I am going to put my cards on the table. I believe in freedom of
religion. Completely. This means that I believe in the right of people to
practice their religion as they see fit and this includes their right to
proselytize.
This is a human right which can be found in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. I also believe that the major religions in the world,
including Islam, also espouse the freedom of religion.
My belief however is not reliant on international law nor is it
reliant on religious doctrine. I believe because faith in my opinion is perhaps
the most personal thing that we as human beings can experience and any attempt
to control it by any authority is not only an insult on our human dignity but
also ultimately utterly and totally pointless.
That is my belief and as far as Malaysia is concerned it amounts to
little more than a hill of beans. In our country there is no complete freedom of
religion. The Constitution guarantees the freedom of everyone to choose their
religion and the Supreme Court has confirmed this, but yet, the practice of the
state governments do not respect this. If you are a Muslim and you convert out
of Islam, in some states you can and will be punished.
The Constitution also allows the control of proselytizing. No
person can proselytize to Muslims if the state government makes the necessary
laws to control such actions. This includes Muslim to Muslim
proselytizing.
This is the reality in our country.
In this light, as infuriating as Hasan Ali has been with his claims
of mass proselytizing of Muslims to Christianity, he is actually pointing out a
crime. If what he says has any truth to it.
Apart from the bigger issue that ultimately I am of the opinion
that anyone can proselytize to anyone else if they want to, I have to accept
that the law in this country is that they can’t. My concern with Hasan Ali is
that he is fanning the flames of distrust by claiming, with no evidence
whatsoever that the proselytizing he is claiming to happen is a massive
Christian conspiracy.
It is laughable to think that the Christian community in this
country, with the plethora of restrictions and problems that they have in the
practice of their faith, with the attacks on their publications and the banning
of their Malay language bibles and the difficulties they face with building
their houses of worship, would choose to add to their woes by coming up with a
complex conspiracy which is not only against the law but will also bring
unwanted negative attention on them. Furthermore, what possible good can it gain
the Christian community to take such massive risks? Do Hasan Ali and his ilk
honestly believe that 17 million Muslims in this country will be converted and
the nature of this nation’s character will change? Like I said, it is
laughable.
The sad thing is that unfortunately there will be enough people who
will be blinded by the rhetoric and take what he says, with little more than a
questionable video which anyone can make, as hard evidence of this massive
conspiracy. Already a decidedly anti-Christian forum has been organised in Johor
which has as its basic theme the idea of a threatening Christian movement to
convert Muslim young.
I have always said that fear mongering by certain Muslims in this
country, those in positions of authority and those with a high public persona,
is nothing more than a smoke screen to hide their own deficiencies. If Muslims
are leaving their religion, and I do not for one second believe that it is a
large phenomenon, then the questions that the religious scholars and authorities
should be asking is where are we going wrong? Islamic teaching is all pervasive;
so there is no shortage of that, so perhaps they are doing it wrong. Instead of
pointing fingers to some ludicrous conspiracy, they need instead to look deep
into themselves.
This country teeters on the edge of an ethnic and religious schism.
This need not be so. We have more in common than we have differences and we need
to work together in peace to ensure a good future for all of us. I agree with
Abdul Rani Hasan of PAS, that there are far more pressing matters in this
country to worry about. The last thing we need are people who sow the seeds of
division for reasons, I am glad to say that I do not have the warped capacity to
imagine.
Tuesday, 3 April 2012
Wednesday, 7 March 2012
It boils down to discernment
Brave New World (The Star)
7 March 2012
In a way, film and film appreciation is a reflection of real life, with the world becoming more and more enamoured by the flashy surface at the cost of any real substance.
________________________________
THE Artist won best film at the Academy Awards recently. I haven’t seen it because it has not come to our cinemas, but I have been told that it was a clever idea and little more.
A film in black and white and totally silent, like the days of Harold Lloyd, is indeed novel, but apparently there is little else.
I won’t say anything about it because I have not seen it. But I find the Oscars to be farcical anyway. It has little to do with my life as it is, but it is usually quite a fun little distraction when it does happen.
This rather neutral feeling I had towards the whole thing changed many years ago when Titanic won the best picture award, beating LA Confidential. The gritty and complex story about corrupt cops in Los Angeles, set in the 40s was, to me, utterly brilliant.
