Muslim first...(Part II): Islamization and '1Malaysia'

The Malaysian society I grew up in was certainly different from what it is today. I started primary school in 1984 at the time when the effects of the Islamization wave, which began in the 1970's was yet to be seen. I went to a primary school in Kelana Jaya, a then young housing area in the fringes of Petaling Jaya. The local society was truly multiracial and this was reflected by the multiracial composition of my classmates in school.

Looking back at my class photos, I can see that when I was in Standard 1 (Tahun 1 Limau, 1984, Sekolah Rendah Kebangsaan Taman Seaport), out of 45 students in that class, only twelve of them were Malays. I had 20 Chinese classmates, eight Indians while the rest were Kadazan-Dusun, Ceylonese and Eurasians. And my Standard 2 class (Tahun 2 Durian, 1985) was the same. There were 44 students in the class, 15 of them Malays, 21 Chinese and five Indians.

Those numbers sum-up quite nicely my childhood environment. My friends and I, we were truly '1Malaysia'. In fact, my best mate in primary school was a Chinese boy named Oliver, and in my first three years of secondary school in Kelana Jaya, my closest friend was my Indian buddy, Thanaraj.

I was conscious about my race and religion, and I'm sure all my friends in school were conscious of theirs too. That, however, did not stop us from playing together. We knew we had different cultural-religious beliefs and practices. We talked about them at times and from these conversations we learned to respect one another.

Occasionally, there were misunderstandings. I can recall one specific occasion when we were all tired and thirsty after playing football, a Chinese friend refused to drink water from the same bottle with me, not because he thought my bottle was dirty or anything but because; as what he said "aku makan babi" (I eat pork)". He was genuinely concerned that if his lips touched the bottle, the bottle would instantly become haram (forbidden) for me to drink from. 

I can see from those old class photos too that back then, all of us Malay boys wore shorts to school while the Malay girls all wore pinafores. One or two Malay girls started wearing baju kurung in Standard 4 while the boys started wearing long pants in Standard 5. Even in Standard 6, there were still more Malay girls in pinafores and skirts (prefect attire). Now, all Malay boys in primary schools right from Standard 1, wear long pants to school, and all the Malay girls wear baju kurung with tudung or headscarves as well.

The Malay-Muslim society in Malaysia has certainly become more Islamic over the last three decades. The influx of Islamic television programmes in recent years is a stark reminder of that too. Back in the early 1980's, the only regular religious programme was Muqaddam, a basic Quran reading programme hosted by Ustaz Hassan Azhari, aired on RTM1 every afternoon. Friday sermons were not even shown live on national television. There were recorded and aired after the evening news at 8.30 pm on Fridays. I remember this because what came immediately after was Tayangan Minggu Ini, a programme which aired old Malay movies of P. Ramlee and his contemporaries.  

The ‘Islamic Malaysia’ that we live in today is a country were 'Islamic' content penetrates into all spheres of life; in education, entertainment, medicine, finance, fashion and others. A Muslim, like me, certainly has no problems with this for Islam is my religion. But for non-Muslims?

I can understand their concerns. More so if I imagine myself in a reversed situation, i.e. a Muslim minority living in a non-Muslim majority society. If, for example that I live in the UK, and the British people suddenly became more religious that all public schools suddenly revert to routines and practices of mission schools in the past; with prayers read and hymns sang in student assemblies, the BBC begin to air more religious programmes; live coverage of mass on Sundays, Christian talent shows etc, and the British Prime Minister announcing a national policy of insertion of Christian values in public service, as a Muslim living in the UK, I would definitely be very concerned.      

Coming back to the reality here in Malaysia, I disagree with the popular assumption that the person chiefly responsible for the Islamization of the society was former Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir. Yes, he was indeed the man who introduced a national policy of insertion of Islamic values (dasar penerapan nilai-nilai Islam) in the 1980's, and the Islamization wave that hit the country coincides nicely with his premiership. But really, that was pretty much what it was, a coincidence. Anyone who became prime minister at that time would have introduced some form of Islamization, one way or another.

Not to say that Dr. Mahathir was insincere. He was indeed the country's first practicing Muslim prime minister. And I do believe he is genuinely religious in his own way. But more than anything, Dr. Mahathir was a cunning observer of political trends. He recognised and understood the Islamization wave that hit, not only the Muslims here but Muslims all over the world. He knew that if UMNO did not try to 'Islamize' itself, it might lose its position to PAS as the major political vehicle for the Malays. So he went on executing a deliberate political strategy’ to Islamize’ the government and his party. And getting the then ABIM president, Anwar Ibrahim, to join UMNO was undoubtedly part of that strategy.     

