By AB Sulaiman
The Times Higher Education World University Ranking
has recently announced the results of its survey and the ranking of
universities from all over the world for 2011-2012.
In the past, some of our universities have done modestly
well, slotted in the low 200 -300 positions.
But for the first time, none did any better than 400 this
year. We Malaysians have every right to be stumped. What has gone miserably,
pathetically, pitifully wrong?
We all know that in this country, education as an institution
has broken down, but surely not this badly!
Many concerned citizens like (DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang,
usually the first to highlight the issue to the public domain) have voiced
their opinions.
They cite the application of the quota system, Malay-only
vice-chancellors policy or practice, poor funding for research, etc.
But here I am not about to collate or reiterate and summarise
these reasons, plausible as they might be.
Rather, I wish to present another and more fundamental
explanation that might have escaped the attention of commentators.
The reason to me is that our collective approach to higher
learning is off tangent from universal practice in that it encourages and
nurtures close-mindedness and not open-minded thinking.
A quick check with the visions and missions of three top
ranking universities namely Harvard, Cambridge and the National University of
Singapore, would amply substantiate this point.
Harvard and Cambridge are consistently among the top ten,
while the NUS hovers at around the forties or higher. They are among the crème
de la crème of world universities.
First, Harvard. Its webpage says:
‘Harvard strives to create knowledge, to open the minds of
students to that knowledge, and to enable students to take best advantage of
their educational opportunities. To these ends, the college encourages students
to respect ideas and their free expression, and to rejoice in discovery and in
critical thought; to pursue excellence in a spirit of productive cooperation;
and to assume responsibility for the consequences of personal actions. Harvard
seeks to identify and to remove restraints on students' full participation, so
that individuals may explore their capabilities and interests and may develop
their full intellectual and human potential.'
Note some key governing phrases, namely ‘to respect ideas and
their free expression', ‘to rejoice in discovery and critical thought', and ‘to
assume responsibility for the consequences of personal actions'.
Cambridge University has its own mission statement as well:
‘The mission of the University of Cambridge is to contribute to
society through the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest
international levels of excellence.'
This university's core values are as follows: Freedom of
thought and expression, and freedom from discrimination.
NUS in its turn aspires to be ‘a bold and dynamic community,
with a "no walls" culture and a spirit of enterprise that strives for
positive influence and impact through our education, research and service'.
All three universities seem to have virtually the same vision
and mission namely to make their students to think openly and even
courageously.
These august institutions are aware that the human mind works
best when it is free from encumbrances and pre-determined parameters, or the
‘walls' of NUS. They know that only with this complete and total freedom can
the mind explore the smallest atoms and the farthest reaches of the universe.
Their approach to learning thereby is to develop and
encourage original cutting edge thinking, of daring to explore, of initiative and
creativity, of developing an open mind free from conservatism, conformity,
prejudice, myth and dogma.
Wrong
vision
I believe our universities are not looking into education in
this time-tested way.
For this I'd highlight the vision and mission statement of
the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). Its charter says it seeks to protect
the sanctity and supremacy of God, and to put theory into practice.
It also strives to promote the Malay language. I remember
reading about this some time ago. A quick check on its webpage indicates this
vision is basically unchanged.
A closer examination of this vision indicates that this
university does not teach its students to ‘respect ideas and their free
expression, and to rejoice in discovery and in critical thought' as articulated
by high achieving universities like Harvard.
Instead it stresses its students to protect the sanctity of
Islam, and to champion the rebirth or strengthening of the Malay language and
culture.
Now, I have nothing against the protection of Islam or any
religion. Nor do I have any aversion to the vision of nurturing the health of
the Malay language and culture.
Only that they are far and away from open, objective and
critical thinking.
Instead, this thinking puts encumbrances and limitations to the
pursuit of ‘excellence in a spirit of productive cooperation; and to assume
responsibility for the consequences of personal actions.' They are in fact the
symptoms of the closed or ethnocentric mind.
In a nutshell UKM does not go for truth, but instead for what
the authorities want the truth to be. It does not go for intellectual honesty.
No analysis is encouraged, but what is encouraged is the
passive acceptance of past wisdom and prejudices.
All these do not promote proper thinking, but they propagate
value judgments: prejudices, doctrines and dogmas, speculations. They are
discriminatory.
