What’s in store for New Year?

Brave New World (The Star)
27 December 2012

 

There will be no more predictions next year. Just like the end of the world fiasco, we have had some loony predictions in this country. And the thing is we have all been proven wrong.

__________________________________________________


Villas Boas and not to call for his head until at least one more full season in charge. -Can he do it? The author's last resolution is to be patient with Andre AFP

THE failure of the world to end has really messed up my plans.

I thought that one of two things could happen. Either giant meteors/tidal waves/earthquakes/would crush me in which case nothing would matter any more.

Or the world would be in such a total panic facing the Armageddon, that I would not be noticed for a while.

Either way, I would not have to write this week’s column and be able to take a nice little break.

With any luck the accounting department would be in such disarray, they might still even pay me.

Alas, the world did not end, just as the accounting department will never ever pay me more than what they think I am due.

So here I am earning my keep for the last time in 2012.

Usually, end of year opinion pieces take the form of reminiscing about the year that has gone by.

I don’t want to do that. Instead I want to share my New Year resolutions with you.

I must declare, however, that I don’t believe in resolutions and the few times I have tried have ended in dismal failure.

However, seeing that I am still alive and the world has been spared, perhaps an extra effort is due.

I resolve to listen to or read the opinion of people whose philosophies I find nauseating for at least a few minutes/paragraphs before being violently sick.

After all you need to hear what they are saying before you can rebut them, otherwise you would be a knee jerk reactionary. Which is what they usually are.

I resolve to not make any more predictions. Just like the end of the world fiasco, we have had some loony predictions in this country which everybody, yours truly included, have taken part in. And the thing is we have all been proven wrong.

What is it about predictions? I think the people who like making them are those with a serious superiority complex.

They feel the urgent need to be better than others. They get a tingly feeling in the pit of the stomach when they can turn around and say “I told you so. Aren’t I smart?”.

Well, I don’t want to be like that. Especially when my predictions are always so wrong.

The one I am talking about here is of course the next general election.

Over the last year in particular, I have heard and I have given wisely considered possibilities as to when the elections will be held.

All told with a sage knowing look and the gentle stroking of a non-existent goatee.

How wise we all sounded and how utterly stupid we have all been shown to be.

Well, no more. It’s time to be Buddhist about this: we can’t tell when the darned thing is going to be so there is no point pretending we do and we can’t do anything about selecting the date, so let’s not worry about it.

My last resolution is to be patient with Andre Villas Boas and not to call for his head until at least one more full season in charge.

So what if this is the first time I am watching my beloved Tottenham Hotspur play in such a way that I actually nod off.

So what if I can make no sense of his tactical genius. He needs time, he deserves time.

Well, there you have it, my three New Year resolutions.

And you know what, I bet that by the time this hits the newsstands, Spurs would probably have lost to Aston Villa, I would be screaming, “sack the Portuguese”; and if any idiot has a different point of view from me, I’ll vomit all over their shoes.

Whoops! Messed this resolution business up again.

Happy New Year!

Rotating parties for better governance

Going The Distance (Selangor Times)
14 December 2012

______________________________________

IN my last article I wrote about the importance of changing the system of local government that we have. By that I meant we should reintroduce local government elections as well as overhaul the Local Government Act in order to ensure a more transparent and accountable local authority.

There are also other institutional changes which are desperately needed in this country.

Keeping to local governments, the law which exempts them from any legal action being taken against them is also something which has to be looked at.

For example, the Ampang local government was immune to any legal action for supposed negligence in the decision making which led to the Highland Towers tragedy.

But, in case I appear to be harping on too much on local government, let us spread our sights a bit further.

The Election Commission used to be an independent body and its members had the security of tenure similar to those on the Bench. That was changed in the 60s however. What was also changed was the power of the EC to draw the boundaries for the electoral constituencies.