As far as winning the hearts and minds of the Muslims is concern, that strategy worked. Except for his last general election in 1999, UMNO and Barisan Nasional garnered the majority of Malay votes in every general election held during Dr. Mahathir’s tenure. But when it comes to race relations and national integration, that strategy has certainly caused great consternation.

Many non-Malays now refer to national schools as 'Malay schools' precisely because almost all the students there are Malays. There are hardly any non-Malays. The situation is particularly acute in urban areas. I live in the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur and the local national primary school here has not had a single Chinese student enrolled for more than ten years.          

Non-Muslim parents, especially Chinese, have overwhelmingly refused to send their children to national primary schools. This has been going on for almost two decades now, hence, as a result, we have an entire generation of Malaysians growing up in a more-or-less homogeneous environment; growing up interacting only with those of the same race with very little interaction with others.

When you don’t interact with others, what would be the most likely effect? Tolerance and acceptance, or prejudice and discrimination? You don't need a PhD in social psychology or sociology to know the answer.

The situation today certainly does not look good. The dream for a ‘Bangsa Malaysia’ and ‘1Malaysia’ looks increasingly more like a pipe dream. But I believe there are still ways to salvage that dream. It requires commitment and sacrifices from all; Muslims and non-Muslims, Malays and non-Malays. For the sake of genuine peace and harmony, each of us needs to accept some changes and let go some of our long-held opinions.

For example...

Disillusioned II (Redemption)

Firstly, I would like to thank everyone who has been so kind to leave comments in my blog particularly those that were made on my previous post. I wish to clarify a few things about that post and simultaneously respond to some of the comments made.

Students who took the course History & Philosophy of Psychology with me would probably recall my fascination with the ideas of a certain philosopher of science named Paul Feyerabend. Feyerabend was a controversial figure who advocated the argument that science does not need strict methodologies. His most famous book was aptly titled Against Method in which his main thesis was, in science "anything goes".

As someone who has always been quite uncomfortable with strict adherence with methods and methodologies, Feyerabend's ideas were certainly very appealing. Here is a philosopher who has written exactly about what I've been struggling with philosophically and intellectually. In all these years that I've been a student and teacher of psychology, I've never been able to really embrace the conventional notion of what is scientific and what is not. I certainly do not think that pure objectivity is ever possible and I find many of the so called 'scientific' arguments in the humanities and social sciences very pedantic and superficial.

This is the 'demon' that has haunted me for many years that no matter how much I read and try to impress myself with 'scientific' academic work, almost always I end up feeling dissatisfied and disillusioned. Haunted by this still I am as I continue to struggle this past year conceptualising my doctoral research. The dilemma here is, how to remain true and honest to my philosophical beliefs while accepting that adherence to certain rules and principles is mandatory?

That is me and my confused state of thinking. While I continue with my own internal struggle, I have never and will never look at it as a way to elevate myself above others. Others are entitled to form their own opinion and I respect them for that. Allow me to put it on record here that my previous post was never intended to criticise in any way any of my colleagues and friends. If indeed I have hurt anyone's feelings, please accept my apology.

Let me now explain the context behind my general criticism against academicians written in my previous post. Since my doctoral research is essentially about ethnic relations in Malaysia, I've been reading various literatures on the issue available across all fields of social sciences. I was impressed by many of these work but cannot honestly say the same for some others. What I find to be very disconcerting on one hand, are scholars/writers who pass simplistic and bias conclusions. And on the other, those who dwell too much on fancy terminologies and theories while offering little in real substance. Of course, one is entitled to express his/her subjective opinions. But an academic by right should know how to refrain him/herself from passing unfair judgments against others.

If I may briefly offer an example, on the issue of the education system in Malaysia particularly the argument for and against national schools and vernacular schools, I do not think for once there are any sides who are totally right or totally wrong. Such a complex issue should be analysed in all its complexities. I can understand if a politician argues in such a way that he projects the blame totally to a particular group. Politicians are concern about being popular hence they often resort to petty and simplistic arguments. But when an academician resorts to the same sort of argument, I find that very sad and annoying.

I hope this post will help clarify a few things. Certainly, many things I've written here have touched the surface of various intellectual and philosophical issues that I hope to discuss and write more about in the future. Ma'as salamah!

