatic, I know, but
not impossible.
We have so many different
opinions when it comes to the
occurrences in our country, yet
when it comes the time for us to
do something about it, we wish to
turn our backs against the place
we call home, and give up. That
need not be so! We have been
fortunate enough to study in an
environment that allows us the
freedoms that aren’t available yet
in Malaysia. We have been
exposed to a society that can take
action (but instead chooses to be
7
far too cynical for their own good),
so shouldn’t we wish to be able to
take action for the greater good of
our society as well? Let’s not fall
into the trap of cynicism. It’s not
too late for us yet. We have our
lives ahead of us and we can make
a difference in our country. Even if
it never changes in our entire
lifetime, it is something worth
fighting for. To give back to the
essence of our life. To path the
way so that those who come after
us do not have to deal with the
drama we are facing now. The
future is still very much up to us.
--Farquar Haqqani is a first-year
undergraduate in Economics at the
Unversity of Warwick.
The New Face of Democracy
Ian Chew
Democracy is one of the most
misrepresented and misconceived
concept in our chaotic era of
globalization – hence some
beforehand explanation in one or
two lines might prove necessary.
Hélio Beltrão, the founder and
president of Instituto Mises Brasil,
said in his Libertas Award
acceptance speech: “Most of us
utilize the word democracy when
we actually mean other concepts,
such as…“equality of the
law”…and other concepts that
have specific words that designate
them.” Democracy only serves to
encompass such terms as a
political ideology: it should not be
seen as a substitute of legality in
all circumstances. Similarly it is
neither wise to equate democracy
to equality – it is the liberal
democracy that counts.
The 21st century concept of
democracy can be summarized in
one word: Minority.
If democracy is indeed the ‘last
form of government’, then the
fear of illiberal democracies –
tyranny of the majority being the
current vogue term – has to be
eliminated to resurrect the lost
confidence in the aforementioned
political
system,
commonly
deemed to be synonymous with
civilization. With more and more
countries
eventually
fitting
themselves into the democratic
mould, this forms a paradoxically
promising and worrying trend.
Majority rule, a result of popular
will, or rather a simple case of
numerical advantage, can fall into
the trap of supreme authority,
thus alienating the minority in the
process. Adolf Hitler was known to
suppress minority opinions during
his reign in Germany.
“It is easy, dangerous,
and foolish to
overemphasize
democracy as the
voices of majority,
subsequently
overlooking the fact
that the integral part
of democracy is
formed by minority
rights.”
It is easy, dangerous, and foolish
to overemphasize democracy as
the
voices
of
majority,
subsequently overlooking the fact
that the integral part of
democracy is formed by minority
rights. History serves as one grim
reminder on how casually perilous
it is to commit the sin. Throughout
the history of mankind, the
oppression of minority rights
(along with dissident individuals)
has not been uncommon: from
the ancient days of sprawling
8
dynasties and empires, e.g.
burning of books and burying of
scholars throughout the entire
period of Qin Dynasty in China
(221-206 BC), to the present
moment of countries governed by
political parties - notably Ethiopia,
with an infamous 99.6 percent
victory for the ruling party in its
recent election (Ethiopian People’s
Revolutionary Democratic Front
and its allies). ‘The death of
human rights’, proclaimed by
Newsweek,
is
frighteningly
relevant to the increasingly
neglected
and
suppressed
minorities across the globe oversimplifying and generalizing
democracy as the champion of the
people, has been an ever present
risk.
“Why are opinions of
the minority
important? Why
should they matter?
[...] It is tautologous:
even the word
"majority" suggests
that there must be a
corresponding
minority.”
To contain all differing opinions
without judgement and treat
them with equal respect, would
not just be one vital sign of a
mature democracy, but arguably
the benchmark of a liberal and
progressive
society.
Isaac
Deutscher, a British historian of
Polish-Jewish origin, couldn’t be
truer when he wrote in 1954: “The
political and moral health of a
society can be measured by its
treatment of Jews.”
The importance of treating the
minority as equals lies within the
strength of diversity: diversity in
social backgrounds, upbringing et
cetera. In a democracy, the
importance of diversity lies within
the strength of difference:
difference
in
perspectives,
difference in reasoning, difference
in values and beliefs. Intellectual
stimulation arises from an
unrestricted
interaction
of
cultures and potent exchange of
ideas, preventing the muchundesired inevitability of mental
‘blind spots’ and stagnancy – as in
a monoculture environment, once
it settles within its identified
comfort zone.
believers. A democracy that
celebrates the flourish of diversity
in cultures and thoughts, will in
turn
allow
compassionate
arguments to prevail – leading to
the
ultimate
triumph
of
democracy itself: equality among
all.
Each and every star will shine as a
whole in the night. They’re no less
of a star, regardless of how bright
or dim they are.
--Ian Chew is an ICPU student in
Taylors’ University College. He is an
aspiring Renaissance man with
diverse interests ranging from poetry
to physics.
Perhaps the simplest and the most
effective of all arguments that one
could raise in this discussion:
Having a majority is meaningless
without a minority. If the minority
should cease to exist in all aspects
of life, so does the majority. It is
tautologous: even the word
"majority" suggests that there
must be a corresponding minority.
The animal kingdom illustrates this
well: each and every species of
flora and fauna is no more and
less important than the other.
A democracy with little or no
tolerance
towards
public
disagreements
with
popular
opinions, let alone sceptics and
iconoclasts, is worse off than an
authoritarian system for its sheer
hypocrisy and the betrayal of its
9
My Chair is Scared: Are We Living in Fear?
Yizhen Fung
Quite some time ago, I was
reading the blog of a prominent
Malaysian blogger, who made a
post about his trip to Copenhagen,
during which he attended an art
competition as a spectator.
Illustrating his account of the
competition were
numerous
photographs of the art displayed.
Each masterpiece was equally as
meaningful
and
thoughtprovoking as the next, but one
piece of art which particularly
caught my eye was a work made
out of various junk items. The
artist put together a small corner
of a cosy-looking living room,
complete with a television set
with coloured lightbulbs installed
in it to bathe the otherwise pitchdark room with a warm glow, a
furry rug and an armchair facing
the television. A distinctive feature
of the work of art was that there
were two spirals placed on the
armchair to signify a pair of eyes,
or to be more precise, a pair of
mortified-looking
eyes.
The
artwork was entitled “My Chair Is
Scared”.
The armchair was staring right at
the television set, and whatever it
was
watching
was
clearly
terrifying it. Having been fed
nothing but a constant stream of
negativity in the daily news, the
armchair now has a deeply rooted
fear of the world outside the living
room.
“My Chair is Scared” by Le Fix
The haunting photograph of the
frightened armchair, cowering in
the eerie glow of the television
broadcast, steadfastly remained in
my mind even until today. The
message the artist was trying to
express through his art resonated
deep within me, and my personal
experiences allowed me to relate
with the artist even more. Indeed,
given the things that Malaysian
newscasters report everyday, I
would not be surprised if my own
living room’s armchair just
collapsed one day from a nervous
breakdown.
I come from a sleepy, quiet town
that is very much unlike the
bustling, on-the-go city of Kuala
Lumpur. About a year ago, I
received an internship offer from
a firm in KL, and accordingly made
relevant
arrangements
for
accommodation and whatnot in
happy anticipation of a month
working in the big city. A week
before I was due to leave for KL,
my family and I went to visit my
grandmother and an aunt as it
would be a good month before I
could see them again. So we had
this lovely little family gathering in
the living room of my dear aunt’s
house. We exchanged our usual
niceties, and then I casually
mentioned that I would be
heading down south to KL to work
for a month. There was this
awkward pause for a brief
moment. And then it began.
“You need to be careful, KL isn’t
very safe these days,” my aunt
cautioned.
“…stories of stilettowearing ladies
getting their
handbags snatched,
resulting in a nasty
fall and a broken
ankle eventually
morphed into tales of
savage parangwielding men
rushing at you from
behind…”
10
And like the opening of the
floodgates, everyone started
talking at the same time, each
with a sordid tale to tell. It started
with your average cookie-cutter
anecdotes of “a friend of a friend”
falling victim to street crimes, but
the stories became progressively
more gruesome as time went by.