Now the EC commissioners are there at His Majesty’s pleasure and the power to delineate constituencies lie in the hands of Parliament. This means that the independence of the EC is questionable as they can be fired at will and whoever has the majority in Parliament will undoubtedly draw the electoral boundaries to suit them and not to ensure a fair representation of the people in this country.

There are many other examples of course but I shall not go into them here. Needless to say the system of governance we have now is built around the concept of patronage.

Those in authority owe their position to a master. This leads to a feudal mentality as well as the ever present suspicion that work is done not on a professional level with the interest of the nation at heart, but instead it is done to serve a political patron.

This systemic malaise that we have can of course be changed by anyone with legislative power and the requisite will to do something about it. But is it possible to find anyone or any group with the nobility of spirit and strong sense of fairness to do so; especially if the status quo suits their own purposes.

The answer is sadly in the negative, which is why changes in government are crucial.

When one is on the other side, then one suddenly longs for neutral government machinery and a level playing field. Take Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad for example; the paragon of Southeast Asian authoritarianism. When Tun Abdullah Badawi was in power and Dr Mahathir was simply an old age pensioner who was not in favour with the current administration, he found himself blocked out of the mainstream media.

Suddenly the man who was in charge during Operasi Lalang which saw the shutting down and subsequent cowing of the print media, was lamenting about the lack of freedom of expression. He had to resort to writing a blog to get his, oh so numerous, gems of wisdom across.

Of course now that the reins of power have passed, you don’t see him lamenting any more as he has all the platforms that an octogenarian can possibly want.

My point is that political parties must be kicked in and out of power because this will have a positive effect on the mundane government of machinery; the civil service, the various commissions, the judiciary, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, local government and numerous other public institutions.

As long as any one political party feels that they will govern forever, this change will not occur.

Overzealous officials on ‘khalwat’ trail

Brave New World (The Star)
12 December 2012

Religious departments across the country have many and varied responsibilities. Arguably one can say there are far more pressing matters than making sure couples don’t smooch.

_____________________________________


AREN’T there more important issues to make a big deal of? Seriously, is this khalwat thing really of national interest?

First off, there is no way a non-Muslim can be charged for khalwat.

It is a syariah offence and thus simply does not apply to those who do not profess the religion of Islam.

So the incessant use of the term khalwat to describe the “offence” that these non-Muslim people have been charged with in Kelantan is inaccurate.

The term may spice the story up somewhat, but the real “offence” is that of “indecent behaviour”.

Secondly, and this is the subtext, I have seen in the reporting of this issue, is that this is a problem caused by PAS.

Come on, are our memories so short? A few years ago there was a non-Muslim couple fined for indecent behaviour or something like that in Kuala Lumpur; hardly a PAS bastion.

Therefore any attempt at making this a political party issue is totally missing the point. It is not.

The real issue here I submit is two-fold.

Firstly, it is about overzealous civil servants who obviously have taken it upon themselves to be the moral guardians, nay, moral guardian superheroes, of this country.

What can one say about such folk? Some people just love throwing what little authority they have around.

However, what is more important is the second issue which is systemic.

Fix the system, and the first problem will disappear too.

The second issue is about the existence of these laws themselves. And just to be crystal clear they exist in Pakatan states and Barisan states too. This is not a party political issue. This is an issue about the role of the Islamic departments in the nation.

Why do we have such laws in the first place?

For me, it seems a bit creepy and slightly perverted. I mean, who are these people who go lurking around parks in the dead of night?

Do they have to pass a test before they can get the job? Perhaps, they must have the ability to crawl through bushes with minimum sound. Khalwat Ninjas in other words.

Frankly, I think that this “job” is demeaning. No matter how you may couch the job description, at the end of the day, you are a peeping tom.

Looking at the responsibilities of religious departments across the country, it is obvious that there are many.

Arguably, one could say there are far more pressing matters than making sure couples don’t smooch.

For example, education is a big job for these departments, because it covers not only religious primary and secondary schools but also pre-school.

