Minister of Digital, Ministry of Digital – Mind the Language, Minister

 

The recent splitting of the Ministry of Communications and Digital into two new ministries with the creation of a new Ministry of Digital must have had more reasons than merely satisfying political pandering for more seats in the cabinet. It signifies the government’s acknowledgement of the critical role of digitalisation, data science, and AI in the country's future.

There could have been, however, more thought given to framing the title of the new ministry and minister. As they now stand, the titles given to the ministry and the minister sound sloppy. Digital is not an easy term to get around one’s thinking and there was probably an urgency in getting out the announcement of the cabinet reshuffle to spend more time on the title.

'Digital' is an adjective, not a full-fledged noun. Nor is the meaning of digital at all clear. In some contexts, it describes entire outputs emanating from digitalization. In others, it is about doing business in a new way. In another context, under the Personal Data Protection Act 2010, the term confuses the process of digitalization with the content that is digitalized. Even if the meaning attached to digital is still fluid because it is new, its improper use clouds the functions of the new ministry and how digitalization has to be aligned with the national vision and what needs to be done in the different economic sectors. Digital as embedded in the new ministry appears to be both the means and the end.

The significance of language goes beyond mere communication. Precision and clarity in language are not just crucial for effective communication between individuals but are equally vital for the accuracy and reliability of AI tools like ChatGPT which the new ministry and minister would have under their purview. If language becomes imprecise or lacks clarity, it can distort the efficiency of AI tools, leading to inaccuracies, misinterpretations, and misinformation.

Moreover, our proficiency in assembling, organizing, and creating information and knowledge heavily depends on the clarity and accuracy of language. If language loses its precision, our ability to convey thoughts, ideas, and information cogently may be compromised, affecting not only the efficiency of AI tools but also our capacity to effectively share and build knowledge.

We must not sacrifice proficiency in language for the sake of advancing our interests through new technology. Language and digital technology are closely wedded. Therefore, maintaining a keen eye on the importance of language, its rules, nuances, and precision is crucial. It ensures the reliability and effectiveness of digital tools and safeguards the integrity of information and knowledge creation in the rapidly evolving digital landscape. It's through the adherence to linguistic precision that we not only facilitate effective communication but also uphold the foundation upon which our collective understanding and knowledge thrive.

A Ministry of Digital Technology and a Minister of Digital Technology might sound better and also serve to give the breadth of vision needed for both minister and ministry.

The One Academy's Student Art Exhibition

There is so much artistic talent in our art academies which unfortunately goes unnoticed by the wider public. 

I was fortunate to have had a glimpse of that talent when a friend, Devang Mehta, invited me to his graduation exhibition at the One Academy in Bandar Sunway. I had known Devang since he was a boy scratching images on exercise books.

The works of five artists (including Devang’s) were on display. The others were Gladys, Rachel, Jean and Xink.

It was a revealing voyage into the creative minds of five emerging artists who were clearly on the cusp of their professional journeys. The theme of the exhibition, "Coming Together," provided a common palette for the widely divergent works that were exhibited. The works all bore the unmistakable imprints of Western work from the Impressionists to contemporary artists. But they were original in their expression and revealed the meticulous effort that must have gone into creating them.

Devang Mehta's collection of thirteen works was a revelation of the artist. With deep introspection and raw vulnerability, he delved into his inner world, expressing through his art a spectrum of fears which he candidly confessed to in the brief description of his works. From the harrowing imagery of train collisions to the disconcerting sensation of countless eyes scrutinizing him, Mehta's art was a testament to the transformative and curative potential of art.

The "Coming Together" exhibition at the One Academy in Sunway, Malaysia, was not only a celebration of artistic diversity but also a tribute to the significant role played by educational institutions like the One Academy in nurturing the talents of emerging artists. It was a reminder that art is a journey of self-discovery and evolution, and this exhibition highlighted the remarkable growth and potential of these budding artists as they stand on the threshold of greatness.

Private Higher Educational Institutions: Confusion Continues Over Their Status

The Private Higher Educational Institution Act 1996 (Act 555) (the Act) has been in force for more than 25 years, but confusion continues over the relationship between the higher educational institution (the PHEI) and the company that established it. Are they two separate entities or is the PHEI only an extension of the company? Even the courts have faltered on this question.

This article examines the nature of the confusion and its causes and proposes a simple amendment to the Act that would remove the confusion.

The source of the confusion

The confusion stems from the way PHEIs are established. The Act requires a registered company to establish a PHEI.[1] The underlying scheme of the Act is for PHEIs to operate through the agency of the company that establishes it. This is a speedy and efficient alternative way to incorporate PHEIS.

However, once established, the PHEI, often with a name different from that of the company, is the entity that is visible to the world. It is the name of the PHEI that appears on the premises that house the educational activities, not the name of the company. Advertisements on billboards and newspapers display only the name of the institution and are not required to display the name of the company.[2] Documents emanating from the PHEI tend to bear the name of the PHEI and not the company. It is not surprising then that those dealing with the PHEI, whether as students or staff, or even ordinary contractors, think that the PHEI is a legal entity with the capacity to act.

The reality is that the PHEI is not a legal entity. It does not have the legal capacity to contract. Hence it cannot enter any transactions such as employing staff, recruiting students, or purchasing materials or services. It can neither sue nor be sued. All these actions must be carried out through the agency of the company that establishes the PHEI. [3] Any legal action arising from the operations of the institution, such as an action for wrongful dismissal by an employee, must be brought against that company.