What began as stories of stilettowearing ladies getting their
handbags snatched, resulting in a
nasty fall and a broken ankle
eventually morphed into tales of
savage parang-wielding
men
rushing at you from behind and
slashing your back before making
away with your valuables.
Everyone began recounting all the
horror stories they had read in the
papers and it was not long before I
was dished some well-intentioned
advice – that I should not carry a
bag lest it get snatched away and
my arm chopped off with a meat
cleaver, that I should be wary of
groups of burly men carrying
motorcyclist helmets and parangs,
that I should not leave my
accommodation after dusk, and
that I should be careful walking in
public in the mornings, afternoons
and evenings, so it might actually
be safer to take a taxi as opposed
to walking, except I should also be
careful when I take a taxi as there
have been reports of taxi drivers
kidnapping their passengers.
Wait, what? I tried to protest
gently, with the courtesy expected
of a young, inexperienced child
who “doesn’t know better”, saying
that these reports have been
overplayed, and pointing out that
I’ve walked the streets of London
alone before with no unfortunate
events happening. The key, I tried
to stress, was to be alert.
My protests were promptly
brushed aside, with a curt,
decisive reply, that “London is
safer than KL”. My assurances that
the area I would be staying at was
a safe one were swiftly forgotten
when someone recalled reading a
newspaper article about a snatch
theft happening within that area.
Oh dear.
“To
them,
Kuala
Lumpur is a concrete
jungle, in the literal
sense of the phrase.
It is a big, scary place,
even more so when
night falls, and you
never know when
you are going to get
ambushed by evil
monsters.”
We spent another 45 minutes
talking about the many grisly
street crimes happening in KL, and
when it was time to say goodbye, I
left the house unsure of what to
think of the discussion I just had.
I knew one thing for certain,
however – That everyone was
afraid. To them, Kuala Lumpur is a
concrete jungle, in the literal
sense of the phrase. It is a big,
scary place, even more so when
night falls, and you never know
when you are going to get
ambushed by evil monsters. And
when asked to substantiate their
arguments, everyone points to the
newspapers and media reports as
evidence. The startling thing is,
such opinions are not confined to
people from small towns alone;
ask the average man on the street
in KL and he will likely echo the
sentiments I have outlined above.
Anyway, July came and went, and
before I knew it I had finished my
month-long stint working in a city
firm. Against the advice of my
well-meaning relatives, I carried a
bag with me at all times anyway,
for the sake of convenience.
Knowing how taxi fares could be
very steep since no taxi driver ever
uses the meter anymore, I chose
to walk to places whenever I could.
And sometimes I had to work late,
resulting in me walking back at
around 8PM, by which night had
fallen.
Now get this:
Nothing happened. It was a pretty
uneventful month, misfortunewise, thank heavens for that.
With these experiences and
observations in mind, I cannot
help but to wonder: Have we
fallen into the mindset depicted
by the armchair in the living
room? Are we so convinced that
the world outside our homes is so
terrible that we install numerous
locks and safety alarms and avoid
going out unless absolutely
necessary? Do we ladies forsake
the convenience and aesthetic
11
values of handbags in order to
eliminate the possibility of falling
victim to a snatch theft? Do we
instinctively think twice about our
safety before entering a taxi in the
city?
I am not saying that I will never
get my bag snatched, or that I will
never be mugged by criminals
roaming the streets. I am not
saying that we should not install
locks and grills in our houses. I am
not saying my dear relatives are
out of their minds and have no
clue what they are on about. I am
not saying that we should ignore
all the news reports about the
street crimes happening in our
country. I am not, by any stretch
of imagination, saying that KL is at
all a crime-free haven. I concede
that the yearly statistics showing
KL’s rising crime rates do not
exactly sing praises with regards
to the city. The number of
reported crimes every year often
leaves much to be desired where
public safety is concerned, and it is
clear that our men in blue, while
making commendable headway in
tackling this issue by way of
increasing their presence in public,
still have some way to go in
reducing
crime
rates.
But I am saying that it is unwise to
assume that we will fall victim
to some crime just by leaving the
secure confines of our homes. I
am saying that we ladies should
still carry our darling handbags but
we should be alert of our
surroundings, and take all
necessary precautions to minimize
the chances of a snatch theft
happening.
I am saying that we should read
and take note of all the newspaper
reports of crimes happening in our
country, and not shun these
reports, as they bring to our
attention any new modus
operandi our
ever-adapting
criminals may have recently
adopted, but we should not let
them brainwash us into living a life
of perpetual fear either. The
media may sometimes highlight
some very unusual crimes, but we
should remember that the
probability of a freak crime
happening, as with all other
crimes, will remain just that – a
probability. There is no excuse to
go into a panic over something
that may or may not even happen.
The media is merely doing its job –
to report incidents happening
around the country, and criminal
offences, however unlikely they
are to occur in probability, are no
exception. It is our job to make
rational judgments based on what
we read and what we observe in
our surroundings.
So make your own honest
judgment and answer the
question for yourself: Are you
afraid,
like
my
armchair?
--Yizhen Fung is a second year law
undergraduate at Oxford University,
who harbours wishful thinking in that
there would come a day in which her
armchair would no longer have
reason to be afraid.
12
Taking Rights Seriously
Joe-Han Ho
In
Malaysian
politics,
two
recurring
themes
permeate
virtually all arguments. The first
theme is the disdain associated
with the phrase ‘human rights’. Its
invocation is almost synonymous
with sub-standard logic, and its
utterance is like an f-word,
inducing wincing and scandalised
looks of disdain. The second
theme is the counterpart phrase
‘greater
good’.
Arguments
deploying its logic are bestowed a
gloss of eruditeness, and appear
to naturally flow to inferences of
patriotism and wise statesmanship.
The above paragraph is a fairly
simplistic sketch, but one with
which the Malaysian layman may
easily identify. This article’s remit
is to acknowledge the different
spheres of logic both themes
occupy,
using
the
recent
controversy of the ‘Allah issue’ to
showcase their application and
clash. It is hoped that the meaning
and usefulness of a rights-based
argument may be persuasively
articulated, while the role and
appropriateness of instrumentalist
arguments kept in mind. This may
allow the Malaysian citizen to
more effectively critique and
analyse politicians’ statements. A
more nuanced and sophisticated
political outlook necessarily forces
politicians to raise their game and
stop their silliness of simplistic,
puerile arguments.
The first sphere of logic: the
rights-based approach
In the ‘Allah issue’, the real
argument was between freedom
of
expression
versus
the
protection of national harmony.
Both arguments are readily
understood and have some force.
From a rights-based approach,
freedom
of
expression
is
important because it affirms the
liberty of the individual. For a
society to be free, it is the role of
the law to protect fundamental
and inalienable rights which may
be broadly framed as the rights to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. The force of these
fundamental rights is so strong
that it generates secondary rights
in its penumbrae, including
freedom of expression. Thus, the
rights-based
approach
is
fundamentally individualistic: it is
an argument from an individual
interest to the conclusion that the
interest is of such importance that
government is bound to promote
it.
A caveat must be entered at once
to dispel accusations that rightsbased arguments are but a thin
veil for Western interference. To
the
contrary,
rights-based
arguments are culturally neutral.
But given the diversity and
pluralism of this world, how can
there exist a universal and
fundamental corpus of rights? The
short answer is that there will
always be noise on the boundaries,
and it is for each society to come
to a consensus as to which rights
should
be
endowed
with
‘fundamental’ status.
“The first theme is
the disdain
associated with the
phrase ‘human
rights’. Its invocation
is almost
synonymous with
sub-standard logic,
and its utterance is
like an f-word,
inducing wincing and
scandalised looks of
disdain.”
However, some rights are at the
core of the corpus, and universally
recognised as fundamental and
inalienable rights. For instance, it
is widely accepted in all cultures
that nobody should be subject to
torture under any circumstances.
This may lead to perverse
scenarios: even if a hundred lives
can be saved by torturing a
particular person, this cannot
happen as a matter of principle.
13
Going back to the ‘Allah issue’, this
does not mean that the protection
of national harmony has no place
in the rights-based approach. It
has no place in this sphere of logic
only insofar as it concerns a
fundamental right, but the right to
freedom of speech cannot be
considered fundamental. It is a
secondary right in the penumbrae
of liberty, and thus correctly
subject to a balancing exercise.
