Disrupting School - Every Man's Foul Sport

The interference with the management of schools continues apace with those transgressing the sacred space showing no respect or understanding of the policies or objectives of the educational system.

The latest incursion objecting to simple decorations in a school in Puchong for the Chinese New Year celebration shows how out of touch these warriors of spurious causes are with the great efforts that have gone into building our educational system.

One of the main thrusts of educational policies has been, from the time of independence, to promote an educational system that that is ‘acceptable to all the people of the Federation as a whole which will satisfy their needs and promote their cultural, social, economic and political development as a nation’. (Report of the Education Committee 1956.)

Large sums of money were expended in developing a national curriculum for schools. Even more money was spent on developing a Blueprint for Education to chart the development of schools for the next, at least 10 years. Nowhere in these documents is there a concern that a celebration of the festivals of the people of this country would pollute the minds of the young or lead them away for the religious path that is ordained by parents of the children who attend the schools.

The Education Blueprint 2013-2025, which is the most significant review of education after the 1956 Report declares unity as one of the five aspirations of reform.

The Blueprint’s vision of unity is expressed in terms that go beyond just bringing people together. Diversity is the education itself. And it is an enriching education that is built on diversity.

“As students spend over a quarter of their time in school from the ages of 7 to 17, schools are in a key position to foster unity. Through interacting with individuals from a range of socioeconomic, religious, and ethnic backgrounds, students learn to understand, accept, and embrace differences. This creates a shared set of experiences and aspirations to build Malaysia’s future on. The Ministry aspires to create a system where students have opportunities to build these shared experiences and aspirations that form the foundation for unity.” (Education Blueprint 2013-2025)

Puerile protests about simple matters as celebratory decorations in schools offend these policies and do great harm to the educational process. They have no knowledge of policies on education or the important role schools play in developing the young.

Our schools are being made the battleground for every rabid idea in society about the purpose of schools. There seems to be no end to the way our schools are abused. It also appears that there are too many people who have no gainful ways to spend their time are camping outside the schools to disturb the purpose of schools with their tedious complaints about how schools threaten everything from God to the way food is eaten in school canteens.

More Control Over Public Universities?

The last post, Religion and Education – Policies out of Sync, criticized the Ministry of Education’s intervention into university affairs by ‘approving religious proselytization in schools and educational institutions. The thrust of that post was that such actions by the ministry interfered with the autonomous position of universities. The autonomy of universities is an ancient tradition that been recognized by the Malaysian courts in many of their decisions.

Now, another controversy. One which questions that very aspect of the university.

The university is Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP).

The controversy springs from a Multiple Choice Question (MCP) paper issued in its Ethnic Relations course. The irony in the controversy will become apparent in due course.

The question in issue read:
"Zakir Naik is one of the icons of the Islamic world, he is very active in spreading true Islam and following the Quran and Sunnah of Rasulullah SAW. He is able to reason and to answer every question that is asked to him. However, in Malaysia, he is no longer allowed to deliver his preaching. In your opinion, as a Malaysian, why does this happen?"

The question provides several answers and more than one combination of answers can be chosen.

The options were: 

(1) Malaysians do not bother; 

(2) Sensitive Malaysians feel threaten for no reason; 

(3) Malaysians who are normally submissive without any reason;

(4) Malaysians are ignorant about their own religion.

There are many things that one can say about the paper.

Firstly, a grammar check on the language used in the question would have removed some very glaring errors.

Next, it is doubtful such a question will help build better ethnic relations in the country, which is the much-publicized objective of ethnic-relations courses.

Thirdly, the question, although only one of many in an MCP paper picks on a subject that has been the cause of religious dissension in the country. And is part of a larger controversy that has caused much religious distress in the country.

But what is really worrying is far removed from religious or ethnic issues.

The question and the suggested answers reveal a serious failure and deficiency in the academic standards and quality of instruction in the university.

The question cannot be answered.

The student has to assume the validity of the assertions in the question - that X is an Islamic icon; that X spreads the word of Islam following the Koran and the Sunna; that X is able to reason and to answer every question that is asked of him. These are contentious issues, some, probably also incapable of proof. The question provides no aid to verify the assertions.

There is also the inherent ambiguity in the assertion in the question - he is 'no longer allowed to deliver his preaching'.

The other problem is that the answers do not logically follow from the question and are themselves loaded with unproven assertions.

Clearly, the university owes the public it serves some very clear answers about its academic processes and how staff are selected to teach. They also owe the students who took the exam an explanation and if needed a cancellation of the exam.

Their failure to do so would move the public debate to how much freedom universities are to be accorded.