Attempt to remedy the flaw

Despite the intended scheme, the Act fails to make explicit the relationship between the company and the institution leading to a general confusion about the status of the PHEI. Different committees appointed over the years to review the Act have recommended a correction of the anomaly, but no action was taken on the matter until the amendments introduced by the Private Higher Educational Institutions (Amendment) Act 2017.

The Amendment Act introduced a new section that attempts in a general way to shift the obligations imposed on the PHEI by the Act to the company establishing the PHEI. The new section 75A reads as follows.

75A. Where the Act requires a private higher educational institution to do or prohibits it from doing something, the obligation to comply is imposed on the company to which approval has been given to establish the private higher educational institution.

With respect, the new section falls short of what is needed to avoid the confusion. It only shifts the burden of statutory obligations from the PHEI to the company. What is needed is a clearer statutory stipulation that the company and the institution it establishes are one.

Court of Appeal’s decision on the point

The practical difficulties that arise from the ambivalence in the provisions of the Act manifested in a line of cases starting with Tai Chooi Yu v Curtin University of Technology Sarawak Campus, Malaysia & Anor.[4]

The company-PHEI relationship was examined more recently by the Court of Appeal in Eagle One Investment Ltd & Others. v. Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn. Bhd.[5] This was an action for defamation brought by Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn. Bhd. (the company that established Lincoln University College (LUC)) for defamatory statements made against the university college by the appellant in an article that it published. The company was not named in the defamatory statements, hence, one of the issues that the court had to consider was whether the company could sue for defamatory statements made against the PHEI that it established.

The Court of Appeal, after examining the statutory provisions relating to the establishment of Lincoln University College held that the plaintiff company was the registered owner and licence holder of LUC as required under the Act. Hence, any monetary damage suffered by LUC due to the injury to its trade reputation was wholly suffered by the plaintiff.

“Having regard to the peculiar relationship between LUC vis-a-vis the plaintiff, it is our considered view that the (defamatory) article would reasonably lead those acquainted with the plaintiff, such as those in the same business or industry as the plaintiff, LUC's students, would-be students, and other stakeholders would invariably conclude that the impugned article indeed referred to the plaintiff. Likewise, the article would lead to the tendency that people who were acquainted with the plaintiff would come to the conclusion that the article verily referred to the plaintiff.”

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Eagle One Investment Ltd. goes some way in removing the confusion over the company-institution relationship. It decides, for instance, that the company’s relationship with the PHEI is that of a registered owner and licence holder of the PHEI, but it leaves the important question about the status of the PHEI unresolved. The judgment talks about the monetary damage suffered by the PHEI, which cannot be the case because PHEI is not a legal entity. The monetary damage caused to the PHEI can only be suffered by the company.

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Eagle One Investment Ltd. appears not to have been cited in Nalliah David Pragasam v. AIMST Sdn. Bhd.,^[6] where the Industrial Court held that the company and the institution are separate legal entities. In that case, the applicant’s action was for wrongful dismissal from his position as Assistant Bursar at the Asian Institute of Medicine, Science & Technology (AIMST University).

The facts of the case pertinent to this note are that the claimant filed his action against Aimst Sdn Bhd (the Company) which established AIMST University, (the PHEI). The Company contended that the claimant was never its employee, but the employee of AIMST University which it claimed is a separate legal entity from AIMST Sdn Bhd. In support of its contention, it said that the claimant's Letter of Appointment was issued by the university and not the Company. It further contended that each entity was registered under separate Acts - the Company, under the Companies Act 1965, and AIMST University under the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996. The Company, it claimed, is run by a Board of Directors, whereas AIMST University is run by a Board of Governors.

Accepting the company’s arguments, the court held that the Company and AIMST University where the Claimant was employed are two separate entities. The claimant was employed by the university and not the company. The court said the claimant had confused the University with the Company and brought the action against the wrong entity. The court did not consider the question of whether the PHEI had the legal capacity to enter into a contract with the applicant.

The Proposed Amendment

The present confusion will continue unless the Act is amended to make explicit that the company and the PHEI are one. This is already implied in many of the provisions of the Act. For instance, under the establishment provisions in Part III of the Act, the Minister in granting approval to establish a PHEI must be satisfied with the company’s capability of providing educational facilities, setting up a system of governance and maintaining standards of education in the PHEI that it proposes to establish.

Other conditions are imposed on the applicant company once approval is granted by the Minister.^[7] These relate to the paid-up capital of the company, equity participation, and the composition of the board of directors of the company. The company may only alter these matters with the approval of the Registrar General of Private Higher Educational Institutions.

The statutory provisions on the closing down of PHEIs under Part XI of the Act reinforce the position that the company and the PHEI are not separate entities. Under these provisions, a PHEI is required to cease its operations if, among other matters, the board of the company decides to cease its educational operations or if the company is wound up.

Despite poor drafting of the statutory provisions quoted above in terms of the language used, these sections clearly show that the PHEI is not a separate entity distinct from the company establishing it but is part of the company. Section 19 of the Act emphasizes this by restricting the company from entering into any arrangement or agreement to sell, dispose of, reconstruct, or take any action which will affect in any material way ‘its business relating to education’ (emphasis added).