National
harmony,
as
a
precondition to an environment
conducive for actualised liberty,
also claims the birthright of being
in liberty’s penumbrae. Thus, a
balancing exercise must be
conducted,
considering
the
damage to each right if either is
given primacy.
“In the
instrumentalist
approach, rights are
not taken seriously.
Instead, the overall
vision of an ideal
society is imagined,
and all possible
measures to ensure
this vision are par for
the course.”
A compromise may then be struck
but
very
importantly,
this
compromise cannot abrogate
either right completely. This is the
very definition of a compromise: a
middle point must be reached.
The second sphere of logic: the
‘greater good’ approach
In the argument employing the
concept of the ‘greater good’ (also
known as an instrumentalist
approach), the sphere of logic is
very different to that of a rightsbased approach, notwithstanding
the possibility of identical
outcomes. In the instrumentalist
approach, rights are not taken
seriously. Instead, the overall
vision of an ideal society is
imagined, and all possible
measures to ensure this vision are
par for the course. Thus, in the
‘Allah issue’, assuming that
national harmony is the be all and
end all, the vision of a harmonious
society is imagined, and the
various
policy
permutations
considered. The most efficient and
failsafe policy to ensure national
harmony is then pursued,
notwithstanding the damage done
to competing interests which the
individual may value. As a
hypothetical example of this
instrumentalist
reasoning,
if
preserving the maximum number
of lives is seen as the overriding
social goal, then it is advisable –
indeed necessary – to torture as
many persons as necessary to save
even one life.
In instrumentalist arguments, the
focus is thus on deriving an ideal
social goal, and studying the
application of tools (such as
legislation
or
government
subsidies) to seamlessly connect
intention with actualisation. This
promotes much inter-disciplinary
interaction. Academic focus on
law and policy making becomes
highly intertwined with social
engineering, and much insight is
sought from economics and the
social sciences.
Instrumentalist reasoning can be
very powerful, primarily because it
comprises dogma inherent in
contemporary
pedagogy.
In
education, it is common to teach a
curriculum
by
comparing
outcomes. Such an approach is
more simplistic and thus more
easily comprehensible, which is
particularly useful when teaching
children who have yet to
intellectually mature. Thus, when
teaching a child about the dangers
of fire, it appears sensible to warn
the child that the consequence of
playing with fire will result in pain.
This is undesirable, and thus the
child should not play with fire.
Received wisdom does not
recommend teaching the child
that he is a free agent and thus
may play with fire, but will be fully
responsible
whatever
the
consequence. This is precisely
because the child is insufficient
mature to take responsibility for
his actions, and the consequences
will be borne significantly by the
child’s carer.
Two arguments militating against
the instrumentalist approach
The first argument against the
instrumentalist approach is the
danger of the majority sidelining
14
the minority. On the majority’s
side, this has the tendency for the
government to pander to populist
sentiment and induce a ‘crutch
mentality’. On the minority side,
even if the government is highly
cognisant of protecting minority
rights, this is only confined only to
the government of the day, and
further
confined
to
their
generosity and discretion. There is
no protective principle to protect
the minority and foster trust and
nation-building.
Indeed,
this
would be a great irony in an
instrumentalist
approach
attempting to promote national
harmony. The methodology of its
approach ensures that the state of
national
harmony
is
both
superficial and artificial.
The second argument against the
instrumentalist approach is that it
acts as a bar on the quality of
political debate. Within its own
inward looking sphere of logic,
arguments are logical and noble,
while politically convenient for a
seamless flow to nationalism and
patriotism. As mentioned earlier,
there is the added advantage of an
air of erudition and wise
statesmanship. Yet this logical
charade is a profound insult to the
individual citizen. Its foundations
are built upon a notion of the
citizen being immature and unable
to make real decisions. It assumes
that the citizen cannot understand
or appreciate the balancing of
important rights. By not taking
rights seriously, it is patronising
and views citizens as mere
resources to manipulate
broader social purposes.
for
It may be best to cite a poem to
illustrate the dangers of an
instrumentalist approach. This was
written by a German pastor in the
context of Nazi Germany:
First they came for the
communists, and I did not speak
out—because I was not a
communist;
Then they came for the trade
unionists, and I did not speak
out—because I was not a trade
unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I
did not speak out—because I was
not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there
was no one left to speak out for
me.
Conclusion
Tengku
Razaleigh
Hamzah,
commenting on the ‘Allah issue’,
best sums up the arguments in
this article:
The notion of sensitivities is the
favoured resort of the gutter
politician. With it, he raises a mob,
fans its resentment, and helps it
discover a growing list of other
sensitivities. This is a road to ruin.
Politicians should be discussing the
right thing to do, not talking about
managing sentiments. Their job is
about doing what is right rather
than protecting arbitrary feelings.
If feelings diverge from what is
right and just, then it is time to
show some leadership.
(paraphrased; taken from an article on
page B9, The Straits Times, 8 Jan 2010)
--Joe-Han Ho read law at the University
of Durham, and will be pursuing a
Masters degree in Harvard in
September.
The onset of globalisation has
resulted in a more educated and
exposed electorate, with higher
expectations for a sophisticated
and thoughtful political scene.
Simplistic political arguments and
appeal to nationalism only leads
to cynicism and resignation. The
most mobile (and as a matter of
statistics, likely to be the most
educated and wealthy) Malaysians
would
vote
against
the
government, not at the ballot box,
but with their feet to greener
climes where governments take
rights seriously.
15
A Student’s Two Cents on World Class Universities
in Malaysia
CD Wan
Malaysia
aspires
to
have
world-class universities. This has
been clearly outlined in the
National Higher Education Action
Plan 2007-2010 to transform
Malaysian universities to achieve
world-class status and to have at
least one university ranked in the
top 100 of a global university
ranking by 2010. This aspiration to
be world-class is important, and
has strong educational, social and
economic imperatives to the
development of the country.
However, what do we mean by
world-class, and should we ask,
“In what ways and to what extent
do we want Malaysian universities
to be world-class?”
I strongly believe that university
rankings should not be used as a
barometer to measure and
evaluate
universities.
Global
university
rankings
are
constructed
from
statistical
indices that claimed to measure
the different dimensions of a
university, such as research
performance and teaching quality.
However, these indicators to a
large extent are disputable. For
example, the student-staff ratio
claims to measure the teaching
aspect, but this ratio only provides
a mere approximation to the class
size and bears no indication
whatsoever to the quality of
teaching and learning in a
university. As confessed by the
Editor of the Times Higher
Education
World
University
Rankings in The Star newspaper
(May 2, 2010), these rankings of
world’s top universities are not fit
for its purpose and have serious
flaws. More importantly, the
Editor has also acknowledged that,
“no list of the strongest
universities can capture all the
intangible,
life-changing
and
paradigm-shifting
work
that
universities undertake”.
“ ‘… no list of the
strongest
universities can
capture all the
intangible, lifechanging and
paradigm-shifting
work that
universities
undertake …’ ”
Malaysia, therefore, should not
rely on these global university
rankings to measure the status of
our universities, but rather, strive
towards achieving world-class
standards in areas that will
provide our students with a truly
life-changing
and
paradigmshifting experience. As a student
who previously studied in a
Malaysian
and
Singaporean
university, and currently at an
English university, I shall share my
experiences and observations
from a student’s perspective as to
what constitutes a world-class
university.
To a student, learning is the core
activity in university. This is also
the primary reason why students
spend three to five years and a
substantial amount of money to
go to university. Arguably, to a
student, learning and teaching is
the most important quality
indicator of a university. In this
respect, the global university
ranking is certainly less accurate.
Despite the fact that the
Malaysian university I attended
was ranked much lower than the
Singaporean one, I heartily admit
that the learning experience in
Malaysia has been much more
engaging
and
intellectually
stimulating. Most Professors and
lecturers were genuinely more
passionate and committed to
teaching and mentoring. I could
16
“…the more we push
our academics
towards research
without taking
adequate measures
to maintain a balance
in their priorities,
the more likely the
teaching quality will
suffer.”