Disillusioned

I am a city lad. I grew up in Petaling Jaya and now live in Kuala Lumpur. I've never lived in a kampung and I've never known how it's like really to be poor. Yet I often lose sleep whenever I see and read about the struggles of others. Why?

I met a few associates at a mamak joint a few weeks back. I expressed my bewilderment on what goes through the minds of politicians. Do they not lose sleep thinking about the poor? When they walk around and meet people, do they not realise how difficult life is for many others?

“You are assuming they have a conscience”, said the eldest among us. Apparently they don't. All politicians by nature are self-serving and think always about themselves before others. “People first, performance now”, what exactly those words mean I would never know I guess.

A friend once described to me how astonished he was when he met a person who lives in the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur who earns only 350 ringgit per month. He was so astonished that he thought the person was only joking. That was until the man showed him his most recent payslip.

If you can't trust politicians, whom should you trust to make life better for yourself and others? Academicians? Some academicians are so enchanted by theories and models they don't even know what's happening in the real world.

I am an academician myself (or at least that's what I'm supposed to be), but I often get utterly disillusioned reading ‘scientific’ academic papers. I've never been impressed with numbers, and have never been really interested in conceptual models and theoretical framework. I do concede theorising is necessary but there must be a limit to how much one should pursue it.

Why exactly do we encourage people to pursue postgraduate studies? Often this is due to opportunities to earn a higher pay and to improve the prospect for promotion. But what exactly about postgraduate qualification that elevates a person's career prospects higher than others?

Obviously it's the level of expertise the person developed for the topic he worked on for his postgraduate research. Other than that, and more importantly in my humble opinion, is the supposed sophistication of thinking and ideas. Not to say that they should be embroiled always with ground-breaking ideas but enough to know that conclusions and understanding of any issues and problems are never that simple.

A cabinet minister with a PhD recently made a statement in parliament that the Chinese and Indians in Malaysia are not patriotic enough. That is why, according to him, they refuse to join the military. That statement, was it based on any scientific findings or merely an assumption? If the minister really does have a PhD, I'm sure he could have come up with a more analytical statement.

“The more you know, the more you know you don't know”. Maybe I have taken this advice far too seriously that the more I read the more I am confused and disillusioned with everything and anything. I wish life can be more simple or maybe it's just me who is making it difficult.

Related article: 'am I an academic?'

Bebaskan Mahasiswa Daripada Cengkaman AUKU

(The following is my article for Centre for Policy Initiatives published on its website on 17th June 2010)

Gara-gara turun padang meninjau perjalanan kempen pilihanraya kecil di Hulu Selangor April lepas, empat orang mahasiswa Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) kini berhadapan tindakan tatatertib. Mereka adalah 'mangsa' terbaru Akta Universti dan Kolej Universiti (AUKU) yang menghalang mahasiswa dan ahli akademik daripada terlibat dalam sebarang kegiatan politik.

AUKU yang diwarisi hari ini adalah salah satu 'harta peninggalan' bekas perdana menteri Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Pindaan ke atas AUKU pada tahun 1975 dibentangkan Dr Mahathir selaku Menteri Pelajaran ketika itu selepas berlakunya demonstrasi besar-besar anjuran gerakan mahasiswa pada tahun 1974. Demonstrasi tersebut dianjurkan bagi membela nasib petani-petani miskin di Baling, Kedah.

AUKU diperkenalkan atas alasan perlunya mahasiswa menumpukan masa dan tenaga pada pelajaran dan tidak membuang masa terlibat dalam kegiatan politik. Politik itu dianggap melalaikan. Mereka yang terlibat dalam politik dianggap sudah terpesong daripada landasan yang benar. Hasrat kerajaan ialah membendung kemungkinan mahasiswa gagal dalam pelajaran kerana keterlibatan mereka dalam kegiatan politik.

Tidak diketahui berapa ramai mahasiswa di universiti-universiti tempatan yang gagal dalam pelajaran kerana sibuk berpolitik. Mungkin benar ianya salah satu penyebab kegagalan namun pastinya ada penyebab-penyebab yang lain. Antaranya mungkin kerana sibuk bersukan, sibuk bekerja sambilan dan mungkin juga sibuk dilamun percintaan.

Sekiranya berpolitik, sebagai salah satu penyebab kegagalan, dibanteras sepenuhnya melalui AUKU, mengapa tidak AUKU diperluaskan bagi membanteras penyebab-penyebab kegagalan yang lain? Mengapa tidak diharamkan saja mahasiswa daripada bersukan, bercinta dan bekerja sambilan? Haramkan saja kesemuanya kerana kita mahu mahasiswa menumpukan hanya pada pelajaran.