As noted earlier, under Act 555, a PHEI can only be established by a registered company. Act 555 does not incorporate the PHEI as is the case with universities established under the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 and other legislation establishing institutions of higher education. Instead, the legislative design of Act 555 is to make the PHEI part of the company that establishes it. The company animates the PHEI. There can be no PHEI without the company as the closing down provisions clearly show. The company and the PHEI are one. An analogy can be drawn with banks established under the Banking and Financial Institutions Act 1989 where the term bank is defined as a company carrying on the business of banking. Similarly, the PHEI is a company carrying on the business of higher education as regulated by the Act.

Despite the primary scheme, the Act in many of its sections attempts to regulate the PHEI separately from the company that established it. This is futile because the PHEI does not have the legal status to be regulated except through the company.

The confusion on the status of PHEIS can be corrected by a simple amendment to the current statutory definition of a private higher educational institution in the following terms.

“private higher educational institution” means a company that has established and maintains by whatever name a higher educational institution approved and registered under this Act.

The proposed definition integrates the company and the PHEI and synchronises with the definition of “company” in the Act, which reads as ‘a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1965 establishing a private higher educational institution under this Act.’ The definition will overcome the present confusion that the PHEI is a separate entity from the company establishing it.

A Remaining Issue

This article has only looked at the confusion over the status of the PHEI. There remains another issue, which is the division of powers between the company and the PHEI. This is an issue that has troubled those appointed as Chief Executives to manage PHEIs. Here again, the problem arises from provisions of the Act that are ambivalent as to where power lies with respect to the management of the educational enterprise of the company. This issue will be covered in another article to be published soon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Private Higher Educational Institution Act 1996, s. 6.

[2] There is no requirement under the Act or the relevant regulations for advertisements to publish the name of the company establishing the institution.

[3] Most institutions understand the difference and are careful to transact in the name of the company that established the institution.

[4] [2004] MLJ 375. See also Siti Habibah Shafiai v. Kuala Lumpur University (Malaysian Institute of Marine Engineering Technology) [2018] MELRU 741, Tan Ah Gek v. Maritime Intelligence Sdn. Bhd. [2018] 2 MELR 35, Abdul Halim Abdul Jalil v. Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn. Bhd. [2021] MLRHU 764

[5] [2020] 2 MLRA 659

[6] Nalliah David Pragasam v. AIMST Sdn. Bhd. [2022] MELRU 2494 (Industrial Court).

[7] Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996, s. 12.

New Course on the Personal Data Protection Act's Impact on Private Education

 Private education is one of the sectors that is included in the PDPA's class of registered users. This means that educational institutions are only allowed to process data if they have registered as a data user.

This course is a detailed examination of the provisions of the PDPA as they apply to educational institutions.

UNDERSTANDING THE PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION ACT 2010

 

Espact's revised course on the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 takes into account recent cases on the Act that add clarity to some of the provisions of the Act. The course, however, keeps close to its original objectives which are to impart a practical understanding of the provisions of the Act and to help participants to establish a compliance framework within their organizations.

The course is designed for anyone who deals with or handles personal data, whether the data is about employees, customers or suppliers. It sets out the essential knowledge relating to data protection concepts and principles, data subject rights, the implementation of data protection policies and measures, and regulatory compliance.

At the end of the course, participants will be able to;

1. Understand the importance of protecting personal data against misuse;
2. Comply with the control mechanisms established by the Act,
3. Understand the rights of data subjects and how they are upheld.
4. Understand that company policies and methods should comply with data protection regulations and outline key technical and organizational measures to achieve this.
5. Understand how to respond to data breaches and the consequences of not complying with data protection regulations.
6. Establish a compliance framework within their organizations and develop policies and procedures for collecting, processing retaining, and disclosing such information.

COURSE OUTLINE

1.  The importance of protecting personal data. Other legal approaches to protecting personal data, including the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) of the European Union.
2. A glossary of terms that are applied in the Act.
3.  Personal data and sensitive personal data as defined by the Act.
4. Limitations to the definition of personal data.
5. Persons who are bound by the Act.
6. Registration of certain classes of data users.
7. Data User Forums and Codes of Practice.
8. The 7 data protection principles under the Act, their application, and limitations.
1. Consent of the data subject.
2. Notice and Choice.
3. Disclosure of personal data.
4. Security of personal data.
5.  Retention of personal data.
6. Data integrity.
7. Access to personal data
9. Rights of data subjects.
10. Liability for non-compliance of the principles.
11. Exemptions from the provisions of the Act. Balancing data rights with freedom of expression.
12. Complaints, investigation, and enforcement of the Act.
13. The Role of the Personal Data Protection Commissioner.
14. Transfer of data overseas.
15. Compliance with foreign legislation.
16. Implementing compliance procedures in the organization.

For more information, please call U K Menon 016 3957617, Ms Lee 011 1620 1129 or Christopher John 016 244 0397

Knowledge and Learning in the Age of Chat GPT & AI

 

Introduction

AI tools such as ChatGPT are set to revolutionize the way we learn and discover knowledge, but they must be used with care. Generative AI tools like ChatGPT are not always reliable - the answers they generate must be treated with caution. There is also the danger of AI introducing new forms of censorship and information suppression.

Objectives

Designed by senior academics and professionals, the main objective of this course is to put the user in control of the tool. Learning and knowledge creation are essentially human qualities.

The course stresses the primacy of knowledge, its origins, and how it is created and verified and learned. It then explores how the new AI tools generate responses to questions, laying the foundation for a critical approach to those responses. The course concludes with a discussion on acquiring critical thinking skills that will help evaluate and contextualize the information presented by the tools.

