Meritocracy the way to move forward

The statement by Selangor Mentri Besar, Khalid Ibrahim which caused much furore among the UiTM undergraduates recently was very much expected.

Khalid had called for the university, which was established as a response to the need for trained professionals among the bumiputras, to open up 10 per cent of its intake to non-bumiputras.

Hell broke loose when the suggestion was made by the Mentri Besar which resulted in the undergraduates in several of its campus nationwide protesting for the remark which is seen by them as infringing into their rights.

UiTM Student Delegates Council President, Mohd Faizal Zainol slammed the Mentri Besar as a Malay traitor whom he described as willing to sell off the rights of his own race while calling him to apologise and retract his suggestion immediately.

But Khalid’s suggestion was made in good faith as by opening up the university, according to him, would allow the undergraduates to gain more exposure and be friendlier to people of other races.

His suggestion came at a time when the country’s political landscape is still in its tumultuous stage, with the Barisan Nasional government yet to reel from the shock of the March 8 general election.

The opportunity was of course seized very much quickly by certain politicians to gain political mileage by fanning racial sentiment and whether or not such gesture by these politicians augurs well for the country is a foregone conclusion.

The UiTM vice chancellor, Ibrahim Abu Shah in one of the occasions said the university was reserved for bumiputras as majority of the students in leading fields of study in higher learning institutions were non Malays.

He even went on to say that the constitution stresses balance and that this is a statistic which should be understood by any leader, government or opposition body and nobody should begrudge UiTM as the only public university for bumiputras.

The Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi then vetoed the call by Khalid, saying that the Mentri Besar had no power to do that and that matters related to students intake is under the higher educational institutions.

PKR de facto leader, Anwar Ibrahim in defense of his secretary general explained in one of his Permatang Pauh by election rallies that Khalid’s suggestion was meant to improve the skills and knowledge of both Malays and non-Malay students in the university.

He added that students who had potential to excel in studies should be given equal opportunities to pursue tertiary education and those students, regardless of race should have the chance to rise to the occasion and fulfill their potentials.

The MCA Kuantan division chief, Ti Lian Ker in response to the statement by Khalid said we must think of the exposures and interactions of the bumiputra students with representatives of all Malaysians of diverse culture, religion and race.

He further said it was now time to do justice to the country’s education system by giving students a holistic education exposure.

In fact, the government had opened up 10 per cent of the Mara Junior Science College (MRSM) and matriculation centres intake to non bumiputras several years ago to create a healthy competition among the students.

So why the big fuss now with the opening up of UiTM to other fellow Malaysians?

Don’t our politicians realise that by playing the racial cards it will further erode the competitiveness of our country in this age of globalization where we are supposed to compete at the international stage with people from around the globe?

If the students are made the stooges by these irresponsible politicians to achieve their selfish political agenda, then why the heck to amend the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 since the students are played fool when in fact the students single biggest role is to study?

What Khalid had said that Malays and Malaysians as a whole are more matured and they know that such efforts are needed as we head towards globalization comes from a truly far vision politician who knows for sure that our people should no longer rest on the laurels forever in the good slumber of the protectionist policies of the government.

Many years back, the former Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad had even chided the Malays by saying that if not for the protectionist policies of the government, many of them would not have become vice chancellors or deans of public universities.

While there is no doubt that what is enshrined in the Constitution on the special rights of the Malays must be upheld and respected, there ought to be some adjustments to certain policies such as education in the changed landscape and if such efforts are done in good faith for the benefit of this country, which belongs to all Malaysians, regardless of whether they are Malays, Chinese or Indians.

Every year, hundreds or even thousands of students who could not enroll into public universities or given the public scholarships despite their flying colour results have been pinched by other countries like Singapore.

Have our politicians ever thought what is going wrong with many of our top brain students leaving the country and remain overseas after graduation and become the permanent residents there?

The time has come for everyone in this country to put a stop in raising racial or religious sentiments as more efforts should be taken to debate on bigger issues like how to upgrade and improve our education standard and how to enlarge our economic pie for the benefit of Malaysians in this age where no one waits for no one.

A protracted argument on the two contentious issues will only stagnate our competitiveness in this globalised age of fast and furious mode where we cannot afford to be leaving in the cocoon of our own.

Malaysians must be free of the trappings of race like some say and we need to buck up and put on the right track to remain competitive and move ahead.

Meritocracy is the sure way to progress and unless and until meritocracy is fully understood by those who have yet to have a good grasp of it, Malaysians can just expect endless debates on what’s yours and what’s mine with the rest of the world already moving far ahead.

Amended UUCA 1971 must not compromise education over politics

It was way back in 1999 on September 9, during the height of Reformasi, when the former Prime Minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad visited Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) main campus in Bangi, Selangor for a meet the students session.

Despite him facing a tested time in his political career for his abrupt sacking of his deputy, Anwar Ibrahim for sodomy and corruption charges which drew large street demonstrations against it, his visit to the campus was nevertheless a total contrast judging by the warm welcome extended by hundreds of undergraduates who chanted “Hidup Mahathir”, in a show of support to the former Prime Minister.