Sebagai salah seorang tenaga pendidik di institusi pengajian awam, saya kurang mengerti mengapa berpolitik itu dianggap sesuatu yang begitu hina dan membahayakan. Memang benar, ada mahasiswa yang ponteng kelas dan gagal dalam peperiksaan kerana sibuk ke hulu dan ke hilir menghadiri ceramah-ceramah politik. Tetapi tidak semuanya begitu. Ada yang sibuk berpolitik tapi masih mampu mentadbir masa melaksanakan segala tugasan akademik dengan cemerlang.

Persoalannya, apakah sebenarnya golongan mahasiswa yang mahu dilahirkan melalui sistem pendidikan tinggi tempatan? Apakah kita mahu melahirkan mahasiswa yang hanya berminat membaca dan menghafal, atau adakah kita mahu mahasiswa yang mampu menghubungkan teori dengan kenyataan?

Saya pernah beberapa kali semasa kuliah cuba menilai sejauh mana pengetahuan am pelajar-pelajar saya di kelas. Saya bertanyakan soalan-soalan mudah seperti, 'apakah nama penuh Menteri Pelajaran?' dan 'apakah nama penuh parti PAS?' Agak menyedihkan bagi soalan-soalan mudah seperti ini, tidak sampai 25 peratus pun pelajar yang dapat menjawabnya dengan betul.

Yang menarik berkenaan kes empat mahasiswa UKM ini, kesemua mereka adalah pelajar program sains politik yang ketika pilihanraya kecil Hulu Selangor berlangsung, sedang menduduki kursus 'Analisa Pilihanraya' di Jabatan Sains Politik, UKM.

Tujuan mereka turun padang di Hulu Selangor adalah untuk meninjau realiti bagaimana kempen pilihanraya di negara ini dijalankan. Malangnya, apa yang sepatutnya dipuji sebagai inisiatif yang baik dijadikan jerat untuk memerangkap mahasiswa-mahasiswa ini.

Kesatuan kakitangan akademik tempatan sudah sekian lama menyeru kerajaan menghapuskan AUKU. Bukanlah tujuan saranan ini dibuat untuk mendesak mahasiswa terlibat dalam politik. Saranan ini dibuat atas kesedaran mahasiswa perlu diberi kebebasan menyelami pelbagai ideologi dan pemahaman. Bila lagi kalau bukan ketika menuntut di kolej dan universiti golongan muda berpeluang mengembang minda dan pemikiran?

Bukankah politik itu menganjur perdebatan dan merangsang pemikiran kritis di kalangan orang muda? Atau, adakah kita lebih selesa sekiranya golongan muda terpesona dengan muzik, wayang dan lain-lain hiburan?

Sebagai seorang pensyarah, saya pastinya lebih senang mendengar pelajar-pelajar saya menghadiri ceramah politik daripada menghadiri acara-acara hiburan. Saya juga pasti lebih gembira jika melihat pelajar-pelajar membaca Harakah dan Aliran Monthly daripada membaca Mastika dan Media Hiburan.

Perlu diingat, tidak semua mahasiswa yang terlibat dalam politik akan terpengaruh menyertai parti-parti pembangkang. Di kemuncak gerakan Reformasi pada akhir tahun 1990-an, berpuluh ribu mahasiswa seluruh negara turun menyertai demonstrasi anti-kerajaan.

Daripada puluhan ribu ini, tidak semua yang hingga sekarang masih setia menyokong parti-parti pembangkang. Ramai juga yang dulunya kuat melaung "Reformasi" dan menjunjung poster Anwar Ibrahim ke sana sini kini menyertai Umno dan parti-parti komponen Barisan Nasional yang lain.

Fahaman dan dokongan politik itu boleh berubah. Maka, janganlah disekat mahasiswa daripada mencuba dan mendekati pendekatan politik yang berbeza-beza.

Jika ya pun kerajaan bertegas tidak mahu menghapuskan AUKU, paling tidak laksanakanlah ia dengan adil. Empat orang mahasiswa UKM ini dilaporkan telah membantu berkempen untuk calon PKR dalam pilihanraya kecil di Hulu Selangor. Ramai yang pasti tertanya, sekiranya mereka turun membantu berkempen untuk calon Barisan Nasional, adakah tindakan tatatertib akan diambil ke atas mereka juga? Barisan Nasional ialah sebuah gabungan parti-parti politik.

Kalau salah berkempen untuk PKR, pasti salah juga berkempen untuk BN!