Outcomes

Participants will have a better understanding of the benefits and limitations of the technology. Rather than being awed by the technology and becoming its admiring slaves, they will be able to harness its potential and make it a reliable tool.

Audience

The course has the flexibility to be adapted for a wide audience including higher education academics and students, content creators, and anyone whose work involves processing knowledge.

For more information, please call the Espact office – at 03 7865 5062, Menon at 016 395 7617, Christopher at 016 2440397, or Lee at 011 16201129

Critical Thinking For Our Times

 

Constitutional Morality and Societal Morality - Safeguarding Minority Rights*

As we strive for progress and inclusivity, it is disheartening to witness the ongoing demonization, criminalization, and mistreatment of the LGBT communities. These individuals, whose sexual orientations and gender identities diverge from societal norms, deserve respect, acceptance, and the same rights as any other human being. It is imperative that nations, governments, and individuals shift their perspectives and adopt a humane approach towards the LGBT communities, recognizing their fundamental rights and promoting equality for all.

In recent years, the Supreme Court of India has played a pivotal role in advancing the cause of LGBT rights, setting an inspiring example for nations worldwide. Two landmark cases, Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) and Navtej Singh v Union of India (2018) have witnessed the Court adopting a constitutional approach to recognize and protect the rights of the LGBT communities.

In Puttaswamy v Union of India, the Supreme Court of India delivered one of the most enlightened decisions on human rights that also embraced LGBT rights. In 2017, a five-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court delivered a judgement recognizing the right to privacy as a fundamental right protected by the Indian Constitution. 

The court held that the right to privacy is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The right to life is one of the fundamental liberties guaranteed by Article 5 of Malaysia’s Federal Constitution.

The Indian Supreme Court recognized privacy as an attribute of human dignity and emphasized its role in safeguarding personal intimacies. The court recognized that privacy is not merely a right, but an essential aspect of an individual's identity, autonomy, and dignity. The right to privacy safeguarded personal intimacies such as marriage, procreation, family, sexual orientation, and death. It emphasized that these areas of individual choice and personal autonomy are entitled to constitutional protection against unwarranted intrusion by the state or other entities. The court's judgment reinforced the significance of privacy in preserving the integrity and autonomy of individuals in these intimate aspects of their lives.

Against that background, the court declared that sexual orientation is an inherent aspect of an individual's identity and privacy. Individuals have a fundamental right to privacy in their sexual orientation and intimate relationships. 

The judgment emphasised the principles of equality and non-discrimination and held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a violation of constitutional rights. It recognized and affirmed the need for a more inclusive society that respects and protects the rights of LGBT individuals and promotes equality.

The court struck down the criminalization of consensual same-sex relationships, declaring it as violative of privacy rights. The Malaysian Penal Code still criminalises same-sex relationships on the grounds that it is unnatural.

Almost contemporaneously with the decision in Puttaswami, the same court in Navtej Singh v Union of India, unanimously held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which criminalised ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’, was unconstitutional in so far as it criminalised consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex. 

The Court reasoned that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was violative of the right to equality, that criminalizing consensual sex between adults in private violated the right to privacy, and that sexual orientation forms an inherent part of self-identity and denying the same would be breaching the right to life. The court dismissed the notion that fundamental rights can be denied on the ground that they only affect a minuscule section of the population.

Importantly, the court in the latter case made a distinction between constitutional morality and societal morality. Chief Justice Misra (on behalf of himself and J. Khanwilkar) relied on the principles of transformative constitutionalism and progressive realization of rights to hold that the constitution must guide the society’s transformation from an archaic to a pragmatic society where fundamental rights are fiercely guarded. He further stated, “constitutional morality would prevail over social morality” to ensure that the human rights of LGBT individuals are protected, regardless of whether such rights have the approval of a majoritarian government.

Decisions of the Indian courts are not binding on Malaysian Courts. Our courts are not bound to follow those decisions. However, Indian decisions, especially of the Indian Supreme Court have a persuasive influence in our judicial decision-making process. The reasoning applied in an Indian decision, especially one on an identical or similar statutory or constitutional provision as that found in our laws, is likely to be followed by our judges. 

The right to life is part of the Fundamental Rights encapsulated in Article 5 of the Federal Constitution. Malaysian Courts have regarded the right to privacy as part of that right following previous Indian decisions. The Puttaswamy decision expands on the meaning of privacy as safeguarding personal intimacies such as marriage, procreation, family, sexual orientation, and even death. It is a profound decision that defines and protects our individual humanity. Human dignity is based on the intimacies listed by the Puttaswamy court. The decision will be highly persuasive in our courts except for one reason, which is the conflicting attitudes prevailing in our state and federal laws on personal intimacies, particularly sexual orientation.

But, if we are a nation living by the Rule of Law, the law in Malaysia on LBGT rights may already have been changed with our courts accepting the right to privacy as a constitutional right.

* This article was published by Aliran on 16 May 2023

Higher Education Minister's Proposals on Hybrid Learning and other Matters Need Wider Consultation

The Higher Education Minister’s proposals to introduce hybrid learning and to shorten selected higher education programs (Malaymail.com-4 June 2023) are troubling for several reasons.

First, while it is important to continually prime the education system to meet the evolving needs of our society, any changes made for this purpose must be made through a comprehensive process involving the universities themselves and not peremptorily without disclosing how these decisions were derived at.

Changes to higher education must be based on a detailed study of student profiles and a thorough analysis of the potential impact on the entire process of higher education. The reasons for the proposed changes and their potential consequences should be openly discussed with all stakeholders in the higher education sector, including student representatives and employers.

