 |
| Denison, Ruhan, Bavani, Datuk Saifuddin, Adam, Ismail & Jing Cheng |
By Datuk Dr Denison
Jayasooria (Proham Secretary General)
Proham hosted a discussion
on Feb 6, 2013 on the theme of nurturing thinking university students which was
attended by about 45 people - a majority university students or recent
graduates. The panel was made up of a dynamic team of young intellectuals. We had the opportunity to hear Muhammad Ismail
(UKM); Bavani KS (UUM); Ong Jin Cheng
(USM) & Adam Adli (UPSI).
The discussion was ably
moderated by Ruhan Shahrir (KITA-UKM) who made linkages to sociological theory
as well as captured very systematically the voices to young intellectuals. Participants
too spoke up and enriched the discussion.
The issues and concerns
were
well articulate by both the panel and particpants. They spoke from their
experience of being victimised and restricted by the institutions for speaking
up on contemporary issues which are often categorised as political or sensitive.
Yet these young people during the discussion spoke with maturity and calmness
drawing from their experiences as well as the experiences of others. They were
frank and honest. They all had one thing in common namely the determination to
voice out their views and in doing so were exercising their fundamental human
rights.
Structural
issues a hurdle for nurturing a thinking generation
The discussions were of very
good quality and in-depth. More senior people should have come to listen to
their voices which can help to mould and nurture a new generation of outspoken
young people, all doing their best in the interest of the nation.
While each panellist started
with some personal experience, they all also highlighted the macro issues and
concerns negatively impacting the emergence of a truly thinking society. They referred
to ‘structural dimensions’ and issues which are perpetuated in ‘national
interest’ but which is a stumbling block to creative thinking within modern
democratic societies
They highlighted the current
system of education which is not nurturing thinking from an early age which
demands from students to be passive recipients of information and knowledge. The public or open space to interact, challenge
and question is not provided. They cited the streaming of students into arts
and science with students receiving higher grades into science even if he or
she had an interest in arts or social science as a negative dimension has it
denies them the right of choice.
They narrated the oppressive
environment which is restrictive with so many rules and procedures especially
in higher educational institutions which robes them of their creativity or
opportunity to intellectual activism. The spoke of the intense control of
student elections by the administrations favouring pro-establishment student
candidates. They illustrated that the ‘speaker coroners’ are not really democratically
hosted and free space for expressions. They noted the role played by university
security personal as like a special branch monitoring every move. The catch
phrase “ikut’ (follow) the rules and guidelines and do not question it is dominant.
They did highlight of ‘brain washing sessions’ which does not enable a thinking
mind.
The panel and many
participants who spoke up called for greater autonomy for the students to
manage their affairs like student body elections. Some spoke of the brain drain
on the aspect of those leaving the country but other said that who did not
migrate but remained were physically here but had their brains drained out of
them by the system.
They see education being do
market oriented with learning becoming a product or commodification of learning
which has very negative consequences to fostering a thinking society. They felt
that private sector is making money and called for government to enlarge public
sector opportunities and also provide higher education free for all without the
burden of student loans.
They feel that a majority of
students are trapped in a culture of fear, making them afraid to speak up as
they fear losing their place or scholarship or student loan. One participant
called the learning process “membodokan” – the system is making us stupid.
Another participant spoke up on the ‘dehumanising aspect and effect’.
They want party politics out
of the universities. They note that many positions including the appointment of
the Vice Chancellors as a political process and not a merit one as they see the
VCs as being pro administration and ensuring student responses are also
directed in this form.
They want universities to be
run and managed by academics and intellectuals. They see universities as a
place of learning and not a factory producing workers for the factory. They
want it to be a place for ideas, dreams and hopes. They want the current
legislation reviewed to give greater space for both student and lecturers in intellectual
activism.
YB
Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah
YB Saifuddin’s presence and
closing remarks was encouraging as a voice from the Federal Administration. He
came also as a friend of young people to hear their view, encourage them and
reassure them that government is reviewing these matters seriously. He also indicated
that he was aware of these issues and said that the Minister of Higher
Education is instituting a higher education reform process. He called on Proham
to continue this process and document these findings for policy review.
Proham’s
response
Proham hosted this
discussion so as to provide the space for young intellectuals from local universities
to article their issues and concerns from a human rights framework. We
recognise that this dialogue is important and that formal spaces must be
provided. We note that the young have an important role and contribution to
make.
The discussion findings are
being documented and Proham hope to release them to the Federal government for
their review and adoption. Proham will continue to champion the conducive
environment of learning to nurture creative minds as young people are the
future of this land.