Atau mungkin berkempen untuk BN itu tidak salah kerana BN itu kerajaan, maka berkempen untuk BN itu sebenarnya sekadar memberi khidmat pada kerajaan. Jika itulah rasionalnya, empat mahasiswa UKM ini tidak boleh dianggap salah juga. Sebabnya, kerajaan negeri di Selangor itu diterajui PKR, maka berkempen untuk PKR juga boleh dianggap memberi khidmat pada kerajaan negeri.

Saya percaya beberapa pemimpin muda Umno seperti Saifuddin Abdullah dan Mohd Puad Zarkashi mahu ruang yang bebas diberikan kepada mahasiswa untuk terlibat dalam kegiatan politik. Mereka sedar jika ruang yang bebas ini diberikan, bukan parti-parti pembangkang sahaja yang boleh menerima manfaat. Umno juga boleh secara terbuka mengembangkan pengaruhnya di kampus-kampus melalui sayap Putera dan Puteri-nya.

Empat mahasiswa UKM ini kini telah membawa kes ini ke mahkamah. Agak sukar membayangkan mahkamah akan memihak kepada mereka, namun sekurang-kurangnya kes mereka ini akan menarik perhatian ramai akan perlunya AUKU itu dihapuskan.

Menangani Prejudis dan Stereotaip Negatif Kaum

Seorang kenalan saya di Amerika pernah menceritakan bagaimana pada satu hari, ketika duduk berehat sebentar di sebuah pusat membeli-belah, beliau ternampak dua orang lelaki berkulit hitam berlari dengan pantas sambil dikejar seorang pegawai keselamatan. Lantas timbul hasrat kenalan saya ini untuk membantu lalu dikejarnya dua orang lelaki itu, diterjah salah seorang daripadanya dari belakang dan dihempap badannya ke bawah. Lelaki berkulit hitam itu mengerang kesakitan lalu berkata; "saya tuan punya kedai, kenapa awak tangkap saya?!" Terperanjat sungguh kenalan saya ketika itu. Beliau hanya mampu memohon maaf dengan penuh rasa kesal kerana bukan sahaja tersalah menangkap orang, tapi membiarkan juga pencuri yang sebenar melarikan diri.

Kenalan saya bukan sebarangan orang. Di Amerika beliau terlibat dalam pelbagai aktiviti kemasyarakatan yang melibatkan golongan minoriti di sana. Bahkan, beliau sering terlibat dalam kempen-kempen dan forum yang menentang sikap prejudis terhadap apa jua golongan bangsa dan beragama. Maka, walaupun beliau berkulit putiih, profilnya sama sekali tidak menggambarkan beliau sebagai seorang yang bersikap negatif dan agresif terhadap masyarakat lain.

Ramai antara kita sebenarnya tanpa disedari bersikap prejudis dan menaruh sterotaip negatif terhadap orang lain. Fenomena ini telah dibuktikan dalam banyak kajian dalam bidang psikologi sosial. Kajian di Amerika misalnya ada melaporkan hampir 80 peratus masyarakat kulit putih di sana tanpa disedari menaruh sikap prejudis terhadap masyarakat berkulit hitam. Sikap implisit ini tidak semestinya dizahirkan melalui perbuatan atau kata-kata secara terbuka, namun dalam situasi tertentu ianya tetap terserlah.

Di Malaysia, isu prejudis dan sterotaip kaum ini sering dianggap isu sensitif bukan sahaja di pentas awam, tapi juga di kalangan ahli-ahli akademik. Oleb sebab itu, tidak banyak kajian saintifik yang dilakukan untuk meninjau sejauh mana masyarakat pelbagai kaum di Malaysia menaruh sifat perjudis terhadap satu sama lain.

Namun yang jelas, jika ditinjau daripada kelakuan dan percakapan harian, masalah ini tidak boleh dipandang ringan. Di kalangan rakan-rakan dan sanak saudara saya yang berbangsa Melayu, sering kedengaran keluhan bilamana ada barang yang dibeli dianggap mahal, peniaga Cina yang cepat dipersalahkan. "Orang Cina, sebab tu lah mahal".

Di kalangan orang Cina, ada juga prejudisnya. Seorang graduan universiti tempatan berbangsa Melayu pernah menceritakan pengalaman beliau menghadiri temuduga di sebuah syarikat swasta. Semua penemuduga yang hadir berbangsa Cina. Ketika sessi temuduga berjalan, mereka sering berbisik di antara mereka dalam bahasa Mandarin. Yang tidak disedari mereka calon temuduga itu sebenarnya boleh berbahasa Mandarin kerana bersekolah rendah di sekolah Cina. Beliau faham benar apa yang dibisikan yang antaranya ialah "Ma-lai-ren lan-dou... Ma-lai-ren mei-you da-nao (orang Melayu malas... orang Melayu kurang pandai)".