It was beautifully shot in a distinctively noir style, had a plot which twisted and turned, amazing characters played brilliantly, and yet it lost. And lost to what? A mushy pile of steaming sentimentality.
James Cameron sure knows how to handle slam bang special effects, but apart from Terminator, Aliens and arguably T2, that’s all he is good for.
Titanic was filled with dreadful lines uttered in the most cliched manner. It was filled with moments of cringingly bad stereotypes and ended in the most ludicrous fashion.
I mean, I know the heroine was quite a big girl, but come on, there was plenty of room on that chunk of wood she was floating on.
It was as if the Academy was populated by 12-year-old girls.
I suppose it is inevitable. Film and film appreciation is in a way a reflection of real life. The world has become more and more enamoured by the flashy surface at the cost of any real substance.
To continue with my Cameron bashing, let’s look at Avatar. It seems to me that the wonders of the special effects blinded people to the positively colonial tone of the entire film. Poor little natives, so simple yet so noble, need mighty but enlightened colonials to help them. They are too childlike to help themselves, you see.
Now, at the end of the day, you can watch whatever you want. No one should stop you from taking your pleasures where you find them.
I myself am very partial to rubbish movies. I rather liked Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance, for example. But I hope that I am discerning enough to notice that it is utterly forgettable fluff and not the best movie in the history of movies.
I suppose that is what it boils down to: discernment. In the movies, just as in life, are we able to make that distinction between something of real worth, and something that may make us feel good for a little while but is ultimately of little value?
7 March 2012
In a way, film and film appreciation is a reflection of real life, with the world becoming more and more enamoured by the flashy surface at the cost of any real substance.
________________________________
THE Artist won best film at the Academy Awards recently. I haven’t seen it because it has not come to our cinemas, but I have been told that it was a clever idea and little more.
A film in black and white and totally silent, like the days of Harold Lloyd, is indeed novel, but apparently there is little else.
I won’t say anything about it because I have not seen it. But I find the Oscars to be farcical anyway. It has little to do with my life as it is, but it is usually quite a fun little distraction when it does happen.
This rather neutral feeling I had towards the whole thing changed many years ago when Titanic won the best picture award, beating LA Confidential. The gritty and complex story about corrupt cops in Los Angeles, set in the 40s was, to me, utterly brilliant.
It was beautifully shot in a distinctively noir style, had a plot which twisted and turned, amazing characters played brilliantly, and yet it lost. And lost to what? A mushy pile of steaming sentimentality.
James Cameron sure knows how to handle slam bang special effects, but apart from Terminator, Aliens and arguably T2, that’s all he is good for.
Titanic was filled with dreadful lines uttered in the most cliched manner. It was filled with moments of cringingly bad stereotypes and ended in the most ludicrous fashion.
I mean, I know the heroine was quite a big girl, but come on, there was plenty of room on that chunk of wood she was floating on.
It was as if the Academy was populated by 12-year-old girls.
I suppose it is inevitable. Film and film appreciation is in a way a reflection of real life. The world has become more and more enamoured by the flashy surface at the cost of any real substance.
To continue with my Cameron bashing, let’s look at Avatar. It seems to me that the wonders of the special effects blinded people to the positively colonial tone of the entire film. Poor little natives, so simple yet so noble, need mighty but enlightened colonials to help them. They are too childlike to help themselves, you see.
Now, at the end of the day, you can watch whatever you want. No one should stop you from taking your pleasures where you find them.
I myself am very partial to rubbish movies. I rather liked Ghost Rider Spirit of Vengeance, for example. But I hope that I am discerning enough to notice that it is utterly forgettable fluff and not the best movie in the history of movies.
I suppose that is what it boils down to: discernment. In the movies, just as in life, are we able to make that distinction between something of real worth, and something that may make us feel good for a little while but is ultimately of little value?
Tuesday, 6 March 2012
Nation of idiots in the making
Going The Distance (Selangor Times)
2 March 2012
_______________________________
We are on the brink of becoming a nation of idiots.
An argument is made, and if one disagrees with it, one makes a counter argument. This is the rational way. The intelligent way.