Second, with regards to the
learning experience, I believe a
committed lecturer and an up-todate curriculum are the essentials,
far more important than a stateof-the-art lecture hall or some
sophisticated gadgets. Thus, to
ensure that students benefit from
the
learning
experience,
universities should aim to uphold
quality teaching and mentoring by
providing the right incentives for
academics to do so with
commitment and dedication. Third,
although research is an important
aspect of a university, it remains
less significant to the majority of
students. This therefore raises a
question that if Malaysian
universities are striving to achieve
world-class status, should policy
initiatives focus predominantly on
enhancing research performance
to boost the ranking? I do not
dispute the importance of
research, but it seems that the
more we push our academics
towards research without taking
adequate measures to maintain a
balance in their priorities, the
more likely the teaching quality
will suffer.
First,
from
the
students’
perspective,
the
learning
experience in a university, without
much doubt, is an indicator of
quality. If a university upholds
quality teaching, this will have
positive impact on a student’s
experience. At the very least, the
university has fulfilled its mission
as an educational institution to
teach, mentor and impart
knowledge to the students.
Formal education in the form of
lectures and tutorials is only a part
of university life. There is also the
informal aspect of education,
which is arguably more influential
towards providing life-changing
and paradigm-shifting experiences
for a student. Through various
activities and both social and
academic interactions, a university
provides the platform for students
to build up interpersonal skills,
drop by at their office with
questions, and most of the time,
was able to get some pretty good
advice and guidance. Sad but true,
the same could not be said about
my experience in the researchintensive university in Singapore,
where most of the academics
were only interested in their own
research. Teaching and mentoring
to them, was an unnecessary
burden. As a student, you could
just sense their lack of preparation
and commitment. However, this
remains a personal experience
and should not be generalised
beyond the individuals involved.
Rather, there are three important
points to reflect on.
cultivate social responsibility,
political and cultural awareness,
and a diversified areas of interest.
One of the hallmarks of university
education is also to produce
graduates that have a mind of
their own. I would argue that
these are the basic attributes
which a university should focus on
to educate and develop their
students holistically, and very
much a pre-requisite of a worldclass university.
Internationalisation is a concept
closely associated with world-class
universities. In Malaysia, it is
common to hear statements that
our universities must embark on
the internationalisation process in
order to be world-class. However,
are our universities prepared for
internationalisation?
I shall provide a simple illustration
to argue my case, by describing
the food choices within the
campus, just as the saying goes,
“Food is the way to a man’s heart”.
In the Singaporean university,
canteens in almost every faculty
have close to 10 different types of
cuisine, where one could easily
find Malay, Indian, Northern
Chinese, Sichuan, Thai, Indonesian,
Vietnamese, Taiwanese, Japanese,
Western, Italian, Vegetarian,
Turkish, Middle Eastern or typical
Singaporean cuisine within the
campus. These are just food
choices in the canteen, and do not
include fast-food restaurants such
as McDonalds or Subway. There
are even different sections and
facilities for halal and non-halal
food in all canteens. On the
17
contrary, the only cuisine you
could find in Malaysian campuses
is Malay cuisine. Although I do like
Malay cuisine and particularly miss
the Nasi Goreng Kampung and
Telur Dadar that I ate regularly
while studying in Malaysia, the
contrasting food varieties in both
the Malaysian and Singaporean
universities in some ways reflect
the extent of internationalisation
in these institutions. How could
we expect our institutions to be
world-class and attract students
from all over the world, when
canteens and food stores in our
universities do not even reflect
the diversity of Malaysia?
the libraries
which foster
fashionable
reading and
even find a
catnap!
Facility is also an essential aspect
for a university to be considered
world-class, and libraries are
arguably one of the most
important facilities in a university.
Again, in this case, global
university rankings may not
provide an accurate indication.
Although I am studying in one of
the top ten universities in the
world that have 100 libraries
within the university and hold
collectively 11 million volumes of
resources, personally, the library
system as a whole is not as userfriendly and accessible as one
might expect. In terms of
accessibility to students, each of
the 100 libraries is managed
independently with a different
loan policy and restrictions. On
the other hand, I was far more
impressed by the Singaporean
university’s library system, which
integrates all the departmental
libraries. In addition, facilities in
To a student, an ideal library
should not only have all the
necessary books and resources,
but the system and facilities are
equally important. Therefore, a
library should also aim to be as
attractive,
friendly
and
comfortable as possible for
students. I am certain that a
world-class library is very much a
pre-requisite for a university to be
considered world-class, and to be
fair, Malaysian universities are not
far behind in terms of resources.
However, more efforts are needed
to transform the libraries in our
universities to be more userfriendly,
especially
towards
students.
are user-friendly
a comfortable yet
environment
for
studying. You can
couch to take a
“Although I am
studying in one of the
top ten universities
in the world, …the
library system as a
whole is not as userfriendly and
accessible as one
might expect.”
The accommodation provided by
the university, in part, is an
indicator of a student’s quality of
life. In this regards, there is plenty
of room for improvement in
Malaysian universities. During my
undergraduate days, I stayed in a
residential college. Although the
social life was remarkable, exciting
and I truly cherished those
wonderful days, the environment
and living conditions were less
appealing and downright appalling.
As a friend once said, “It is like
staying in a prison facility, minus
the guards with a little more
freedom”, and does not even
reflect the quality of life of an
average
Malaysian.
Drastic
improvement of students’ quality
of life, it seems, is very much
needed for Malaysian universities
to be considered world-class.
There are many aspects that
constitute a world-class university.
From a student’s perspective, I
strongly believe the aspects
discussed are the essentials, but
can
never
be
statistically
measured by university rankings.
Nonetheless, they remain to be
important factors that will
significantly influence how a
student opines about what is a
truly
world-class
university.
Perhaps, Malaysian universities
should look into improving these
basic yet essential aspects, before
aspiring to be ranked among the
top 100 in any global university
ranking.
--CD Wan is a PhD student in Education
at the University of Oxford.
18
University Rankings – To Be or Not to Be?
Kah Keng Wong
Nobody
denies
that
all
rankings are problematic: one may
want different rankings for
different purposes such as ranking
by research versus ranking by
teaching. Even rankings for the
same purpose, research or
teaching, there is no consensus on
what factors are important, how
to measure and how to weight
them. The public would dispute
the criteria used for an individual
ranking even though both of these
bases are used in some
international rankings:
1)
2)
Objective
approach:
an
evidence-based system that
gathers a welter amount of
information based on input
measures (entry standards)
and
output
measures
(research
qualities,
unemployment rates etc),
and crystallise them into a
ranking which, while it might
get
fine-grained
detail
"wrong" nevertheless gets
the broader coarse-grained
ranking decently accurate
Subjective
approach:
a
system based on word of
mouth,
employers’
or
students’ feedback, from a
limited number of people or
selected authorities. This
methodology runs the risk of
prejudices and criticisms
Thus, rankings often end up based
on what is measurable rather than
what is truly important. However,
it is not my contention of not
having them.
“It is also wise “not
let the best be the
enemy of the good”,
that is, getting
obsessed about the
fact that some
rankings aren't
perfect, or unfair in
certain aspects, that
one abandons them
altogether…”
From my point of view, the main
strength of rankings is the positive
correlation between different
rankings based on various criteria
and weights. For instance, there
are several league tables of UK
universities and if one observes
only the UK Universities on most
international leagues, there is a
good correlation with the UKbased rankings. The precise place
in which a university appears
varies from table to table, but
there is still a high correlation. In
addition,
the
international
rankings may not be able to tell
one very much about who is 30th
and who is 35th as that might
change a bit depending on the
criteria used. But they are still
informative at sorting out who is
in top 30 as distinct from top 90,
and more so as the gap widens.
It is also wise “not let the best be
the enemy of the good”, that is,
getting obsessed about the fact
that some rankings aren't perfect,
or unfair in certain aspects, that
one abandons them altogether
and so lose out on the helpful
information they can impart. In
the absence of rankings, it is
possible to drift along in
comfortable mediocrity. I think,
what rankings do is to force
universities to think hard about
what they will do and how well
they have done it reflected in the
next cycle of various, cumulative
rankings. One might be wiser to
have an ambition of striving in
several different league tables
than potter along in one's own
world blissfully unconcerned
about rankings. Also, universities
with a good record of research
qualities are often ranked higher
and there is evidence that
graduates
get
better-paid
employment having studied at
these high research universities
than at poorer counterparts1.