Mengapa ini terjadi? (bersambung...)

Klik di sini untuk membaca artikel penuh di laman web Centre for Policy Initiatives.

AUKU and the Generation of the Uncurious

"Our education system must change. Our children are just not curious enough. They must be curious about the world. They must ask questions." These are the words uttered by Deputy Prime Minister (and in-coming Prime Minister) Najib Abdul Razak in his opening speech yesterday at the Seminar on Creating a Blue Ocean in Education and Training Sectors in Kuala Lumpur.

Back in August this year, I attended a forum organised by the network of academic staff associations to discuss suggestions on amendments to be made to the University and University College Act (more widely known by its Malay acronym AUKU – Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti). AUKU (in its current state today) was enacted in 1975 to disallow university and college students as well as all academicians from being actively involved in political parties. The bill was tabled by the then Minister of Education Dr. Mahathir Mohamad in the aftermath of the Baling Demonstration organised by student and youth organisations and supported by many academicians. Anwar Ibrahim was allegedly the key youth leader who organised the demonstration, and Dr. Syed Husin Ali (then a senior lecturer at the University of Malaya) was one of the academicians who openly supported the event. Both were swiftly detained under the ISA, and both are now respectively the De-Facto Leader and Deputy President of the main opposition party, Parti Keadilan Rakyat (National Justice Party).

In the AUKU forum mentioned above, the keynote address was delivered by a former vice-chancellor of a public university here in Malaysia. Reminiscing on the ‘good old-days’ of pre-AUKU, the former VC described the time when academicians were welcomed to express their critical views on political leaders and current issues effecting the country, student unions very active in various social-political activities, and student leaders celebrities in campuses across the country. But to me, the highlight of his presentation was his response to the oft-repeated statement that "AUKU is important to make sure students concentrate on their studies." His swift respond, "close all campuses... have all academic courses conducted online".

Let me add a bit more to the point above. Since public universities nowadays are pressured to become more financially self-sufficient, all lectures should be pre-recorded in an 'infotainment' format, mass copied in DVDs and then sold to students. Thus, at the start of every semester, after registering for a set of courses, student can go to bookshops as well as Tower Records and Speedy video stores to buy the DVD’s and then view them at their own convenience any time anywhere throughout the semester. If they have any inquiries, they can email the academic coordinator of the course, use Yahoo Messenger and other chatting programmes, or even use video conferencing for individual consultation. Students need only come to campus to take their exams. If this is done, not only will universities make money from the sales of these 'academic' DVDs, they will also reduce drastically their operation cost. Students would be happy having been given the freedom to study at their own pace and not troubled by the need to rush from class to class every day. Professors and lecturers can thus devote more time in research and academic activities other than teaching. Surely, this is a win-win situation, or is it?

Coming back to AUKU, if the reason to continue to have it is to prevent students from getting involved in partisan politics, I can agree with that to a certain extent. As my university’s former president once said, "there are no principles in partisan politics." But then, if that is the case, let us be fair and not selective. If students can be charged for misconduct because of their involvement in campaigning for opposition parties, students who act as 'volunteers' in UMNO gatherings should also be charged for the same crime. If the PAS youth movement is not allowed to infiltrate into campuses, Puteri and Putera UMNO should also be barred from recruiting members from among university students. If professors and lecturers are not allowed to become members of PAS, DAP and PKR, they also should not be allowed to become members of UMNO, MCA and MIC.

My personal view, and in respond to the DPM’s statement quoted in the first paragraph, let us abolish AUKU. Give freedom to students and academicians to explore their own sense of idealism without fear of punishment. Of course, if anyone transgresses; immersing oneself in politics while neglecting one’s principle duties as a teacher or a student, the person must be punished. But let’s not punish people for questioning the status quo and exploring differing political ideologies.

I am quite certain if the government decides to abolish AUKU, it will not result in an explosion of public support for opposition parties. When given the freedom to explore and reflect, people will eventually realise that while the current government is not always right, the opposition parties are not immune from mistakes and weaknesses either. The main thing is, students should be allowed to question and encouraged to develop a healthy sense of scepticism about everything they learn.