The idiot’s way is to scream, shout, honk motorcycle horns, let off firecrackers, hurl racial abuse and physically attack the person who is saying things you disagree with.
Sometimes the idiot’s way is loud and obnoxious as in the example above; other times it can be more measured, for example by countering an opponent’s point not with reasoning but with that lowest form of wit: sarcasm.
Whichever method is chosen, the idiot’s way does seem to be on the rise.
The people of this country deserve to be able to listen to different points of view. They have a right to listen to different points of view.
It is bad enough that they have to turn to the Internet and alternative media to obtain some semblance of balance, but when mobs can break up peaceful gatherings then we know that any thin facade of a civilised nation that we may have worn is slipping away.
What makes things worse is that there appears to be no sense of outrage from those who hold the reins of power. The people who froth at the mouth about how public gatherings can degenerate into chaos say nothing when those who commit such acts wear their shirts and are their minions.
Developed country by 2020? At this rate we should be lucky if we are not a failed state by then. Forget elections, forget human rights. Whichever group can yell the loudest and threaten the most harm, they will rule. They will determine the fate of the nation.
If you don’t like something, don’t bother coming up with a coherent argument against it, just say you will create violence and the powers that be will skitter and scamper to do your bidding.
Which raises the question, are the powers that be truly the powers that be? Or are they now mere playthings of the loutish, the crass and the crude? I have to wonder.
If one believes in freedom and human rights, one must believe it holds true for everyone. And as hard as it may be to swallow, nobody must be stopped from saying what they think, no matter how disgusted you may feel at what they have to say.
It is the burden of those who truly cherish and understand freedom to not allow personal or intellectual distaste from infringing upon the rights of others. Unfortunately such noble aspirations are not shared by the thuggish.
Yet, not for one second must we be tempted to retaliate and stop others from expressing themselves for that means we are lowering ourselves to the guttural level within which they lurk.
There is a limit to freedom however, and that is when you use your freedom to infringe upon the freedom of others.
In the past few weeks we have seen this happening many times as the boundaries of freedom are breached again and again by the mob. If this trend continues, it does not bode well for the future of Malaysia.
I said at the beginning of this article that we are on the brink of being a nation of idiots. I stopped myself from saying that we already are because I want to believe, I want to have hope, that there are enough of us who will not let it happen.
That there are enough of us who will stand up and say that we have no time for those who seek to suppress others by brute force and we have no time for those who through inaction and political cowardice let them have their way.
2 March 2012
_______________________________
We are on the brink of becoming a nation of idiots.
An argument is made, and if one disagrees with it, one makes a counter argument. This is the rational way. The intelligent way.
The idiot’s way is to scream, shout, honk motorcycle horns, let off firecrackers, hurl racial abuse and physically attack the person who is saying things you disagree with.
Sometimes the idiot’s way is loud and obnoxious as in the example above; other times it can be more measured, for example by countering an opponent’s point not with reasoning but with that lowest form of wit: sarcasm.
Whichever method is chosen, the idiot’s way does seem to be on the rise.
The people of this country deserve to be able to listen to different points of view. They have a right to listen to different points of view.
It is bad enough that they have to turn to the Internet and alternative media to obtain some semblance of balance, but when mobs can break up peaceful gatherings then we know that any thin facade of a civilised nation that we may have worn is slipping away.
What makes things worse is that there appears to be no sense of outrage from those who hold the reins of power. The people who froth at the mouth about how public gatherings can degenerate into chaos say nothing when those who commit such acts wear their shirts and are their minions.
Developed country by 2020? At this rate we should be lucky if we are not a failed state by then. Forget elections, forget human rights. Whichever group can yell the loudest and threaten the most harm, they will rule. They will determine the fate of the nation.
If you don’t like something, don’t bother coming up with a coherent argument against it, just say you will create violence and the powers that be will skitter and scamper to do your bidding.
Which raises the question, are the powers that be truly the powers that be? Or are they now mere playthings of the loutish, the crass and the crude? I have to wonder.
If one believes in freedom and human rights, one must believe it holds true for everyone. And as hard as it may be to swallow, nobody must be stopped from saying what they think, no matter how disgusted you may feel at what they have to say.