Sitting on stage together with the student leaders from public universities from throughout the nation, it was an atmosphere full of anticipation from the audience, comprising UKM undergraduates on what the former Prime Minister was going to say.

Being one of those who attended the session, I still remember vividly how the student leaders bombarded Dr Mahathir with questions, from government policies to the abrupt sacking of Anwar Ibrahim.

A student leader was bold enough to question Dr Mahathir on why student leaders were not invited to sit in the weekly Cabinet meeting which would provide the channel for the students to voice out their views on certain government policies.

Nonchalantly, Dr Mahathir without immediately answering to the question gave an overview of the country’s state of economy by explaining that farmers and fishermen contributed millions of ringgit annually to the country’s coffer.

MTUC and Cuepacs, he added being the largest workers unions with thousands of members had also played a major role in contributing to the country’s economic development.

Neither the MTUC nor Cuepacs he said had ever requested him to sit in the Cabinet to formulate government policies.

Then came the stinging remark by the sarcastic Dr Mahathir who revealed that the government had to spend a major portion of its income in education. Thus he said the role of the students was to study hard and not to meddle in politics or the administration of the government.

Without saying yes or no to the question, Dr Mahathir just sat down and calmly took a sip of water to quench his thirst after a long reply before he stood up again upon request from the audience for his answer. His reply? Just a loud and simple “NO”.

Fast forward to today in 2008. Various parties, from politicians to human rights activists have called on the government to repeal the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) 1971 which they deem as curbing the freedom of students to actively involve in politics.

The UUCA 1971 came about after the students became involved in a number of public debates and demonstrations in support of all kinds of causes following the eruption of racial riots on May 13 1969.

The government reacted in 1975 by amending the Act which bars political activism by students and academicians and the Act becomes the blinkers to students for they are prevented from expressing themselves on issues.

Under the Act, independent student unions and other popular student organizations which had for years organised activities for their member atrophied.

Any activities organized must first be approved by the vice chancellors and heads of administration.

Certain quarters have pointed their fingers at the Act for partly responsible for the type of graduates the public universities produce these days.

The Higher Education Minister, Mohamed Khaled Nordin had said during the Malaysian Student Leaders Summit recently that the amended Act, which would be tabled in the coming Parliament sitting, would still not allow students from joining political parties.

Nevertheless, he added that students would be allowed to meet and discuss with politicians, including those from the Opposition at seminars, forums and talks.

However, topics should be submitted to public universities before hand and that it is conducted in a discussion or debate format to enable various parties to present opinions while allowing the minister to monitor and know what the students are exposed to.

Khaled went on to say that politicians would not use the same tactics during the recent March 8 general election campaigning as students nowadays are knowledgeable lot and could judge for themselves.

The Bill, if passed in Parliament, would see that university students would only face disciplinary actions from their universities rather than prosecution if they are found to be involved in political parties or unlawful organizations.

Politicians will also be allowed to enroll for courses in universities without needing to give up their political career with the final decision resting on the university vice chancellors.

University students facing criminal charges, detention, restriction or imprisonment for offences committed outside the campus may also be permitted to sit for examinations.

The Bill also provides for the setting up of a committee to advise the Higher Education Minister on the choice of vice chancellors and the university’s composition, management and selection of the university’s board of directors and their tenures.

Many have portrayed UUCA 1971 as a government’s tool to limit dissidence among the youths and that it was legislated merely to allow students to focus on education rather than politics.

In the society which is so immersed with Western ideologies for more freedom of expression or speech, the repeal of UUCA 1971 is of course very much called for but would it come with an expense?

Pictures of student dissidence who took to the street several years ago in Jakarta could perhaps give a second thought that it might bring more harms than good if there is no restriction to the students freedom.

While it is alright to at least grant the students freedom to express themselves on certain issues, it must not be done at the expense of their education for their responsibility is to study.

Would parents be worried if the whole campus is turned into political hive where what their children get is not education lectures or tutorials but political ceramahs with politicians from both divides storming the campus like nobody’s business to garner students support?

The amended Act must provide students with a conducive and progressive learning environment in order to contribute to the students’ success and achievements.

With almost all the campuses having their annual election to elect the office bearers of students council, such exposure is good enough to give students a taste of politics in their own confined and safe environment before they eventually join the real politics out there after graduation should they decide to.

There is nothing wrong with students attending political ceramahs, seminars or forums as such exposure would definitely be enriching.

The amendment to the Act is of course a significant first step in the leap forward to enable universities to increase free space and improve performance while allowing students to greater freedom and be aware of public issues and directly prepare them for life after they graduate.

With the emergence of ICT where free flow of information is unstoppable, there is no way that we can stop anyone from voicing their views.

Voicing views on issues is almost welcome of university students who may shed lights to the government but such exposure must not compromise the real cause of a university student, which is to attain knowledge rather than mere politicking.