History
written by the victors
The present issue of history text books would amply
illustrate this government-sponsored ‘truth' and its agenda of pushing for this
truth to the minds of the younger generation.
To the authorities, history is to be written by the victors
and they have rewritten school texts to suit the government's ‘victorious'
views.
History is to be made a compulsory subject in schools thus
forcing the young to absorb and internalise these doctored views.
To reiterate I have no qualms about any person championing
the welfare and well-being of his race or religion, for I suppose any
reasonable person would have an affinity and love for his race and religion.
But this should remain as a personal trait and remain there.
To make it into an overt university vision and mission statement is too much.
Why? Because by doing so the university is consciously and deliberately
propagating racial and religious preferences.
Race and religion are emotive and subjective and are far and
away from objective principles.
It becomes understandable to state that UKM does not educate
its students in intellectual honesty, but instead its antithesis i.e.
intellectual deviousness and dishonesty.
It is for this that I feel no Malaysian universities are
ranked among the top in the world, but instead will slide down further and
further as the years go by. I think they deserve this.
I might be accused of being anti-Malay and anti-Islam for
saying the above. My detractors and critics might counter by saying that surely
Malaysian university education is not all that bad?
For this I refer to two articles written by Susan Loone in
Malaysiakini on Oct 6. The first is her report on a presentation made by
Professor Mohd Asri Zainal Abidin, former mufti of Perlis and an outspoken
critic of conservative and conformist Islam.
"Professor Mohd Asri Zainal Abidin has attributed the
lack of intellectual development in the Malay community to the 'restrictions
imposed by the authorities' on their freedom of thought and expression",
writes Loone.
She continued by quoting Mohd Asri as saying that
"Knowledge should not be dependent on political power as control of
people's thoughts can ‘kill' intellectual discourse."
Mohd Asri said if the authorities continue to "control
and direct" intellectual content, the rakyat would never be able to obtain
the right facts.
Loone's second article carries the headline ‘Historian: We
are trapped in an intellectual coffin'.
This time according to her, a Malaysian historian (Ariffin
Omar, a lecturer) bemoaned the disappearance of cultural and political freedom
as reasons for the stagnation of the nation's intellectual development.
Omar said (Loone writes further) that a nation needs a
healthy dose of culture, politics and knowledge if it wants a steady growth of
intellectual discourse from issues ranging from mainstream to ones considered
‘sensitive'.
"But what happens here is that when you speak your mind,
you are persecuted as a traitor of the nation. Why is there no maturity in
politics?" he queried.
The two thinkers have bravely and frankly voiced out this
glaring weakness and we owe them a vote of thanks for speaking out.
In addition we should thank Loone for her part in sharing and
spreading their views to the public domain. For my part I am assuming she
‘allows' me to virtually reproduce her work here and to thank her for it.
Decay
of intellectualism
The country is suffering from the stagnation and decay of
intellectualism which in turn is reflected in the poor showing of Malaysian
universities in the THE survey.
We see the products and symptoms of this stagnation and decay
every day, as highlighted by the following short list:
a. Incompetence instead of professionalism in the public
workplace. The ratio of civil servants to the population is among the highest
in the world.
b. Intellectual dishonesty instead of personal integrity. A
Judge for example is under public suspicion for plagiarising a judgment. The
breaking down of the rule of law and the rise in corruption are other
illustrations.
c. Fracture and cleavage in between different ethnic groups.
The Malays are asserting their ‘Malayness' at the expense of the other ethnic
groups.
d. Religious intolerance. The leaders are determined to
implement hudud law despite the constitutional objections to such a ruling.
It's painful to add more into this list although it's too
easy to do so.
To conclude, a friend, Paul Laine, from Finland, imparted to
me a saying from his country: ‘The rotting of a fish starts from the head'.
I remember this now as I see the rot in the university education
producing mediocre leaders who then drag the country intellectually downhill.
Thanks Paul, for your wisdom.
AB SULAIMAN is an observer of
human traits and foibles, especially within the context of religion and
culture. As a liberal, he marvels at the way orthodoxy fights to maintain its
credibility in a devilishly fast-changing world. He hopes to provide some
understanding to the issues at hand and wherever possible, suggest some
solutions. He holds a Bachelor in Social Sciences (Leicester, UK) and a Diploma
in Public Administration, Universiti Malaya.
Source : MK
No comments:
Post a Comment