It is the burden of those who truly cherish and understand freedom to not allow personal or intellectual distaste from infringing upon the rights of others. Unfortunately such noble aspirations are not shared by the thuggish.
Yet, not for one second must we be tempted to retaliate and stop others from expressing themselves for that means we are lowering ourselves to the guttural level within which they lurk.
There is a limit to freedom however, and that is when you use your freedom to infringe upon the freedom of others.
In the past few weeks we have seen this happening many times as the boundaries of freedom are breached again and again by the mob. If this trend continues, it does not bode well for the future of Malaysia.
I said at the beginning of this article that we are on the brink of being a nation of idiots. I stopped myself from saying that we already are because I want to believe, I want to have hope, that there are enough of us who will not let it happen.
That there are enough of us who will stand up and say that we have no time for those who seek to suppress others by brute force and we have no time for those who through inaction and political cowardice let them have their way.
Practising the state of being impartial
Brave New World (The Star)
23 February 2012
Impartiality is a simple word and many of our problems can be solved by just appreciating and practising this term.
_______________________________________
IMPARTIALITY is defined as being not biased for or against any party; free from favouritism or self interest.
It is a fairly simple concept, one which I think most people would be able to understand.
Of course, there are times when one is incapable of being impartial.
If you support a particular team, you will consider your team as the greatest, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Once I saw a banner at some dinky little football game with the words “Brighton Hove Albion: The Best Football Team in the World”. Really? Better than Barcelona? And where is Brighton Hove Albion anyway?
It sounds like a brand of bread. “A loaf of Brighton Hove Albion please”.
Having said that, I understand the impartiality of BHA fans, in fact I am equally guilty of being totally biased and prejudiced when it comes to supporting my football team.
But at the end of the day, this sort of blinkered attitude does no harm apart from the derisive laughter and taunting we get from far more successful clubs.
The same can’t be said about other situations however.
Impartiality, and perhaps even more important, the perception of impartiality is vital in some circumstances. Sometimes it just makes for a better end product.
A political debate for example must have an impartial moderator and preferable questions to the debaters ought to come from that moderator. Even questions from the floor should be directed through the moderator who can then choose the best ones.
That is why he is called the moderator. He moderates.
In academia, we are expected to be impartial. This is in order for a better quality of research to be produced and following from this better teaching.
Often I have been asked why I am critical of the Government especially since I work in a so-called government university.
Well, I think I work in a public university paid for by tax payers’ money and one of my responsibilities is to be critical of laws which I think are unjust; with academic reasoning, naturally.
If I don’t do that, then I will be perpetuating a wrong and I won’t be doing my job properly.
Those who work in the civil service however, have different responsibilities because they are directly answerable to the elected government and their job is to implement the policies.
In that sense, they have less freedom in their jobs compared to academics.
However, they still have to be impartial because their duties are to basically carry out the decisions of those who are currently their bosses. They are expected to be impartial regardless of their own political leanings.
If they think the policies are poor, they should have the right to voice their concerns but ultimately they have to do what is required of them. Besides, if their bosses are rubbish, they can be voted out, civil servants can’t.
In my last example, impartiality is absolutely imperative for without it, there can be no law and order. I am speaking of course of the police.
In the past few weeks there have been uncomfortable stories of thugs attacking people because they are saying things which they disagree with.
For some this is grist for the mill in their argument that public displays of political expressions must be controlled.
That is a spurious argument. The wrongdoers are those who disrupt the freedom of expression, not those who are simply practising their right. Any trouble will only be made worse if the police are not seen as impartial in their dealing with the situation.
Their job is to enforce the law equally, and not only for those who are deemed a threat to the current political masters.
This applies whoever the political masters may be. It is only where bias or prejudice is perceived, does real trouble erupt.
Impartiality is a simple concept. Perhaps our problems in this nation are not so intractable. Many can be solved by just appreciating and practising this simple little term.
It is only when we have lost faith that such a basic idea can be ignored, then we know that things are truly bad.
23 February 2012
Impartiality is a simple word and many of our problems can be solved by just appreciating and practising this term.
_______________________________________
IMPARTIALITY is defined as being not biased for or against any party; free from favouritism or self interest.