Three decades of AUKU has produced a culture of passive submission prevalent among university students and academicians. Should we then be surprised that "our children are just not curious enough"?

Bangsa Malaysia

In the book Introduction to Political Psychology (published by Lawrence Erlbaum in 2004), the authors assert that the best long-term solution to ethnic conflicts is "the development of an overarching common identity among the groups". In the case of Malaysia, this suggestion would call for the creation of a Malaysian Race (Bangsa Malaysia), a call embedded in the Vision 2020 (Wawasan 2020) blueprint announced in 1991 by the then Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.

Malaysia is indeed a country blessed with economic prosperity and decades of peace and harmony. Many other countries who gained independence around the same period (in the aftermath of World War II) have been beset with periods of instability due to ethnic-religious conflicts. In contrast, Malaysia has had only one major racial clash, the tragic event on 13th May 1969. Yet, the situation in Malaysia remains fragile, and to some superficial. Though violent conflicts are very rare, tension is very high, thus the need to ensure that the multiracial society of Malaysia remains solidly united.

How can we use psychology to promote Bangsa Malaysia? My personal view would mirror the ideas expressed by B.F. Skinner in his controversial book Beyond Freedom and Dignity. According to Skinner (1971), to elicit change in a society, the culture of the society should be changed. To him, "designing a culture is like designing an experiment; contingencies are arranged and effects noted. In an experiment we are interested in what happens, in designing a culture with whether it will work." (p.69)

So, the question now is, how can we design a culture here in Malaysia that is geared towards the creation of Bangsa Malaysia? Changes can be made at different spheres and levels in the society through the education system and the mass media. These new initiatives are geared towards one simple objective: to promote greater ‘meaningful’ interaction among people from the various racial groups in Malaysia. This is in accordance with the contact hypothesis, which states that relations among groups can be enhanced by greater interaction, which brings forth greater awareness and understanding, and eventually a greater sense of solidarity.

At schools, students should be encouraged to learn about the cultures, religions and languages of other ethnic groups. Malay students for example, should be strongly encouraged (if not required) to learn Mandarin, Cantonese and Tamil, and learn to appreciate and respect beliefs and customs of the Chinese and Indians. I once argued in a workshop on inter-religious dialogue here in Kuala Lumpur that we should re-introduce the subject Tatanegara (Civic Education) in our national schools. Tatanegara was a short-lived subject taught from the late 1970’s to the early 1980’s as a core course at primary schools. Although the course was no longer taught when I started school in 1984, I have come across some of the textbooks used for the course. In reviving the course, the new syllabus should incorporate information on common values shared by different religions and customs. Values such as justice, honesty and filial piety exist in all religious teachings, and this ought to be emphasized to students of all religions and beliefs.

In the past several years, the government has been running the National Service Programme (Program Latihan Khidmat Negara) to promote greater interaction among teenagers (age seventeen) of different races. Similar programmes (with similar goals but far less logistic requirements) ought to be introduced earlier at the national level involving for example Year Six students (upon completion of their UPSR examination), and Form Three students (after their PMR examination). The programmes should be non-academic but involve meaningful activities such as humanitarian work and environmental projects. By working towards a common goal, students from different racial groups will learn to cooperate together and realize the importance and benefit of national unity and solidarity. Inadvertently, this may also help diminish whatever sense of prejudice they may have against people of different races and religions.

I have sought the opinions of my students this semester on how we can use psychology to create Bangsa Malaysia. Many of their suggestions are similar to what I’ve stated above while they are others who have argued for a more creative use of the media. Among those are proposals for ‘multicultural’ reality TV shows such as Academy Malaysia and Intercultural Explorace. And, in addition, the airing of more bilingual informative and entertainment programmes with multicultural characters and subtle use of cross-cultural messages.

In conclusion, after more than fifty years of independence, multiculturalism in Malaysia should strive towards the true spirit of muhibbah (love and understanding). To be a member of the Malaysian race is not to lose our respective ethnic and religious identities but to attain a genuine feeling of respect of and tolerance for others.

Classics in Psychology

I have been teaching the course History and Philosophy of Psychology at the university for the last three semesters. Although I can never claim to be an authority on the subject, many of the issues covered are of great interest to my academic inquiry and personal curiosity. Most importantly, having spent many hours reading classical works in psychology; books written by Freud, Jung, James, Skinner, Maslow, Rogers, and Frankl, during my undergraduate years, I realised how important it is to read the original works of these luminous figures to have a better grasp of their scholarly ideas and thoughts. Textbooks attempt to compress and summarise thus what we often get are simplistic views that do not do justice to the complexity and sheer enormity of the thoughts of these great thinkers.