Perhaps it would be better to ensure that these institutions are not only well run and of high quality but that they also prepare their school leavers for the challenges of life in the twenty-first century.

And if you really want to nab people, I gather that a lot of divorced fathers are not living up to their end of the bargain and are escaping payment of maintenance and the like.

And what about finding new and innovative ways to improve the effectiveness of the tithe collections and distribution?

There are also research units in these religious departments and there is a plethora of subjects facing the Muslim community that could do with research.

Unemployment, corruption, substance abuse are just some of the ills faced by the Muslim community and work can be done here. And by work I mean progressive forward thinking work, not the usual knee jerk reaction of “these problems exist because people are not religious enough”.

The Islamic Studies Faculties in our public universities are huge and they produce graduates who are well versed in Islamic law, economics and theology.

There is in other words a pool of highly qualified workers who can delve into substantively trying to improve the lot of the community.

These are merely suggestions of course but I believe that with focused effort and energy much can be done to have a profound and positive effect on the community. And surely this would make these bodies far more relevant to the development of the nation.

Why ideals are a must in life

Brave New World (The Star)
28 November 2012

Declarations look good at first glance, but read between the lines and one will find escape routes to shirk the very responsibilities spelt out for those in power.

________________________________________

IN the last couple of weeks I have been told that I am really quite a pathetic fellow; out of touch, overly idealistic and generally quite sad.

This is quite a common accusation, one that has been thrown at me in the past, and added to the fact that I work in a university, that old chestnut of making my living quarters in an ivory tower often comes into play as well.

My comments on university rankings not being the be all and end all when selecting where to study was dismissed as wishful thinking.

I was told in no uncertain terms that parents will look at rankings to choose a university for their children.

Oh, incidentally, for the sake of accuracy, in my last column, I should not have said Leeds was higher ranked than Nottingham. They are not. I should have said Sheffield, or Manchester or Durham instead.

And at a talk where I said “meaningful public participation should occur in developmental and environmental issues”, again I was painted as some trippy hippy freak who really should just sit quietly in a VW van listening to Hendrix and burning incense. Frankly, this sounds like a very enticing idea.

However, all these barbs (admittedly they were thrown at me in a gentle and humorous manner) got me thinking. Why do I bother with these ideals? No one seems to care any way. The world is a hard, calculative and oft times, a cruel place. Pragmatism, not idealism, will ensure survival, both literally and metaphorically.

I guess this is true, if mere survival is what one aspires for. I can’t buy into this thinking though. Yes, when one is floating in the clouds of principles and ideals, one may lose track of the realities of the world and one’s ideas become no more substantive and useful as “insignificant fluff”. But pragmatism without the overarching and necessary restraints of idealism is dangerous, too.

If we live our lives without aspirations, then what is to prevent the strong and the crass to rule? Without a higher ideal, then so many things become utterly pointless.

A case in point is the Asean Human Rights Declaration. Personally, I view this document as something positive. It has its problems, and I shall deal with them later, but within the context of Asean.

It is important because for decades the issue of human rights was not really part of the Asean agenda. It was only in the Asean Charter of 2007 did the countries of Asean formally recognise human rights as an essential value. And now, we have this declaration which spells out the human rights that in principle Asean agrees has to be protected.

I say “in principle” because the Asean Human Rights Declaration is, in international law parlance, a “soft law”.

By this, it is meant that it is merely a statement of principle, it is not a binding law as say a treaty is. Therefore, legally it would be rather difficult to insist that the Asean governments comply with this declaration.

This does not mean that they do not have a moral responsibility and it is up to the people of Asean to keep pressing their governments to respect the Declaration and to make the necessary domestic legislation to give legal weight to these “soft law” principles and make them hard.

Surely our erstwhile leaders did not sign the declaration for fun.

They agreed to these principles, so let’s make sure they live up to them.