University students come from diverse social backgrounds and from homes that in some cases may not be as conducive to learning as imagined by officials. Greater concern must be shown for the social impact of these decisions, especially on remote and rural communities. Changes to the system must not be made without the specific needs of these communities being considered and that those changes do not further marginalize them. Unfortunately, no consideration seems to have been given to these factors.

Higher education is undergoing a transition worldwide. The pandemic’s impact on higher education revealed inadequacies in the system that disadvantages certain groups of students over others. We have not yet established if strategies such as hybrid learning will solve or exacerbate those inequalities.

Artificial Intelligence is another challenge looming over education that must be understood before making changes of the kind proposed. Universities have not yet understood the full extent of its impact on higher education. Technology, if carefully applied, offers solutions that might be better than the changes proposed, or at least serve to improve them.

It is imperative that a more careful and comprehensive study of the proposed changes is conducted and their potential effect on education better understood before the changes are implemented.

Another troubling aspect is that the decision seems to have bypassed the processes of the National Higher Education System. Complex systems like the higher education system will only function efficiently if the different components of the system are allowed to play their respective roles. Only then will the checks and balances evinced by the system’s components be able to correct possible errors and flaws in the decisions made.

The National Higher Education System is the product of several Acts of Parliament passed around 1996. The National Council of Higher Education Act 1996 established a Higher Education Council vested with the policy-making powers on higher education. Under the provisions of that Act, all higher education policies must emanate from that body before being implemented by the Minister. Policies that are not made by the Council may be open to legal challenges.

Another vital component of the system is the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA). The MQA is entrusted with the powers to oversee the standards and accreditation of higher education programs. Importantly, the agency is the keeper of the Malaysian Qualifications Framework, which by law, establishes the essential criteria for a program to be classified as a higher education qualification. Changes to existing accredited programs face the risk of their accreditation being withdrawn. MQA ensures that the quality and standards of higher education are upheld by fostering, inter alia, a well-rounded and effective learning environment.

The public universities, which are the most important components of the system, must also be direct participants in decisions altering the conditions on which they operate. Education, which is almost a mystical process, takes place in the classrooms, the lecture theatres, and in the general ambience of the physical space the university occupies. The experience, knowledge, and accumulated data of student experience that are embedded within the universities must ultimately be capable of endorsing the changes.

No one doubts the good intentions of the Minister, but changes to higher education programs must be made through a comprehensive, consultative, and inclusive process. We must prioritize the interests of our students, educators, and communities to ensure a strong and sustainable higher education system that meets the needs of our society both now and in the future.

A Training Course to Face the Challenges of Artificial Intelligence

Training staff and students on the use of AI tools must be part of any institutional policy that is implemented to deal with the challenges of the new technology. 

Carefully designed training programmes are an effective way to introduce students and staff to the challenges and potential of the new technology. Training must include ethical and legal issues arising from the use of AI tools, their potential benefits and limitations, and how to use them effectively in higher education
.

A New Training Course

In this paper, we describe a course developed by senior academics titled Knowledge and Learning in the Age of Chat GPT. The course deals with fundamental questions about knowledge, its creation, verification and application, especially in an educational context.

The Rationale for the Course

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools like ChatGPT begin to encroach into the realms of knowledge production, it becomes important that students and even teachers have a clearer understanding of how universities and colleges create, validate, and transmit knowledge. Rather than worry about how ChatGPT will undermine the integrity of educational processes, HE institutions must bring the technology to heel as simply another source of information that must be tested and verified like any other source. 

More than ever before, HE institutions must forge an environment where all knowledge is subject to critical evaluation and students are given a more explicit understanding of knowledge creation and validation. Students must be taught that knowledge is fragile and vulnerable to manipulations and biases. With that realisation, and equipped with critical and analytical skills, students will be able to evaluate the output of AI technologies and make informed decisions on how to use and apply the information generated by AI tools.

HE institutions must also examine how AI can beneficially serve educational processes. For instance, AI has the potential to liberate education from the control of external agents like the media, governments and politicians or a particular perspective or set of beliefs. Tools like ChatGPT can provide learners with an immediate alternative view of the knowledge that is officially transmitted.

Overall, the course equips students and staff with the necessary skills to ethically navigate and apply the opportunities and challenges that AI technologies bring to the realm of education.

Course Outline

Ideally, the course should be taught over two full days. However, a shortened version can be delivered in one day.

I. Introduction

Welcome, and introduction to the course.

A brief overview of the topics to be covered.

II. How ChatGPT Answers Questions

Explanation of how ChatGPT works on large data sets.

Examples of how ChatGPT can be used to extract knowledge from text.

Distinguish ChatGPT from information on the Internet.

Discussion of the advantages and limitations of this technology.

Ethical issues arising from the use of ChatGPT.

III. ChatGPT in Higher Education

Personalized and self-learning.

Online tutoring and mentoring.

Automated grading of exams and assignments.

Translation, question answering, summarizing.

Literature search.

Curriculum development.

Generating course materials.

Improving accessibility to higher education, generally and for special needs students.

Originality and plagiarism.

IV. Validation of Knowledge

The importance of credibility and accuracy of knowledge and the role of the university in that process.

Importance of knowledge in making informed decisions, solving problems, and advancing knowledge.

Traditional methods of knowledge validation - peer review, fact-checking, citation analysis, and expert opinion.

Challenges in validating online information and information produced by AI tools.