However, the pros of University
rankings do not pale the cons into
insignificance.
Rankings, especially ones that gain
a lot of public attention, could
exacerbate the competition and
rivalry
between
universities,
thwarting cooperation in the
process. For instance, as far as
research is concerned especially of
biomedical
or
fundamental
sciences, it is a long shot for a
laboratory consisting of limited
number of tools, specimens, and
specialised researchers could
produce research of high-end
quality. It is a known phenomenon
that modern researches require
an enterprise of collaboration to
19
reach an overreaching discovery,
and
thus
any
potential
collaboration should not be
barricaded by the mere issues
caused by rankings. Both sides of
institutions should realise the
mutual benefits gained from
concerted efforts, and should at
least be in a neutral position, if
not
effusive,
when
the
opportunities for collaboration
arise.
“There is not a
research group that
could solely catapult
a university to the
top nor gravitate it to
the bottom tier of a
league, and
generalisation of the
group’s potential
based on the
university’s position
in the ranking might
not be accurate.”
producing more elite universities.
However, these leagues could only
bring the true value of a university
so far as the core motivation, the
persistency for an academic to
labour on, even when the
university is at the top of any
leagues, is the genuine passion for
his/her field of research and
teaching. It is hoped that in the
course of improving the local
universities’ standing in rankings,
the chance of discovering these
pool of bona fide talents and
sparkles could be accrued.
1
The Daily Telegraph (2000) Graduate
pay rates reinforce college divide.
[Online]. Reproduced
at:<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new
s/uknews/1342145/Graduate-payrates-reinforce-college-divide.html>
(Accessed July 10, 2010)
--Kah Keng Wong is currently pursuing
a DPhil in Clinical Laboratory Sciences
at the University of Oxford.
Careful
interpretation
of
University rankings also need to
be exercised. The public and
media need to be motivated by
the fact that no ranking is the
“holy grail” of rankings. In
addition, the funding bodies for
researchers should not be heavily
influenced by a handful of
rankings but rather assessing the
groups on a case-to-case basis.
There is not a research group that
could solely catapult a university
to the top nor gravitate it to the
bottom tier of a league, and
generalisation of the group’s
potential based on the university’s
position in the ranking might not
be accurate.
It is undisputable that rankings
have motivated the attempts of
20
Dari Kebenaran ke Kebatilan
Hizami Iskandar
ED: Rencana ini diterbitkan seminggu
selepas berita serangan ke atas gereja
disiarkan pada awal Januari tahun ini.
Berikut adalah pandangan saudara
Hizami pada ketika itu.
Dan kalaulah Allah tidak
"...
mendorong setengah manusia
menentang pencerobohan
setengahnya yang lain, nescaya
runtuhlah tempat-tempat
pertapaan serta gereja-gereja
(kaum Nasrani), dan tempattempat sembahyang (kaum
Yahudi), dan juga masjid-masjid
(orang Islam) yang sentiasa
disebut nama Allah banyakbanyak padanya dan
sesungguhnya Allah akan
menolong sesiapa yang menolong
ugamaNya (ugama Islam);
sesungguhnya Allah Maha Kuat,
lagi Maha Kuasa." (Surah al-Hajj,
ayat 40, 22:40)
Setelah lebih seminggu berlalu
sejak bermulanya siri serangan ke
atas beberapa gereja di negara
kita, ada baik dan buruknya
natijah yang telah terjelma.
Sememangnya saya berbesar hati
melihat respons dari berbagai
pihak, merentas pemisah politik
dan merangkumi spektrum
organisasi Islam yang luas sekali,
rata-rata mengecam sekeraskerasnya perbuatan yang haram
ini. Jika sesungguhnya ada umat
Islam di negara ini yang
bertanggungjawab atas seranganserangan tersebut, ataupun yang
masih lagi menyokongnya, saya
amatlah berharap bahawa hujahhujah yang telah dikemukakan
sekian ini sudahpun mengubah
paradigma fikiran anda.
Saya juga amat gembira melihat
tindakan PAS yang luar-biasa,
dengan bukan sahaja mengecam
serangan tersebut, malah
membela hak saudara-saudara
Ahlul-Kitab kita untuk
menggunakan kalimah Allah. Jika
masih ada yang belum
membacanya, saya amatlah
mengesyorkan agar dibaca ulasan
Dr. Dzuklifli Ahmad tentang hal ini,
yang mengemukakan hujah dan
dalil untuk menyokong
kesimpulan ini, yang saya fikirkan
tidak dapat dinafikan lagi.
Namun demikian, saya masih
kecewa melihat kata-kata yang
diucapkan sesetengah pemimpin,
yang seolah-olah memberikan
implikasi bahawa jika isu
penggunaan kalimah 'Allah' itu
tidak dibangkitkan terlebih
dahulu, maka serangan yang kita
lihat sepanjang minggu ini tidak
akan telah berlaku. Dari segi
kronologinya semata-mata, ini
mungkin ada logiknya. Walau
bagaimanapun, pada hemah saya,
adalah amatlah tidak
bertanggungjawab untuk fokus
wacana serangan ke atas gereja ini
ditumpukan pula kepada tindakan
orang Kristian itu sendiri.
Sewajarnya, sama ada isu ini
ditimbulkan ataupun tidak,
sebarang bentuk keganasan tidak
patut berlaku sama sekali. Faktor
pokok yang berada di sebalik
kejadian minggu ini bukanlah
tindakan sesetengah rakyat
beragama Kristian untuk
menggunakan kalimah Allah,
tetapi sebaliknya hanyalah
kesongsangan pemikiran, nilai dan
etika yang dipegang oleh pihak
yang bertanggungjawab
melakukan serangan tersebut.
“…kita orang Melayu
sering-kali
membiarkan
ketakutan dan
kebimbangan yang
menyelubungi
pemikiran bangsa
kita untuk
menguasai tindaktanduk kita sendiri,
sehinggakan syariat
agama yang
sepatutnya menjadi
tunjang kehidupan
kita seolah-olah
terbiar begitu
sahaja.”
Saya percaya bahawa dalil dan
hujah yang dikemukakan Dr.
Dzulkifli sudah cukup untuk
mencapai kesimpulan
bahawasanya agama Islam
tidaklah mensyariatkan supaya
kalimah Allah itu menjadi
penggunaan unggul umat Islam
sahaja. Jika benar demikian, maka
sebarang tentangan yang
dikemukakan terhadap
penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh
umat Kristian di negara kita tidak
disokong agama, dan hanyalah
sekadar sensitiviti dan kepelikan
pemikiran umat Islam di Malaysia
sahaja. Saya sememangnya berasa
21
agak ironis jika ada di kalangan
kita yang begitu tekad sekali untuk
mempertahankan penggunaan
kalimah Allah oleh umat Islam
sahaja, sedangkan Allah S.W.T.
sendiri telah menetapkan
sebaliknya.
Sepertimana yang saya telah
fikirkan berulang kali, kita orang
Melayu sering-kali membiarkan
ketakutan dan kebimbangan yang
menyelubungi pemikiran bangsa
kita untuk menguasai tindaktanduk kita sendiri, sehinggakan
syariat agama yang sepatutnya
menjadi tunjang kehidupan kita
seolah-olah terbiar begitu sahaja.
Tidak susah untuk mencari
contohnya - lihatlah sahaja
keghairahan kita berwacana
tentang ketuanan bangsa, dan
memperlekehkan bangsa
'pendatang', sedangkan kita lupa
bahawa Allah S.W.T. dan Rasulnya, Muhammad S.A.W., telah
sebulat-bulat menolak sebarang
perasaan perkauman, atas dasar
persaudaraan jitu antara manusia.
Lihatlah betapa senangnya kita
berpolemik tentang pendatang,
sedangkan bukankah Hijrah itu
sendiri satu proses melahirkan
pendatang; bukankah Nabi S.A.W.
yang tercinta sendirinya seorang
pendatang ke kota Madinah; dan
bukankah sahabat tersohornya
seperti Salman al-Farsi r.a. itu
semata-mata pendatang ke Tanah
Arab? Adakah kita begitu mudah
melupakan implikasi sirah agama
kita sendiri? Dan janganlah kita
sekali-kali terlupa bahawa kita
sendiri adalah pendatang ke
Tanah Melayu, sementara pribumi
sebenarnya, iaitu Orang Asli,
terjebak dalam kancah kemiskinan
dan ketakutan, akibat tindaktanduk pendatang yang bernama
Melayu.