Take Freud for example; a man whose colourful background is matched only by his colourful ideas. In an earlier posting, I gave my views on why Freud will always be an important component in any psychology syllabus. That had to be argued because Freud is by far the most vilified figure in critical psychology. It’s fine to argue against his ideas but I certainly find personal attacks against him (drug addict, sex-maniac etc) distasteful. And I’m very sure anyone who has read any of Freud’s original work, though may still disagree with his ideas thereafter, would at least appreciate his detailed and sophisticated arguments.

In teaching History and Philosophy of Psychology, I have asked my students to read the classical works in psychology and compare their impression and understanding upon reading these primary sources with what they have understood about the same issues from their readings of contemporary textbooks. I am happy to note that some of the reviews and analyses produced were quite impressive. Most notably are the more fair and mature analyses from the Islamic perspective. Rather than cliché statements that these ‘Western’ psychologists are secular, atheist, anti-religion etc without ever trying to understand what they meant in the first place, I was very happy to note that some students were able to express intellectual arguments and even concede that some of these ‘Western’ psychological ideas are in fact Islamic.

Islamization of knowledge as propounded by both Al-Attas and al-Faruqi was never about labelling knowledge as Islamic or un-Islamic. It is a meticulous process of understanding and mastering a particular field of study as prerequisite before any attempt to criticise and challenge it. One cannot criticise something that one does not understand. The great Muslim scholar Al-Ghazali was a strong critic of Greek philosophy and he was able to do that with credibility due to his undisputed knowledge of philosophy. That therefore is the standard that we should aspire to achieve.

Save UiTM?

As an alumnus of ITM (Pusat Pendidikan Persediaan/ITM, 1995-97), I am greatly saddened by the irrational response of UiTM students to the mere suggestion by the current Selangor Chief Minister to open-up a meagre 10 percent of its students admission to non-Bumiputera and foreign students. Below are views which echo exactly my thoughts on the issue.

Har Wai Mun: The MB's reasoning for his suggestion is to allow UiTM students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to people of other races. If anyone thinks his reason is not correct, the logical counter-point would be along the lines of either ‘the suggestion would not allow students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to other races,' or ‘allowing students to gain more exposure and be friendlier to people of other races is not beneficial'. Hopefully, the MB's suggestion will be viewed constructively and is not obscured by communal sentiment. Non-bumis will be an asset to UiTM. Quoting a declaration on various placards on parade at the demonstration, the MB's suggestion might not only ‘Selamatkan UiTM' (Save UiTM), but might propel UiTM to be a world-class university that makes all Malaysians very proud!

Anti Double-Standard: It is unfortunate that the MB of Selangor's view about UiTM made him become a racial and political scapegoat when all he was trying to do was foster greater racial harmony in the country and encourage better quality bumiputeras to go through an open university system. After all, he was only proposing a 10% allocation for non-bumiputeras and foreign students. In fact, allocating a small percentage of places for non-bumiputera students has already been practised by the present BN government in fully residential schools (sekolah berasrama penuh). (may I also add; at the International Islamic University Malaysia where almost 10 percent of its current students are Malaysian non-Muslim students) This has happened even though these schools were originally meant for bumiputera students coming from low-income families. Thus, Khalid Ibrahim's proposal concurs with the present government's line of practice - only that he is trying to extend it into the universities. If UiTM remains die-hard on its decision to keep the university as an all-bumiputera institution of learning, then why does it have a programme of study known as 'UiTM International' and why is it scouting for foreign students from abroad to study there? I know that UiTM has even participated in an international exhibition on higher education in China as late as last year in order to enroll students from China to study at UiTM. What has UiTM to say on this matter? We would like to hear from the vice-chancellor on this question.

Source: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/87828

A final note, just to add a quick respond to this spectacular statement made by a student who took part in the demonstration: “Mula-mula diminta kemasukan 10 peratus tetapi lama-kelamaan kadar itu dipertingkatkan. Akhirnya golongan bumiputera lenyap dan tertindas di universiti sendiri.” (Initially they will ask for 10 percent of the students intake, and later the rate will be increased. In the end, the bumiputera will disappear and be oppressed in their own university). I have studied and worked in local universities. Empirical evidence will show that students 'disappear' because of their own truancies and when they are dismissed for either extremely poor academic performance or serious behavioural misconduct. Disappearance because of the emergence of minority students? That I need Fox Mulder to explain!