V. Hierarchies of Knowledge

Discussion of the hierarchies of knowledge, from data to information, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom 

Explanation of how these levels build upon one another and contribute to deeper insights.

VI. Knowledge Systems

Meaning of knowledge.

Different types of knowledge.

Overview of different knowledge systems and how they have created knowledge in the past.

Examples of how indigenous knowledge, religious knowledge, and scientific.

Different approaches and perspectives in knowledge systems.

VII. Bloom's Taxonomy and Learning

The hierarchy of cognitive skills.

ChatGPT and the hierarchy of cognitive skills.

Explanation of Bloom's Taxonomy and its six levels of learning: remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, and creating

Discussion of how different types of questions and learning activities can promote higher-order thinking skills.

VIII. Critical thinking

Thinking tools to evaluate information/knowledge.

Evaluation of sources.

Analysis of biases.

Application of logical reasoning.

Identifying logical fallacies.

External references.

IX Limitations and Challenges

Ethical implications

Explanation of the limitations of ChatGPT and other similar technologies, including the possibility of biased or flawed knowledge.

Discussion of the importance of critical thinking skills in evaluating knowledge from these sources.

AI technology may seem to make learning more exciting but the excitement must be tempered with vigilance in ensuring the accuracy and quality of information.

© Espact Sdn. Bhd.

A conversation with ChatGPT on Plato's Allegory of the Cave

 I asked Chat GPT to review the following.

Most formal education, whether in schools or universities takes place in caves such as allegorized by Plato. What we learn constructs our reality. Unlike the cave people, our pupils have no means to escape the knowledge that is given to them. There is other knowledge but it will never be discovered by the students or at least not by most of them. Those who teach will not encourage it.

 Chat GPT's Response

 As an AI language model, my role is to provide information and avoid personal opinions. However, I can say that the statement you provided is not entirely accurate. While Plato's allegory of the cave can be used as a metaphor for education, it is important to recognize that formal education is not necessarily limited to a particular perspective or set of beliefs. Furthermore, students are encouraged to seek knowledge beyond the classroom, and many educational institutions provide opportunities for students to explore different ideas and perspectives. Additionally, teachers play a crucial role in facilitating this process of discovery and critical thinking. It is important to recognize that formal education is constantly evolving and adapting to new knowledge and ideas.

Me

 Yes, agreed. I am grateful for your input. But what if students begin to see or choose only to see knowledge generated by ChatGPT and other similar tools ?

 ChatGPT

 It is important to recognize that while AI language models like ChatGPT can provide a vast amount of information and generate responses, they should not be the sole source of knowledge for students. It is essential for students to engage in critical thinking and evaluate the information they receive from various sources, including AI tools.

Additionally, formal education is not just about acquiring knowledge but also developing critical thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills. These skills enable students to apply the knowledge they have gained to real-world situations and make informed decisions.

Therefore, while AI tools can be useful in supplementing students' learning, it is important for students to have a broad range of learning experiences that include engaging with teachers, peers, and other resources outside of AI tools.

Me

           But the tools also offer to criticize and analyze. There is no escape, you see.

           ChatGPT

 While AI language models like ChatGPT are designed to provide accurate and reliable information, it is still important for students to engage in critical thinking and evaluate the information they receive, even if it comes from AI tools. AI tools are programmed by humans and are not immune to bias or erros

In addition to critical thinking, students should also develop research skills that allow them to assess the credibility and reliability of sources, including AI tools. By learning to analyze and critique information, students can gain a deeper understanding of a subject and develop the skills necessary to make informed decisions and solve problems in their personal and professional lives.

It is also important for educators to provide guidance on how to use AI tools effectively and responsibly. This includes teaching students how to analyze and interpret the information provided by AI tools and how to evaluate the credibility and accuracy of the information. By doing so, students can learn to use AI tools as a valuable resource while also developing critical thinking and analytical skills.

Developing Institutional Policies on the Use of AI Tools

ChatGPT, a popular AI tool released in November 2022, has sparked public discussion and controversy among higher education institutions, their regulators, academics and students across the world. Not surprisingly, the first reactions have been about the impact of the technology on student behaviour. The discussions, both in this country and overseas, have tended to emphasise how students will resort to the new tool to violate academic integrity but not how it will spur education forward. It almost seems as if higher education institutions everywhere are in a constant battle to keep their students within ethical boundaries. Perennial complaints about students plagiarising work from the Internet have deflected discussions on how the Internet and new technologies can and have aided educational processes and access to education. The popular media also takes pleasure in reporting cases of student violations than in telling how the new technologies have assisted individuals in expanding their education.

Earlier this year in January 2023, the New York Department of Education announced a ban on access to ChatGPT due to the same concerns. There has been very little discussion about how the new tools can be adopted to improve how higher education is delivered through universities, colleges and polytechnics.

This paper puts forward a proposal for higher education institutions to take a policy-driven approach to build on the potential of AI whilst introducing safeguards against abuse and the dangers inherent in the technology.