It is a fairly simple concept, one which I think most people would be able to understand.
Of course, there are times when one is incapable of being impartial.
If you support a particular team, you will consider your team as the greatest, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Once I saw a banner at some dinky little football game with the words “Brighton Hove Albion: The Best Football Team in the World”. Really? Better than Barcelona? And where is Brighton Hove Albion anyway?
It sounds like a brand of bread. “A loaf of Brighton Hove Albion please”.
Having said that, I understand the impartiality of BHA fans, in fact I am equally guilty of being totally biased and prejudiced when it comes to supporting my football team.
But at the end of the day, this sort of blinkered attitude does no harm apart from the derisive laughter and taunting we get from far more successful clubs.
The same can’t be said about other situations however.
Impartiality, and perhaps even more important, the perception of impartiality is vital in some circumstances. Sometimes it just makes for a better end product.
A political debate for example must have an impartial moderator and preferable questions to the debaters ought to come from that moderator. Even questions from the floor should be directed through the moderator who can then choose the best ones.
That is why he is called the moderator. He moderates.
In academia, we are expected to be impartial. This is in order for a better quality of research to be produced and following from this better teaching.
Often I have been asked why I am critical of the Government especially since I work in a so-called government university.
Well, I think I work in a public university paid for by tax payers’ money and one of my responsibilities is to be critical of laws which I think are unjust; with academic reasoning, naturally.
If I don’t do that, then I will be perpetuating a wrong and I won’t be doing my job properly.
Those who work in the civil service however, have different responsibilities because they are directly answerable to the elected government and their job is to implement the policies.
In that sense, they have less freedom in their jobs compared to academics.
However, they still have to be impartial because their duties are to basically carry out the decisions of those who are currently their bosses. They are expected to be impartial regardless of their own political leanings.
If they think the policies are poor, they should have the right to voice their concerns but ultimately they have to do what is required of them. Besides, if their bosses are rubbish, they can be voted out, civil servants can’t.
In my last example, impartiality is absolutely imperative for without it, there can be no law and order. I am speaking of course of the police.
In the past few weeks there have been uncomfortable stories of thugs attacking people because they are saying things which they disagree with.
For some this is grist for the mill in their argument that public displays of political expressions must be controlled.
That is a spurious argument. The wrongdoers are those who disrupt the freedom of expression, not those who are simply practising their right. Any trouble will only be made worse if the police are not seen as impartial in their dealing with the situation.
Their job is to enforce the law equally, and not only for those who are deemed a threat to the current political masters.
This applies whoever the political masters may be. It is only where bias or prejudice is perceived, does real trouble erupt.
Impartiality is a simple concept. Perhaps our problems in this nation are not so intractable. Many can be solved by just appreciating and practising this simple little term.
It is only when we have lost faith that such a basic idea can be ignored, then we know that things are truly bad.
Sunday, 12 February 2012
No strings attached, please
Brave New World (The Star)
9 February 2012
Granting autonomy to a few of our public universities looks wonderful. But it will be an exercise in futility if each faculty or department is not free to determine its path.
______________________________
A FEW public universities in this country have recently been promised autonomy. How nice. I wonder, however, if there is a true understanding among the powers that be as to what university autonomy actually means.
Looking at what is promised to this bunch of soon-to-be-autonomous universities, I have my doubts.
The autonomy in question appears to be very technical in nature. For example, the autonomy to make student selection, determine pay schemes and the freedom to raise funds.
This is all well and good but it is only the tip of the iceberg where the concept of university autonomy is concerned and it also raises some disturbing questions.
The main thrust about university autonomy is that universities must be able to make academic and policy decisions free from any interference.
They are not totally free, of course, because the university council or board or whatever you might want to call it sits at the apex of university administration and the management is answerable to it.
However, this system of accountability is very much in-house and there is no government interference as such.
Furthermore, this autonomy spreads to the various faculties and even the various departments in a university.
Each department should be free to determine its path, and they are the ones who would lay down the standards and values which they consider important for their particular discipline.
For example, what would a Physics department know about what constitutes quality publications in the English department?