Aside from the lack of legal obligation, another criticism of the Declaration is that it appears to provide loopholes for its signatories.

For example, Article 7 begins with the emphatic statement that “all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated”.

So far so good, but it closes with “the realisation of human rights must be considered in the regional and national context bearing in mind different political, economic, legal, social, cultural, historical and religious backgrounds”.

The following article continues in this vein and states “the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition for the human rights and fundamental freedom of others, and to meet the just requirements of national security, public order, public health, public safety, public morality, as well as the general welfare of the peoples in a democratic society”.

Suspicious, is it not? Signatories of this document have left themselves a method of avoiding their responsibilities.

All they have to say is: “Oh, we are restricting your rights for the reason of national security/public morality/general public welfare … take your pick.”

Now, only an idiot would think that human rights mean the rights to do anything at all. I may have freedom of speech but I do not have the right to defame someone; my freedom of assembly does not mean I can trespass on another’s property.

So, naturally there will be restrictions on rights, but the issue here is that there must be restrictions on the restrictions.

And that is the crux of the matter. What prevents those in power from using the excuse of morality or security or whatever else to place so many restrictions on our rights that they become utterly meaningless?

The answer I submit is aspirations; idealism and principle.

Only when we have people in power, and by this I mean the legislature, executive and judiciary,  who have the aspiration of protecting rights as far as possible; who believe that human rights are an ideal, not an imposition on governments; and who have the conviction to live and make decisions according to these principles; only then can the Asean Human Rights Declaration have any meaning.

Maybe I am not being pragmatic; perhaps the thin air in my ivory tower has made me light headed and foolish; but I don’t care, because the alternative to living without aspirations, ideals and principles is not worth contemplating.

Importance of local government elections

Going the Distance (Selangor Times)
23 November 2012

___________________________________________

THE Batu Caves condominium project has raised some interesting talking points. The most obvious of these, the one taken up by the many comments I have read on the internet, is the sheer bald faced cheek of the BN government.

For the Prime Minister to promise the ending of an unpopular project if his party is elected into power beggars belief when it is the local authority which was appointed by his very own party which gave the approval in the first place.

Then for the MCA to chip in by saying that the Pakatan state government was at fault for not stopping the project themselves is akin to a thief saying the theft is the fault of the victim because he did nothing to stop it happening.

But then, this level of ridiculousness is to be expected. Let’s look at something a bit more constructive than the shamelessness of some politicos.

For me, this whole fiasco serves as greater proof that there has to be a complete overhaul of our local governments.

Firstly we need to bring back local government elections. The current system of appointment of councillors by the state government is simply not democratic.

There is also the danger of councillors being beholden to the ones who appointed them.

Instead they really should be beholden to the people who live in the area.

Furthermore, although I know there are many local authorities and councillors who work very hard and make themselves accessible to their “constituents”, what is truly needed is the institutionalising of a system where they are structurally answerable to the people.

There are far too many cases of local authorities acting in a high handed manner simply because they know that ultimately there is very little that the ordinary folk can do. The argument that you indirectly select your local government by the state government you vote for does not hold water.

This is because the job of the state government is very different from the job of the local government. There are broader political and policy issues that come into play when choosing your state representative. A local representative need not even be affiliated with any party.

What people want are councillors who are dedicated and work hard on local issues. State-wide, let alone national issues, does not come into the equation of tree trimming, drain clearing and garbage collection.

But even the reintroduction of local government elections is not enough. There has to be a total review of the Local Government Act with all undemocratic and un-transparent provisions removed.

As it is local governments can work in secrecy and this is because the Act allows them to.

The Selangor State’s introduction of the Freedom of information Bill is a good thing but by itself it is not enough.

The entire local government machinery has to be opened up as much as possible so that there can be close scrutiny by the public.

At all levels of government in Malaysia, Federal, state and local, what is clear is that the future depends on the opening of democratic spaces and the democratisation of government machinery.