Technology and Education

From the quill and paper to the printing press and the production of books, technology has disrupted and nudged education to expand access and improve its delivery. Some innovations also brought with them fears that new devices will undermine the way education is presented, especially the integrity of its processes. The fear of technology escalated in the last century when new devices like photocopiers, sound recorders and handphones became affordable to students. The fear was that these devices would undermine traditional practices in education. Then came the epoch-changing internet. And more fear. Communication became instant and the world wide web gave access to vast sources of information, most of which was freely available. Cutting and pasting replaced taking notes at lectures and the laborious copying from books. Search engines and browsers made information and whole libraries accessible with the click of a mouse or a tap on the screen of the computer. Educational institutions were clear beneficiaries of digital technologies, not only in the educational processes but also advertising and promotional applications and a wide range of administrative uses for the registration of students, grading of academic work, and measuring academic performance. But these benefits were seldom as much publicized as students’ use of the new technology to fulfil academic work such as writing essays and theses. With information and knowledge so widely available and so easily reproduced, cutting and pasting replaced the laborious process of writing. Plagiarism began to terrorize teachers, especially in universities and other higher educational institutions. But more was to come. 

Hovering on the wings of the changes brought about in the 20th century and threatening to change all human enterprise was Artificial Intelligence with its promises of autonomous cars, humanoid robots, and the means to change the nature of work. Artificial Intelligence is already being used extensively in banking, healthcare, E-commerce, retail business, and transportation to name only a few of its applications. A product, no doubt of higher education, Artificial Intelligence is poised to change all education.

The shockwave that ChatGPT sent through universities and colleges over the world can be attributed to two main reasons. The first reason is the technology’s staggering ability to interact with humans using natural language to answer questions on an incredible range of topics. ChatGPT sits on top of the vast resources of the internet and uses those resources to answer questions using AI to filter out the answer and communicate the answer in natural language. 

The second reason stems from the same concerns that academia has with the Internet - the fear that the GPT features will encourage academic dishonesty and further disrupt the teaching and learning processes. As mentioned at the outset of this paper, those were the reasons that forced ChatGPT to be banned by the New York Department of Education.

Chat GPT is not the only AI tool that has had an impact on higher education. Other AI tools that are in use help in literature search, formatting documents to citation rules, summarising large texts, and even analysing technical information. These are only some of the applications. There are more and more are likely to be produced.

A Policy-Driven Response to AI in Education

What is required now is for the regulators of higher education and institutions of higher education to develop a systematic and rational approach to the promises and challenges of the new tools. It involves creating a set of guidelines, procedures, and principles that will address the potential and challenges raised by the new tools based on the goals and objectives of the institution involved. Such an approach will provide consistency and transparency in decision-making, ensure that everyone within the institution is aware of the policies and procedures that are in place, and provide a framework for measuring success or progress. It will avoid ad hoc and reactive decisions and resistance from any die-hard Luddites that may be lurking in the shadows of the institution.

The National Council on Higher Education

It is in times like these that the need for a single policy-making authority in the higher education system becomes apparent. The higher education system in the country is one of the most diverse systems found anywhere in the world. There are over 400 institutions of higher education, not including post-secondary colleges and vocational institutions. The institutions are established under seven separate pieces of legislation grown out of different political purposes over the last 50 years. The institutions vary in their governance structures, and sources of funding and operate with different levels of expertise in governance and educational management. The public-private division of institutions belies other divisions in the system. There are foreign branch campuses that are regulated, at least partially, by their parent institutions and local institutions that deliver programs from foreign institutions and professional bodies.

The legislative structure of the system, obviously to add coherence to the system includes a national council on higher education vested with exclusive powers over policies on higher education. Established by an act of parliament, institutions and regulators alike are bound by the policies established by National Council on Higher Education.

The National Council on Higher Education is the one agency that could have established policies to deal with AI’s impact on higher education. Sadly, however, the council has been dormant for almost a decade. Since the law establishing the council (The National Council on Higher Education Act 1996) is still in force it is doubtful if any other agency or ministry can perform the functions of the council with the same authority as the Council.

The only other agency with legal authority to add commonality to the jumble is the Malaysian Qualifications Agency, which has issued an advisory on the subject.

The MQA Advisory

Even as this document is being written (4 April 2023), the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) has issued an Advisory Note (2/2023) titled Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technology (Generative Artificial Intelligence) in Higher Education (Google Translation). Happily, the advisory adopts a pro-innovation approach to the use of AI in higher education without the paranoia seen in some international responses.

The MQA Advisory concludes that the use of Generative AI-based technology can be a good educational resource if used in a prudent and responsible manner to support and enrich students' learning experiences. HEP needs to provide clear guidance on the use of Generative AI without affecting the set learning outcomes as well as the principles of educational integrity.

The Advisory claims that it is issued in line with principles in MQA’s Program Accreditation Code of Practice (2017) (COPPA), especially in relation to items 1.2.5, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 4.2.1 and 7.1.1 and similar quality principles in the Code Program Accreditation Practice: Open & Distance Learning (2019) and TVET Program Accreditation Code of Practice (2020). Whilst the COPPA provisions that are cited have some obvious connection with what is stated in the Advisory, the recommendations directed variously at the institutions, the academics, and the students go much further than the current COPPA provisions. On the whole, however, the Advisory will encourage HE institutions to look more closely at how AI and its tools can be deployed in education. How much and how the institutions will use the new technology is a matter that is left to the institutions.

UNESCO Guidance for Policy-makers – AI Essentials for Policy-makers

A UNESCO document, AI and Education - Guidance for Policy-makers published in 2021(https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000376709) intends to help policy-makers understand the possibilities and implications of AI in teaching and learning. Although the UNESCO guidance does not anticipate the technology of ChatGPT, it recognized that ‘the very foundations of teaching and learning may be reshaped by the deployment of AI in education.’ Despite its limitations, the document is a useful resource for those formulating policies on AI and education because of the impact of tools like ChatGPT. 