Top universities in the world like Harvard acknowledge that the autonomy of their university as well as the component faculties and departments of their university is one of the reasons of their continued success.
Looking at the so-called new more autonomous system being promised, I see no mention of this sort of academic autonomy, and it is worrying because, without it, then any exercise in granting autonomy to universities would be an exercise in futility because the fruits of true autonomy cannot be obtained.
An issue which is also not raised is one of academic freedom. Here, I shall discuss only academic freedom where staff are concerned.
What is the point of having an autonomous university if your academicians are cowed and fearful of teaching, writing and publishing issues which the Government deems sensitive or a threat to national security?
Academic freedom must only be limited by academic rigour; that is to say your work must stand up to standards of academic scholarship.
Academic freedom must not be curtailed either by law or a university management beholden to its political masters.
If the Government is serious about autonomy it must also be serious about academic freedom, and one thing it can do is either revoke the Statutory Bodies Discipline and Surcharge Act or amend it to remove academics from its clutches.
For those of you who don’t read Acts of Parliament in your spare time, this particular law makes it an offence for an academic to say or write anything for or against government policy without prior permission.
It sounds unbelievably obtuse, and that is because it is. Of course every single academic can’t be checked for every single thing he or she says or writes, but this law exists and it hangs like a sword of Damocles over our heads ready to fall down when any one of us is deemed to have displeased those who must not be displeased.
My final concern is about the financial autonomy that is being promised. Is there a price attached to this? I believe there is and the price would be less public funding.
This is a major issue that has to be considered by the people of this country. Should our institutions be funded by public coffers or should they be left on their own to find their funds?
The hardcore capitalists among you will point out that in America all the very best universities are actually private universities. I would like to point out two things.
First, in the US there is a very strong and long running system of endowments. Furthermore, the alumni of US universities tend to be very generous to their alma maters. Perhaps because their donations lead to tax breaks.
We have no such culture here and neither does it exist in Europe where the top universities are all public universities.
Another thing we have to consider is that one of the ways that a privately funded university makes money is by charging astronomical fees. Are we ready for that in this country? Should our people have to pay ludicrous amounts of money for their children’s education?
And on an academic note, if universities are expected to make money and be self reliant, what then of courses which have no immediate financial value?
As a university is also a storehouse of knowledge, what will become of the departments which have little perceptible economic value? Will they disappear? Go the way of the dodo and the philosophy departments in this country?
This so-called new autonomy is supposed to make our universities institutions of excellence. I have my doubts simply because these measures do not go far enough. There are many factors which have not been considered.
It is ironic that with regard to the future of our bodies of higher thinking, there does not appear to have been enough thinking done.
9 February 2012
Granting autonomy to a few of our public universities looks wonderful. But it will be an exercise in futility if each faculty or department is not free to determine its path.
______________________________
A FEW public universities in this country have recently been promised autonomy. How nice. I wonder, however, if there is a true understanding among the powers that be as to what university autonomy actually means.
Looking at what is promised to this bunch of soon-to-be-autonomous universities, I have my doubts.
The autonomy in question appears to be very technical in nature. For example, the autonomy to make student selection, determine pay schemes and the freedom to raise funds.
This is all well and good but it is only the tip of the iceberg where the concept of university autonomy is concerned and it also raises some disturbing questions.
The main thrust about university autonomy is that universities must be able to make academic and policy decisions free from any interference.
They are not totally free, of course, because the university council or board or whatever you might want to call it sits at the apex of university administration and the management is answerable to it.
However, this system of accountability is very much in-house and there is no government interference as such.
Furthermore, this autonomy spreads to the various faculties and even the various departments in a university.
Each department should be free to determine its path, and they are the ones who would lay down the standards and values which they consider important for their particular discipline.
For example, what would a Physics department know about what constitutes quality publications in the English department?
Top universities in the world like Harvard acknowledge that the autonomy of their university as well as the component faculties and departments of their university is one of the reasons of their continued success.
Looking at the so-called new more autonomous system being promised, I see no mention of this sort of academic autonomy, and it is worrying because, without it, then any exercise in granting autonomy to universities would be an exercise in futility because the fruits of true autonomy cannot be obtained.
An issue which is also not raised is one of academic freedom. Here, I shall discuss only academic freedom where staff are concerned.