Cukuplah. Sudah tiba masanya
untuk kita berhenti berlawan
dengan bayang-bayang. Sudah
tiba masanya untuk kita
menjunjung keadilan, dan berlaku
adil terhadap semua, atas dasar
persaudaraan sejagat. Sudah tiba
masanya untuk kita bangun
daripada mimpi, dan bertindak
menangani masalah-masalah
sebenar yang menghantui
masyarakat kita.
“Remaja-remaja kita
bukannya murtad
kerana melihat salib
ataupun dikelirukan
al-Kitab yang
memperihalkan
kisah Allah dan Isa
al-Masih… remaja
kita murtad kerana
kita sudahpun gagal
menyampaikan
kebenaran Islam itu
sendiri.”
Tidak sukar untuk melihat
mengapa masyarakat Islam di
negara ini sudah hilang
kepercayaan diri, dan terbantut di
bawah mentaliti terkepung (siege
mentality). Kian hari, kian lebih
ramai antara kita kelihatan
semakin jauh daripada kehidupan
Islam, dengan hubungan seks di
luar pernikahan, penyalahgunaan
dadah (termasuklah alkohol),
rogol dan sumbang mahram, serta
keganasan rumahtangga, seolaholah semakin dibudayakan bangsa
kita sendiri. Semakin ramai di
antara kita meninggalkan agama
secara langsung, menambahkan
kepada catitan statistik murtad
negara. Rasuah berleluasa tanpa
henti, dipelopori tanpa segan silu
oleh orang Melayu yang bergelar
Islam.
Namun begitu, kita semua
haruslah menyedari bahawa
segala kebobrokan yang
diperincikan di atas hanyalah buah
hasil kelemahan dan kegagalan
masyarakat kita sendiri, dan
bukannya hasil percaturan anasir
luar yang ingin memusnahkan kita.
Musuh umat Islam yang utama
hanyalah diri kita sendiri.
Remaja-remaja kita bukannya
murtad kerana melihat salib
ataupun dikelirukan al-Kitab yang
memperihalkan kisah Allah dan Isa
al-Masih. Sebaliknya, remaja kita
murtad kerana kita sudahpun
gagal menyampaikan kebenaran
Islam itu sendiri.
Tindak-tanduk dan percakapan
kita yang tidak mencerminkan
akhlak Islamiah yang murni,
ditambahkan pula dengan
terbiarnya perkembangan
kerohanian di dalam hati sanubari
mereka itulah yang menyebabkan
mereka murtad. Bak kata bekas
Presiden Iran, Sayyid Muhammad
Khatami, jika kita benar-benar
berjaya memperkasakan jiwa dan
rohani golongan muda, maka
mustahil sama sekali untuk
mereka memalingkan diri daripada
kebenaran.
Oleh yang demikian, saya
menyeru sesiapa yang menentang
penggunaan kalimah Allah oleh
umat Kristian di Malaysia, untuk
menghentikan tentangan
tersebut. Agama kita tidak
mensyariatkan tentangan
tersebut, manakala tindakan
sebegini hanyalah akan
memesongkan kita daripada
perjuangan yang sebenar, iaitu
untuk menjunjung keadilan dan
membawa umat kita kembali
kepada cahaya kebenaran.
Janganlah kita sekali-kali
membenarkan diri berlaku tidak
22
adil kepada orang lain, kerana
sesungguhnya Allah S.W.T.
membenci kezaliman.
Sebaliknya, bukalah hati kita, dan
terimalah penggunaan kalimah
Allah oleh saudara-saudara
Kristian kita sebagai satu
perkembangan positif, dalam
mencari jalan menuju kebenaran.
Gunalah tenaga yang kini kita
bazirkan dalam polemik yang siasia sahaja, untuk menggembleng
bersama menghidupkan kembali
pendidikan kerohanian, dan
memikiran idea dan tindakan
bernas untuk menarik masyarakat
kita sendiri kembali kepada akhlak
dan akidah Islamiah. Lupakanlah
matlamat yang salah, dan
letakkanlah matlamat kita sebagai
menghapuskan rasuah, keganasan
terhadap wanita, dan
ketidakadilan sosio-ekonomi yang
lahir akibat jurang pendapatan di
antara umat Islam sendiri.
Saya percaya bahawa jika kita
berfikir dengan jitu, kita akan
sedar bahawa tindak-tanduk dan
prioriti kita sekarang adalah salah
dan menjurus terhadap ketidakadilan, yang haruslah kita ubah
dengan serta-merta. Marilah kita
bersama-sama memperjuangkan
keadilan dan persaudaraan
dengan niat yang ikhlas. Janganlah
kita menuding jari terhadap orang
lain kerana membaurkan porakperanda dan ketidak-tenteraman,
tetapi sebaliknya memilih untuk
meninggalkan sensitiviti yang
tiada asasnya, dan kembali kepada
kebenaran Islam yang hakiki.
--Hizami Iskandar was previously a
Chief Editor of CEKU and read law at
the University of Oxford.
Commentary: Should UPSR and
PMR be Abolished?
Yizhen Fung
Introduction
The proposal to abolish UPSR
and PMR, two public examinations
which most of us [especially the
current generation] have come to
recognize as being almost central
to our education system, has
generated much controversy and
discussion – with opposing sides
of the heated debate raising very
persuasive and solid arguments.
For reference’s sake, this essay
will first provide a brief
explanation as to what these
examinations are. The UPSR and
PMR
are
examination-based
assessments taken at the end of a
student’s primary and lower
secondary education respectively,
with the goal of assessing one’s
academic progress for the
corresponding level of education.
Outlining the Debate
The chief criticism of the current
education system is that it is
simply too examination-oriented
and leaves no room for a more
holistic
and
well-rounded
development. The government’s
main reason for proposing the
abolishment of UPSR and PMR is
an attempt to address exactly that.
The rationale for doing away with
two of our education system’s
most important examinations is so
that we can move away from an
examination-oriented
system.
Needless to say, such a
controversial move has raised
many objections, which may be
summarized in two broad
grounds: Firstly, that with UPSR
and PMR no longer in place, we
would lack an objective method
for assessing a student’s academic
progress. It has been argued with
considerable force, that students
studying in rural-area schools with
fewer facilities and resources,
would especially stand to lose out
to their urban-area counterparts
as these examinations, at the very
least, form an objective goal that
they can focus their efforts on and
strive to achieve in order to
compete with students in the
urban areas. Secondly, a natural
consequence that follows from
the first reason, students would
lack motivation to perform in their
studies. To quote a commentator:
“The only reason why students
study is precisely because they
need to pass an examination, and
schools without examinations will
soon cease to exist.”
Having
outlined
the
main
arguments from both ends of the
debate, this essay will now
proceed to present its own
23
opinion in a three-part analysis. It
will ultimately draw the conclusion
that at this stage in time, neither
UPSR nor PMR should be
abolished, for the reason that
abolishing these two examinations
does not necessarily provide an
effective way of moving away
from an examination-oriented
system. However, it will also go on
to argue that the reasons raised in
favour
of
retaining
these
examinations – that one would
lack an objective method of
assessment and a source of
motivation for students to
perform well in school are
fundamentally
flawed
in
substance and more importantly,
fail in principle to address the crux
of the issue. In essence, this essay
agrees that UPSR and PMR should
not be abolished but disagrees
with the mainstream rationale
submitted
by
fellow
commentators.
“…contrary to
popular belief, the
underlying concern
is not so much about
the existence of the
examinations, but
rather what the
teachers do in the
classrooms.”
What Happens if We Abolish
UPSR and PMR?
This essay submits that the merits
of a proposal should be evaluated
using a three-stage analysis. Firstly,
it will assess the extent to which
the proposal solves the problem
that it is intended to solve.