Too many cases of corruption and incompetence have been coming up. People are people, they are fallible, they are greedy and they are weak.

What we need is a system where they can’t succumb to temptation without being discovered and without being punished for their transgressions.

There’s more to a varsity than rankings

Brave New World (The Star)
14 November 2012

It is unwise to choose a university purely based on its position in the ranking table as many excellent universities are not even ranked.

___________________________________________

I GOT a few comments from my last article saying that rankings were a good thing and you need to rank universities to know which are better than the others. And the fact that I was speaking against rankings means I am firstly, not progressive and secondly, lazy. Well, I can’t really argue with the second accusation.

Be that as it may, let me make my position clear. I am not against rankings per se. What I am against is the formation of university policies based on the ranking criteria, for reasons I talked about two weeks ago.

Furthermore, depending on what you are looking for in a university, you may find excellent universities which are not ranked. I am thinking of some very good American liberal arts colleges where students get an excellent holistic education but because publications are not high on the university’s agenda, they rank poorly.

The reason why the issue of university education is being discussed again in this column is because I just read that the Deputy Prime Minister was going on about how Malaysian universities should be ranked in the top 100 so that we can attract more local and foreign students.

There are of course some advantages to studying here rather than abroad. Firstly, our universities are dead cheap compared with European, American and Antipodean colleges. Secondly, if you are studying a country-specific field, like law, it might be better for you to just learn Malaysian law right from the start.

However, I question the wisdom of choosing a university purely based on its position in the ranking table. For example, I chose to go to the University of Nottingham for my Masters degree because it has a superb international law programme.

Rankings-wise, it’s not so great compared with many other English universities, but it had what I wanted. If rankings were my criteria, then I would have gone to the higher-placed Leeds (my mistake, Leeds is lower than Notingham, so let's replace it with Manchester or Sheffield or Durham. My point remains the same - I would still have chosen Nottingham regardless of ranking) and enjoyed the kind of winter that would make brass monkeys nervous.

My alma mater for my doctorate is not even on the rankings list that I looked at. Yet, the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies was without a doubt the place to be when doing a thesis exploring Malaysian law in the international context. Plus my supervisor was an expert on the subject matter.

In short, rankings had nothing to do with my decision making. Neither does it have to do with any of my advice to young people looking for a university.

For instance, if a school leaver asks me about which Malaysian university they should apply to for law, my advice would be based on the overall leanings of a particular university. This one is more liberal than the others, that one is very conservative, and so on and so forth.

The ultimate decision of course lies in the individual and what he or she is seeking in their legal education.

But here lies the crux of the matter. When it comes to undergraduate candidates, for those who have a choice, I will always say, go abroad if you can. Why is that? Let me explain.

The real key to a good undergraduate university education in my mind is not whether their lecturers are regularly publishing in ISI journals. It is whether they are teaching the subjects you want and teaching it well. And even then, what goes on in the classroom is only a small part of the equation. The kind of experiences you have outside the lecture halls are more important.

Will you be able to experience the freedom to explore all sorts of views and thoughts away from your comfort zone? Will you enjoy self-governance and independence? Will you be able to take part in cultural experiences unhindered by the value systems of some higher authority? Will you be able to express yourself without any fear?

These are the questions I would be asking because more than just the studying of a subject, it is the overall experience that an undergraduate has that will shape him or her, making their university experience more whole and ultimately making them more employable.

Treat your students like schoolchildren and you will get schoolchildren graduates. Let them be adults with all the responsibilities and you will get mature graduates.

At this time, and I don’t see things changing in the near future, Malaysian universities fall short where the undergraduate experience is concerned. Am I being unpatriotic? If I am, than that is akin to saying the statement “Malaysia does not provide good skiing holidays” as being unpatriotic.
Just as we have no snow, neither do we have, in our current situation, universities that will be a truly enriching experience for the school leaver. And that has absolutely nothing to do with rankings.