Guidelines and Policies for Using AI Tools

This document encourages HE institutions to take a balanced approach to the technology that will weigh its challenges against its capabilities and benefits in higher education. 

It is proposed that higher education institutions adopt a more measured, policy-based approach to AI tools than simply considering their negative impact on academic integrity. A carefully developed policy as suggested here will place the institution in command over the application of the tools. They can establish rules through the policies for the responsible and ethical use of the tools and periodically review the application of those tools. The adoption and publication of such a policy to staff and students and possibly their parents may itself be a deterrent against the unethical use of such tools.

Preliminary matters - AI Committee

1. Establish in accordance with the constitution of the institution, a committee or authority as the constitution dictates to advise the management of the institution on the technology. The role of the AI Committee (AIC) shall be described in the institution’s AI policy (AIP). The AIC’s responsibilities shall include the following.

1. Advise management on the selection and procurement of the technology.

2. Keep management informed on any changes that may be made to the technology as and when such changes are made.

3. Develop strategies to publicize the institution’s use of the technology in accordance with the AIP.

4. Devise strategies to incorporate institutional information and knowledge into datasets used by AI technology.

5. Advise management on any matter arising from the use of the technology that may affect compliance with the rules or guidelines of the Malaysian Qualifications Agency.

6. Advise management on any consequence that the use of the technology may have on the laws and regulations affecting the design and delivery of courses of study in the institution.

7. Advise management on any use of the technology that may affect the terms of any contractual agreements with third parties such as collaborating institutions.

8. To advise the management on any matter that the AIC feels should be brought to the attention of management for the safe and ethical use of AI in the institution.

9. To do such other things that are requested by management on the use of the technology that may affect compliance with the rules or guidelines.

2. Role of the top-level management.

Top management means the authority within the institution that has overall powers over the management of the institution, its staff and students as laid down in the founding statutes such as the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971, the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996 and the Education Act 1996. Top management shall be responsible for the matters shown below.

1. Establish policies and guidelines on the use of AI and other technology-based aids in the institution’s educational processes;

2. The policies shall be developed in consultation with the staff and students of the institution to secure their commitment to the policies;

3. Describe the application of the policies and any actions that may be taken for non-compliance with the policies;

4. Describe how the policy will be updated/changed;

5. Publicize the policies on the institution’s website and share the same with government agencies and relevant partners of the institution;

6. Carry out a survey on how the technology might affect the institution’s educational processes and conduct periodic risk analyses. 

7. Carry out an evaluation of the potential impact on students and staff considering the potential benefits and risks.

8. Consider copyright and other intellectual property rights that might arise from the use of AI tools in the institution.

9. Consider the protection of personal data and privacy, and the development of policies and protocols to ensure that the AI tools are used in a fair, transparent, and unbiased way.

10. AI is used in both academic and administrative matters. Any policy that is developed by the institution must cover AI use across the different activities of the institution.

11. Review and compile any third-party materials used by the institution that is generated by AI and list copyright and Intellectual Property (IP) rights attached to those rights.

12. Review and compile a list of all institutional materials used internally as well as supplied to third parties, including students and check if IP rights are protected when used in AI applications.

3. Suggested principles to be included in policies developed by the institution.

1. Ethical Considerations: The use of AI tools like ChatGPT must be guided by ethical principles that ensure that students, faculty, and staff are treated fairly, equitably, and with respect. These ethical considerations must be grounded in the principles of autonomy, and justice and issued in a non-threatening manner.

2. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. The policies must comply with laws and regulations issued by the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Higher Education, the Malaysian Qualifications Agency and where relevant any guidelines issued by professional associations that may impact the institution’s courses of study.

3. Responsible Use: The use of AI tools must be responsible, transparent, and accountable. The institution must ensure that staff and students realise that the output from the tools is accurate, reliable, and free from bias, which may not always be the case. 

4. The use of AI tools must be transparent, and the decision-making process that led to their use must be open to scrutiny. Institutions must also be accountable for the impact of AI tools on the individuals and groups affected by institutional use of output from the AI tools.

5. Similarly, staff and students must be made to understand that they take responsibility for the use of the tools and the output from the tools. Responsibility for accuracy and reliability cannot be shifted to the tools.

6. Training and Education: Institutions must provide adequate training and education to faculty, staff, and students on the use of AI tools like ChatGPT. This includes training on the ethical considerations of using AI tools, their potential benefits and limitations, and how to use them effectively.

7. Data Protection and Privacy: Institutions must ensure that the use of AI tools complies with applicable laws and regulations related to data protection and privacy. This includes ensuring that data used by AI tools is collected and stored in a manner that protects the privacy and confidentiality of individuals.

8. Collaboration: Institutions must collaborate with other institutions and organizations to advance the development and responsible use of AI tools in higher education. This includes sharing best practices, collaborating on research, and promoting the ethical use of AI tools.

9. Continuous Monitoring: Institutions must continuously monitor the use of AI tools like ChatGPT to ensure that they are being used in accordance with this policy and ethical principles. This includes regularly reviewing the impact of AI tools on students, faculty, and staff, and making adjustments as necessary.

4. Limitations:

1. What is stated here are some general issues that institutions may have to take into account in developing their policies on the use of ChatGPT type of AI tools. Institutions and institutional practices vary across the sector and as such what is proposed here must only be taken as a guide to the formulation of policies. Anyone reading this document must take the responsibility for ensuring the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of the information and must assume all risks associated with the implementation of any policies based on the advice provided.