Secondly, it will proceed to
examine the issue of any
additional consequences that the
proposal could possibly give rise to,
and thirdly, if so, whether any
possible negative consequences
may be justified by the benefits
such a proposal might offer.
(i) To what extent is abolishing
UPSR/PMR solving the problem?
Does this move really fulfill our
objective in moving away from an
examination-oriented education
system?
This essay would like to argue that
doing away with these two
examinations does not necessarily
signify a departure from a focus
on
examinationbased
assessments. For starters, there
will still be tests and examinations
conducted at school-level – that
much is certain.
More importantly, however, it
should be stressed that, contrary
to popular belief, the underlying
concern is not so much about the
existence of the examinations, but
rather what the teachers do in the
classrooms. The main stinging
point of the fundamental criticism
of our education system is that
students spend too much time at
school mugging for exams by
memorizing
facts
and
regurgitating them on past-year
papers, and not the fact that the
final assessments are conducted in
the form of an examination. One
must take heed not to fall into the
trap
of
this
common
misconception.
While it is true that having an
examinations-based
form
of
assessment
contributes
significantly to the problem today,
it is far from being the be-all-andend-all to this matter. This essay
submits that change must come
not only from the form of final
assessment, but also the shape of
the curriculum and how teaching
is conducted. Not having an
system does not necessarily entail
having a system that places
relatively minor emphasis on
examinations. It is entirely
possible to have an assessment
that gives, say, a comparatively
heavy 80% weightage to a final
examination and 20% weightage
to other ‘holistic’ components,
while having a teaching system
that
incorporates
the
development of critical thinking,
creativity,
and
teamwork.
To return to the question, no, the
abolishment of UPSR and PMR
does not per se solve the problem
of
our
examination-oriented
system. Removing these exams
may be helpful in taking a step
towards the right direction, but
the biggest change required is in
the classroom. Other measures,
such as changes in the teaching
approach and curriculum must
accompany the move to abolish
these examinations, if this
proposal is to have any positive
24
effect. Otherwise, we would be in
a position where we would have a
“well-rounded”
assessment
scheme, but be stuck with an
inadequate teaching method that
fails to address the needs of the
system.
(ii) What other consequences
might there be?
The answer to this question has
been conveniently provided and
elaborated by the opposers of the
proposal. The abolishment of
these examinations would leave
us with no objective method of
assessing a student’s academic
performance in school. This means
that certain ‘academically-elite’
secondary schools which typically
depend on UPSR and PMR results
for admission purposes would be
left without a way of deciding
which students to admit. More
importantly, without PMR, there
would now be difficulties in the
streaming process – the sorting of
students into the science and arts
streams at upper secondary level
would be impossible. Students of
rural areas, being confined to their
schools with poorer facilities and
fewer resources, would stand to
lose out in the long run, without a
centralized benchmark which they
can focus their efforts on and
work towards achieving.
This
is
a very powerful
consequential
argument
for
opposing the proposal, but this
essay contends that it is
unfortunately not entirely flawless.
It is flawed because it can easily
be countered. The problem of
having a way to distinguish
academically sound students from
the weaker ones for streaming or
admission purposes can easily be
solved by requiring the schools in
question to conduct independent
assessments of their own – a good
example would be to carry out
their own admissions or aptitude
tests. Doing so would have the
advantage of providing a more
tailored way to handpick students
based on an individual school’s
capabilities and corresponding
standards.
“…the examination
system in principle is
not incredibly
friendly to the ruralarea students who
statistically tend to
produce lower scores
in exams. The
problem of the ruralarea students must
be addressed using
other measures…”
The objection that rural-area
students would be harmed by this
proposal is also unconvincing. The
truth is, there is more than
enough criticism that rural
students are losing out in
our current system as it is, simply
due to the state of facilities and
resources available to the schools
in rural areas. The fact that we
have had to controversially lower
the passing grade threshold in our
public examinations in order to
allow more students to pass
already speaks volumes about
how the examination system in
principle is not incredibly friendly
to the rural-area students who
statistically tend to produce lower
scores in exams. The problem of
the rural-area students must be
addressed using other measures;
it has little to do with an
examination-based assessment.
Another submitted consequence is
that without examinations in place,
students would lack motivation to
work hard and perform well in
school. Without UPSR and PMR, it
would be pointless going to school.
As with the argument about the
rural-area students, this appears
to be a rather ancillary objection.
The government has already made
it clear that there will be another
form of assessment in place of
UPSR and PMR, though the exact
details are still hazy as of now.
Students will still be assessed in
some way, even if more holistic
components will be incorporated
into the assessment scheme, so
there should not be an issue of a
lack of motivation. Lastly, it should
be noted that many students who
are not motivated to put effort
into their schoolwork are likely to
have the same attitude regardless
of the type of final assessment
anyway.
All in all, however, this essay
acknowledges the merits of having
a centralized, objective way of
assessing a student’s
25
achievements, and there is no
denying
that
having
an
examination can be a major
source of motivation for students.
However, the point this essay is
trying to make is that while these
consequence-based
arguments
are persuasive in their own right,
they immediately lose a lot of
their initial punch once countered
and are secondary in comparison
to an objection that is based on
whether the abolishment of
UPSR/PMR does what it is
supposed to do.
(iii) Can the advantages justify the
disadvantages?
We have explored the possible
benefits of the proposal in part (i)
and its potential drawbacks in part
(ii). It has been seen that, upon
closer examination, much of the
reasoning backing the mainstream
objections carry a lot less bite than
their bark. On the other hand, one
would also be hard-pressed to say
that the abolishment would do
much to solve the problem of an
system. Ultimately, however, the
fact that it does not do what it is
supposed to do, and the fact that
without additional measures [in
terms of a change in teaching
approach and curriculum] to
complement and support the
abolishment would yield no
results, supply good enough
reasons to oppose the proposal.
problems
inherent
of
an
examination-oriented system. This
fact alone should be able to
provide a solid basis to oppose the
move to abolish the exams, at
least until the government rolls
out concrete and clear-cut plans
on the next step to be taken. This
essay would like to reiterate that
the biggest and most important
change should, in principle, first
be done in the teaching approach
and curriculum; we can then
decide on what to do with our
assessments schemes after that.
There
are
also
powerful
consequence-based
reasons
challenging the abolishment, but
on their own, they do not provide
a sufficiently strong case for going
against the abolishment. It is only
by proving that the proposal does
not accomplish what it is
supposed to accomplish that we
may have a solid reason for
choosing the opposing stance.
--Yizhen Fung is a second year law
undergraduate at Oxford University.
Conclusion
On its own, the abolishment of
UPSR and PMR does not solve the
26
Enter Employment . Enter…Debt.
Wilson Wong
One
of
the
defining
characteristics of the orthodox
Malaysian
society
is
that
Malaysians save much of their
income. The Employees Provident
Fund (EPF) has been instrumental
in ‘forcing’ working Malaysians to
save, where at least 24% of the
salary is mandatorily deducted for
what is to be a retirement fund for
most. In addition to the EPF, many
Malaysians also save a further
10% of their salary as personal
savings for rainy days as savings in
the EPF are usually almost
inaccessible.
However, all this might change
with the recent crop of graduates
entering the workforce, of which I
am a part of. Graduates today,
arguably, face a greater financial
challenge relative to their
predecessors. It can be seen that
graduates entering the workforce
10 years ago would have it easier
to manage their finances as
opposed to graduates entering the
workforce today. Property prices,
for example, have risen to such a
level
that
houses
and
condominiums anywhere in Kuala
Lumpur or in nearby Petaling Jaya
are now out of reach for even the
best paid of young executives.
The most common complaint by
entrants to the workforce, and
indeed by everyone else also, is
the high living costs they now
have to endure, which is somehow
telling of the cruel irony that for so
long our government has actually
been keeping living costs relatively
low via subsidies. Among other
things, the increase in petrol
prices has become a financial
scourge especially when personal
transportation is almost always a
necessity given the absence of
reliable public transportation.
For many years, Malaysia has
adopted the export-led growth
model focusing on the supply side
of the global supply chain where
the East feeds the consumers of
the West. This global supply chain
was Malaysia’s gravy train for
much of the post-war years until it
was halted by the recent financial
crisis which had revealed the
global imbalances inherent in the
supply chain. It was then
recognised that to correct this
global imbalance, the East can no
longer rely solely on exports to
grow their economies.