(The last paragraph was part of the full article that I submitted. Don't know why  The Star changed it to something that was the same with what I said, but so much duller!)

Death knell for higher education

Brave New World (The Star)
31 october 2012

There is a growing obsession with form over substance and nowhere is this more evident than in the unhealthy interest taken with university rankings.

________________________________________________________


THIS month marks the 22nd year I have worked as an academic.

In that time, I have seen many changes in the university. There have been, of course, some improvements since those early days.

For one thing, technology has transformed things for the better.

Let’s take a trip down memory lane.

The very first publication I wrote went through this rather painful process.

First, I had to go to the library and find the relevant cases and journal articles. Then having taken copious notes, I went back to my office where I proceeded to write out my thoughts with an ancient device known as a pen.

Having completed this task, I would send my scratching to a lovely lady in the general office downstairs whose job title was “steno”.

She would type out what I wrote, give it back to me to check and then I would return it to her with any corrections. Finally, it would be placed into a pocket made of paper known as a stamped envelope and posted to the publisher.

Now, all cases and statutes including many journals are online. I type my work myself (with the computer checking my spelling and grammar) and when I am done I e-mail the stuff to the publisher.

All in the comfort of my office where I can play Flight of the Hamsters in between constructing sentences filled with gems of wisdom.

I will be the first to admit that I am quite old-fashioned in many ways, but I can categorically say that I don’t miss the days before the Internet and Word.

Progress, unfortunately, is not always positive. And it saddens me to say that over these last two decades I have seen changes that in my opinion ring the death knell for higher education.

In my opinion, the key problem is that those who decide the direction of our universities have lost track of the values that have to underpin these institutions in order for them to play a meaningful role in society.

There is a growing obsession with form over substance and nowhere is this more evident than in the unhealthy interest taken with university rankings.

Politicians harp on about it, so the Government makes it a priority. Because the Government wants higher rankings, the vice-chancellors start ranting about it too.

Rankings have become the raison d’etre for universities.

The quick fix then becomes the holy grail, hence universities look to the ranking criteria and they focus their efforts on doing all they can to meet those criteria.

This blinkered modus operandi then leads to some seriously contorted developments which ignore the principles that are necessary for the proper foundations of truly good universities.

Academic autonomy is one of those principles.

A university is a complex organisation. It is unlike a factory where there is by and large one goal and usually one method with which to achieve the said goal with the best quality and efficiency.

Even in one faculty, there are many variations. Take, for example, the Faculty of Arts – you have departments as diverse as English and Geography; Urban Planning and Gender Studies; International Studies and Indian Studies; the list goes on.

You can’t possibly be laying down a single criterion for quality for such a diverse group. But that is what happened.

Nowadays, if you want to prove your quality, the only way you can do it, which is embraced by universities, is if you publish in the journals recognised by the ranking organisations.

It doesn’t matter if you are an English professor who publishes well-received novels, or if you are a Gender Studies lecturer who uses your knowledge for women’s activism.

What about the fine arts? Shouldn’t the creation of new ideas in dance and theatre take precedence over an article in some obscure (but acknowledged by the rankers) journal which only a handful of people will read?

Increasingly, the thinking of universities is it is our way or the highway.

Such a top down approach cannot work because each academic unit in a university has its own expertise and its own value system.

This has to be respected because they themselves should know how to advance their discipline both in an academically and socially meaningful manner.

Autonomy brings with it the necessary flexibility for each department and each academic to chart the necessary course which will improve themselves and their own disciplines.

And who should know better what that course should be than those who have trained in that discipline.

I am not against the publishing of works in reputable journals. I acknowledge that they are important to the advancement of academic thought.

What I am saying is that the diversity of academia means that there are numerous methods to determine quality. And the best way to achieve quality is by having true academic autonomy so that those who know best are the ones who determine the way to achieve the best.