Should or should not local council elections be held?

Many would still remember the large gathering of supporters from both political divides, the SUPP and DAP, at the compound of Kuching City South Council (MBKS) building prior to the March 8 general election over the appointment of MBKS mayor.

The appointment of mayor had been one of the contentious issues during the general election as far as Bandar Kuching constituency is concerned. The issue then was whether a Chinese would be appointed to the post.

The mayor issue popped up after the vacant post was left unfilled for several months following the demise of the late Mayor Chong Ted Hsiung and this had been seized quickly enough by some politicians to score their political mileage.

To refresh everyone’s mind, several years ago, former deputy minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk M. Kayveas caused a furore when he called the local authorities “secret societies” for their lack of transparency and accountability.

There was also corruption accusation hurled against the local authorities in the Parliament then that corruption was widespread at all levels of the government.

And in the State Legislative Assembly (DUN) sitting when it first sat right after the 2006 state election, the issue of local authorities was again brought to the centre stage when the Opposition called for the reintroduction of local council election.

The local authorities have always been the centre stage in Malaysian politics as it is the local government which deals with the livelihood of people, thus creating a bearing or effects in mainstream politics.

The local council election was abolished in 1970 after the eruption of racial riots in the aftermath of 1969 elections giving rise to the perception that party politics if allowed to continue as the basis of local government would be against national interest as the government then was anxious to prevent the spread of further outbreaks of violence elsewhere.

Since then, mayors and councilors are appointed by Mentris Besar and Chief Ministers where names are submitted through political parties for consideration.

Local authorities in Sarawak were established under the Local Authority Ordinance 1996 and the state Ministry of Environment and Public Health is responsible for overseeing the running of local councils.

Over in Peninsular, the local authorities are governed Local Government Act 1976 which outlines the form, organisational structure, functions and responsibilities of a local authority.

After so many years, the issue now is should local council elections be reintroduced and brought back to Malaysia’s political scene? There are of course many arguments on this issue depending on what one believes in.

An argument which is constantly voiced is that the current system of appointment of mayors and councilors has made the appointees only have to be responsible for those who appointed them.

That means to say they are only answerable to their political masters and not the people or the taxpayers.

In this age where people have become sophisticated, well read and well travelled, this kind of arrangement may not go down well as what the people demand is transparency and accountability in the management of local authorities.

To them, they want a say in the running of local authorities as whatever rulings or policies made by the local authorities would have impact on them and thus, the local council election would be a channel for them to elect representatives whom they feel serve them better.

But on the other hand, many people would not know that serving councilors in state local councils are only paid allowances for meetings attended and which the amount should not exceed RM350 a month.

Such a meager sum has raised the concern that how many people out there are willing to sacrifice their time to serve in the local authorities to formulate policies knowing for sure that they could earn much more if they devote their time wholeheartedly on their professions or businesses.

The amount and time spent in running the local authorities are tremendous as being councilors, people expect them to attend to their problems no matter how petty those problems are, from clogged drains to tree trimmings.

For those who strongly believe in the reintroduction of local council election, their argument may well centre on the ideals that the election would create transparency and accountability and that the councilors would be responsible for the people and not their political masters.

Thus, whatever policies formulated in the local authorities are dictacted by the people since the councilors are now answerable to them.

But again, a differing view is that to hold the local council elections may well eat too much into the government’s coffer and this may hamper the development effort as too much fund will be channeled to the holding of the elections.

In the end, a lot of development initiatives could not take off as funding from the government may be lacking and as such a lot of development initiatives may have to be stalled.

Bringing back the local council elections will definitely give a sigh of relief to the serving Members of Parliament or State Assemblymen as they will be rid of the tedious of having to attend to the people’s many problems.

Members of Parliament or State Assemblymen are supposed to be lawmakers drafting laws at the national or state level but their tasks have been significantly reduced to attending those problems which have greatly eaten into many of precious their time.

With the reintroduction of local council elections, this will be the responsibility of councilors who have to answer to their electorates for their actions, inactions and other shortcomings.

Another foreseeable problem will be that by electing councilors to the local authorities, are these so-called rightfully or democratically elected representatives having the tendency to make populist policies despite knowing that such policies may not be beneficial in the long run, all in the name of securing their position?

To many people out there who are fence sitters on the issue, the local council elections may not be their main concern as what they want to see is effectiveness and efficiency of the local authorities in dealing with people’s problems.

Their only demand perhaps is for swift actions from the local authorities in settling their problems, be it clearing drains or fixing street lamps or trimming trees.

No doubt transparency and accountability must well be the mission of all local authorities to give the people the faith and confidence in them.

Whether or not local council elections be reintroduced after so many years of abolishment is not yet known and this issue will definitely be one of the many issues to be raised in the local political scene.

Whether or not the people are ready for local council elections, only they themselves could tell as at the end of the day, they are the one who dictate how a country or a state should be run and what is good or bad for them.