What is the point of having an autonomous university if your academicians are cowed and fearful of teaching, writing and publishing issues which the Government deems sensitive or a threat to national security?
Academic freedom must only be limited by academic rigour; that is to say your work must stand up to standards of academic scholarship.
Academic freedom must not be curtailed either by law or a university management beholden to its political masters.
If the Government is serious about autonomy it must also be serious about academic freedom, and one thing it can do is either revoke the Statutory Bodies Discipline and Surcharge Act or amend it to remove academics from its clutches.
For those of you who don’t read Acts of Parliament in your spare time, this particular law makes it an offence for an academic to say or write anything for or against government policy without prior permission.
It sounds unbelievably obtuse, and that is because it is. Of course every single academic can’t be checked for every single thing he or she says or writes, but this law exists and it hangs like a sword of Damocles over our heads ready to fall down when any one of us is deemed to have displeased those who must not be displeased.
My final concern is about the financial autonomy that is being promised. Is there a price attached to this? I believe there is and the price would be less public funding.
This is a major issue that has to be considered by the people of this country. Should our institutions be funded by public coffers or should they be left on their own to find their funds?
The hardcore capitalists among you will point out that in America all the very best universities are actually private universities. I would like to point out two things.
First, in the US there is a very strong and long running system of endowments. Furthermore, the alumni of US universities tend to be very generous to their alma maters. Perhaps because their donations lead to tax breaks.
We have no such culture here and neither does it exist in Europe where the top universities are all public universities.
Another thing we have to consider is that one of the ways that a privately funded university makes money is by charging astronomical fees. Are we ready for that in this country? Should our people have to pay ludicrous amounts of money for their children’s education?
And on an academic note, if universities are expected to make money and be self reliant, what then of courses which have no immediate financial value?
As a university is also a storehouse of knowledge, what will become of the departments which have little perceptible economic value? Will they disappear? Go the way of the dodo and the philosophy departments in this country?
This so-called new autonomy is supposed to make our universities institutions of excellence. I have my doubts simply because these measures do not go far enough. There are many factors which have not been considered.
It is ironic that with regard to the future of our bodies of higher thinking, there does not appear to have been enough thinking done.
Tuesday, 7 February 2012
When silence implies consent
Selangor Times
3 February 2012
________________________________
On Jan 21, a mob of supposedly Umno supporters attacked a forum organised by Hindraf and the group calling itself ABU (Anything But Umno). From the videos posted online, it is clear that this was an unprovoked attack.
Unless you take the police line which said that the forum was organised in a Malay area and therefore such an attack was to be expected. An odd logic since many of the organisers and speakers were Malay.
Be that as it may, there are also accusations that the police did not act in an impartial way and did not do enough to stop those who instigated this attack. Well, if this is true, it does not come as much of a surprise.
Any group which gathers and is seen to be in favour of Umno (I would say the BN but I can’t think of any examples of a BN mob), seems to be treated with kid gloves.
A few weeks ago a group of rotund men made a video where they threatened to commit battery on a university student for daring to take down a flag of their dear leader Datuk Seri Najib Razak. As far as I know, no action was taken against them.
Now, I wonder if these kinds of thuggish behaviour will actually turn people against the BN. For those who are directly involved, it most certainly will. But for those who were not at these places and did not get hurt by these thugs, I really do wonder.
After all, the BN is busy right now spreading goodies all over the place. They promise that they are going to fix Tamil schools, build houses for the Orang Asli and there’s cash being handed out left, right and centre (unfortunately, not in my direction).
So does the electorate care that in this country, mob behaviour is practically condoned? Should they care?
Of course I can write on about justice, rule of law and might not being right. But as much as I believe in these ideals, the Malaysian mind being what it is, a more pragmatic approach is required. What then are the pragmatic consequences that spring from having a government that is not willing to come out and condemn such behaviour?
The most obvious concern would be the hindrance to free speech and expression. Free speech and expression, as the government is so fond of saying, does not include violent behaviour. How correct they are. Threatening and hurting another person cannot be seen as a legitimate form of expression.