“…there is a danger
in consumption
which is driven by
credit, as
dependence on credit
is potentially lethal
to the financial
wellbeing of the
ordinary consumer.”
Hence there is now an emphasis
towards economic growth led not
just by exports, but also by
consumers. But there is a danger
in consumption which is driven by
credit, as dependence on credit is
potentially lethal to the financial
wellbeing
of
the
ordinary
consumer. The recent bursting of
the housing bubble in the United
States which then spiralled into a
full blown global financial crisis
had resulted in foreclosures,
leaving many American families
with housing debt without a home.
But all this is auxiliary to what is
expected to come. I am of the
opinion that following the global
financial crisis we have just
experienced
recently,
the
upcoming years that will see us
through our careers will also see a
change in the mechanics of our
society, the financial aspect of it at
least.
Credit-driven
Plutonomy
Society
vis-a-vis
‘Plutonomy’ was a term coined in
2005 by Citibank, explaining to
27
their wealthiest clients about the
true nature of the United States
economy, which they posit is
actually fuelled primarily by
consumption of the rich. It does
appear that many of the countries
with a credit-driven society like
the United States have had their
economies
turning
into
plutonomies.
One of the hallmarks of a
plutonomy is wealth inequality,
which I think is exacerbated with
the average consumer having to
utilise credit in order to finance
consumption. Consumption credit
usually results in little or no
growth in the net worth of the
average consumer as they are
beholden to repayment of capital,
hence widening the gap between
the rich and the ordinary.
A credit driven society in a
plutonomy is therefore such that
the people who are in debt no
longer possess control over the
economy. I would think that this
assertion have been proved
invalid with the recent subprime
housing credit crunch caused by
the failure of many American
families to repay their housing
debt, and the ensuing starvation
of capital which, among others,
caused the collapse of financial
giants such as Lehman Brothers. I
am not sure, however, if those
who had taken up housing debt or
‘tapped’ their home equity had
any choice at all to starve their
lenders of much needed capital.
I thought Tony Benn had
described the predicament of a
credit burdened society well when
he said:
“Choice depends on the
freedom to choose. If you are
shackled in debt, you don’t
have the freedom to choose.”
Ubah Gaya Hidup?
A certain Minister not so long ago
told us that to prepare ourselves
for the oncoming removal of
subsidies, we must change our
lifestyles.
That
sounded
condescending. After all there are
many who even now are just living
with the bare necessities of life.
But while it isn’t necessary or
appropriate in my opinion to tell
ordinary Malaysians how to
manage their spending, the
Minister does have a point.
It is also worth mentioning that in
2009 the number of individual
bankruptcies totalled 16,228.
That’s an increase by 2,321 from
the previous year total. Not a
healthy trend, for sure.
Although I am unsure whether we
will ever become a credit-driven
society, the signs are there to
signal that we can.
--Wilson Wong recently graduated with
a law degree from the University of
Aberyswyth and is currently employed
in Kuala Lumpur.
The increasing sophistication of
financial services in Malaysia is
likely to ease access to credit,
especially for the up and coming
graduates. There are now more
diverse means of obtaining credit,
including the infamous ‘tapping’ of
home equity.
Graduates are also likely to obtain
a credit card almost as soon as
they start working, despite the
recent imposition of credit card
tax, just as I did when a bank
called me up to offer one. The tax
succeeded in reducing the number
of principal cards by about 1.4
million from the start of this year
to the end of May, but
outstanding credit continued to
increase from RM24,282 million
from the start of this year to RM
25,033.7 million at the end of May.
28
This Calls for Explanations
Ahnaf Azmi
It happened, as so many things
do these days, on Facebook. A
friend posted a link to a news
story, I commented, someone else
commented, and suddenly I found
myself trying to explain a few
basic concepts in feminism.
Now, explaining things online is
usually easy – you can just search
for someone who's explained it
better than you, and then link to
their explanation. But that wasn't
the case with feminism. A good
explanation should be capable of
being understood and applied by
any reasonably intelligent person.
The explanations of feminism I
found, however, were so full of
technical terms like 'gender
hierarchy'
and
'sociallyconstructed concepts' that they
couldn't really be understood by
outsiders at all. And that lack of a
good explanation is a problem. A
big problem, because it means an
entire field of knowledge, about
feminism, remains closed to the
casual inquirer.
This problem – and indeed, this
piece – isn't just limited to
feminism though. Every field of
knowledge has its own technical
terms and concepts which are
often unknown or misunderstood
by people who don't have access
to a good explanation. As a law
student for example, I'm often
appalled by how people throw
words around like 'justice', 'rights',
and 'democracy' without any clue
about the hundreds of years of
history and literature surrounding
them. And who can blame them?
A lot of that history and literature
is stuck in scarily huge and dense
books about philosophy and law.
Even law students are scared of
them, as I often am – almost as
much as I'm scared of chemistry
and economics textbooks, both
subjects I never did.
“Ignorance may be
inevitable but it
needn't be insoluble.
Sharing our own
expertise with others
is a way of dissolving
some of that
ignorance.”
I'm not about to pick up a book on
macroeconomics though, any
more than I think organic chemists
should stop doing whatever it is
they do to start studying
comparative constitutional theory.
It's hard enough mapping your
own field of knowledge – we
simply don't have the time to get
lost in others. But this means that
we're always going to be quite
ignorant about a lot of things,
even while modern life demands
more and more knowledge about
different issues. This is especially
true given that our political system
is based on parliamentary
democracy – since everyone has a
vote, everyone should ideally be
able to assess all the proposals of
political parties so as to make
their vote an informed one. But
how are any of us supposed to
assess proposals outside our own
fields?
Our inevitable ignorance thus has
implications for the health of our
democracy. But it also has two
further implications, on what we
shouldn't and what we should do.
The first, what we shouldn't do, is
simple: we shouldn't rush to act or
even speak about things we
suspect we don't know much
about. Not only does silence spare
us from possibly embarrassing
ourselves (as the Bible says, 'Even
fools who keep silent are
considered wise...'), it can spare
others who may be negatively
affected by our ignorance. In fact
it's
especially
when
our
uninformed act or opinion could
harm others that we should hold
back or consult the experts.
Consulting experts brings us to the
second implication, on what we
29
should do – namely, share.
Ignorance may be inevitable but it
needn't be insoluble. Sharing our
own expertise with others is a way
of dissolving some of that
ignorance. It requires the ability to
come up with good explanations
about one's own field of
knowledge, for people who aren't
familiar with it. It sounds obvious,
but two problems often get in the
way. The first is that we aren't
trained to explain things: in
university, for example, essays are
written to be understood by
someone with a basic knowledge
of our field, and not total
strangers. This is often due to the
advanced level of the content, but
it also means that that content
remains inaccessible to the
clueless. Nor are we equipped, as
has often been complained, with
'soft skills' from our education in
general – skills which would help
in making good explanations. The
second problem is that, in all
likelihood, we seldom mingle with
people
who
need
our
explanations: our friends share
our interests, our co-workers
share our educational background,
and so we likely never need to
share our knowledge in a
beginner-friendly way.
The ability to explain to others
needs to be matched with a
willingness to find others who
need explanations. Only when
knowledge isn't kept to an elite
few can we claim to be a
knowledge-based – and hence
democratic – society.
--nd
Ahnaf Azmi is a 2 year law
undergraduate at the University of
Oxford.
And that second problem is
particularly relevant. Now. To you.
Yes, you reading this at the MSLS,
you who happen to be part of the
Malaysian 'talent pool'. What
good is stagnant water? If you do
share what you've learned from
the MSLS, will you only be sharing
it with others in that same pool?
30

CONTENTS

Transcription

Similar documents

BioLeaks

Pengurusan Landskap oleh Pihak Berkepentingan

Santapan Minda: Sinopsis Buku Bil. 1/2015

S T A R H O M E V I D E O FILIPINO

Buletin Akademik Januari 2014 - Terengganu

Kao Kalia Yang

Brief - Juwita Suwito

EDARAN IT SERVICES

Sambutan dari Kepala Galeri Nasional Indonesia S ejalan dengan

endurance - Rock Sydney