If a group of morons on motorbikes can storm a hall and get away scot free, then naturally people will be afraid to express themselves, or to even come and listen to others expressing themselves.
Without open and free expression, then a country can be run into the ground by the corrupt and inept without the people knowing about it. In other words, if we want to be successful and prosperous, we need to have free speech. We need differing opinions so that we can be informed and act accordingly.
The second pragmatic concern is that if our law enforcement agencies are not going to clamp down on such behaviour, then really, what are they there for? Their motto is currently “firm, fair and prudent”. Firm with whom, fair to whom and prudent in what is the question to be asked? Any gathering organised by people not from or sympathetic to the ruling party will get the police knickers in a collective twist because they are always spouting on and on about public safety.
Well then, I would have thought that when public safety was actually threatened they would jump at the chance to show off their prowess. It does not look like it. However at the time of writing a man has been brought in for questioning by our boys in blue, so I am hoping they will prove me wrong.
The final concern is simply this, if a leadership is not willing to say outright that mob violence is wrong, even when that mob seems to be supporting their agenda, then it means that this is a government for whom the ends justifies the means.
This means that we the people cannot be safe for they are leading not with any principle but by pure pragmatism and when that happens, anything can happen.
3 February 2012
________________________________
On Jan 21, a mob of supposedly Umno supporters attacked a forum organised by Hindraf and the group calling itself ABU (Anything But Umno). From the videos posted online, it is clear that this was an unprovoked attack.
Unless you take the police line which said that the forum was organised in a Malay area and therefore such an attack was to be expected. An odd logic since many of the organisers and speakers were Malay.
Be that as it may, there are also accusations that the police did not act in an impartial way and did not do enough to stop those who instigated this attack. Well, if this is true, it does not come as much of a surprise.
Any group which gathers and is seen to be in favour of Umno (I would say the BN but I can’t think of any examples of a BN mob), seems to be treated with kid gloves.
A few weeks ago a group of rotund men made a video where they threatened to commit battery on a university student for daring to take down a flag of their dear leader Datuk Seri Najib Razak. As far as I know, no action was taken against them.
Now, I wonder if these kinds of thuggish behaviour will actually turn people against the BN. For those who are directly involved, it most certainly will. But for those who were not at these places and did not get hurt by these thugs, I really do wonder.
After all, the BN is busy right now spreading goodies all over the place. They promise that they are going to fix Tamil schools, build houses for the Orang Asli and there’s cash being handed out left, right and centre (unfortunately, not in my direction).
So does the electorate care that in this country, mob behaviour is practically condoned? Should they care?
Of course I can write on about justice, rule of law and might not being right. But as much as I believe in these ideals, the Malaysian mind being what it is, a more pragmatic approach is required. What then are the pragmatic consequences that spring from having a government that is not willing to come out and condemn such behaviour?
The most obvious concern would be the hindrance to free speech and expression. Free speech and expression, as the government is so fond of saying, does not include violent behaviour. How correct they are. Threatening and hurting another person cannot be seen as a legitimate form of expression.
If a group of morons on motorbikes can storm a hall and get away scot free, then naturally people will be afraid to express themselves, or to even come and listen to others expressing themselves.
Without open and free expression, then a country can be run into the ground by the corrupt and inept without the people knowing about it. In other words, if we want to be successful and prosperous, we need to have free speech. We need differing opinions so that we can be informed and act accordingly.
The second pragmatic concern is that if our law enforcement agencies are not going to clamp down on such behaviour, then really, what are they there for? Their motto is currently “firm, fair and prudent”. Firm with whom, fair to whom and prudent in what is the question to be asked? Any gathering organised by people not from or sympathetic to the ruling party will get the police knickers in a collective twist because they are always spouting on and on about public safety.
Well then, I would have thought that when public safety was actually threatened they would jump at the chance to show off their prowess. It does not look like it. However at the time of writing a man has been brought in for questioning by our boys in blue, so I am hoping they will prove me wrong.
The final concern is simply this, if a leadership is not willing to say outright that mob violence is wrong, even when that mob seems to be supporting their agenda, then it means that this is a government for whom the ends justifies the means.
This means that we the people cannot be safe for they are leading not with any principle but by pure pragmatism and when that happens, anything can happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
