Khalil Gibran was right when he wrote of children: “...they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls; For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.” If you try to shut them up, they will one day shut you up. It’s as simple as that!

For decades now, our freedom of thought and speech has been curtailed so much that many Malaysians are suffering from the disease of blindly obeying and mindlessly believing what certain leaders are telling them. Isn’t it any wonder that not many people are daring enough to oppose certain mental manipulations by leaders, kowtowing and nodding their heads as if they are in a deep state of hypnosis?

By Daniel John Jambun

I cannot help feeling extremely elated that last Monday by a three-judge panel made a ruling that a provision in the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) 1971 which restricts students from expressing in support of, or opposing any political party, is unconstitutional. This is history in the making, to say the least!

I also feel that the remarks by one of the three-man panel of judges, Datuk Mohd Hishamuddin Mohd Yunus Yunus, are worth repeating here, and even be carved onto stone for future generations to read and excite over, as much as today’s generations still gloat over the Magna Carta (the Great Charter) which was presented to King John of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in 1215, with the warning that if the king refused the charter, they would depose him. The Magna Carta was later passed into law to limit the power of the King.

Hishamuddin stated unequivocally that Section 15(5)(a) of the UUCA was irrational as it impeded “the healthy development of the critical mind and original thoughts of students, the objective of which higher education institutions should strive to achieve. Universities should be the breeding ground of reformers and thinkers, and not institutions to produce students trained as robots. Clearly the provision is not only counter-productive but repressive in nature. Freedom of expression was one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy and that right was also recognized in numerous human rights documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity. Freedom of speech is accorded pre-eminent status in the constitutions of many countries…”

How should the country’s ruling political leaders react to this ruling by the nation’s court of appeal? If any member of the political elite decides to appeal the ruling, if that is possible under the law, such an appellant would have to answer to Hishamuddin’s rationales that he was “at a loss to understand in what manners a student, who expresses support for, or opposition against, a political party could harm or bring about an adverse effect on public order or public morality. Are not political parties legal entities carrying out legitimate political activities? Most university students were of the age of maturity where they could enter into contracts, sue and be sued, can marry and become parents and undertake parental responsibilities, vote in general elections if they were 21 years of age. Yet lies herein the irony that they were told that legally they cannot say anything that can be construed as supporting or opposing a political party.”

I would also add that if we open and operate many universities with hundreds and millions of ringgits to educate our young people, why tell them they are not, will never be, intelligent enough to make any judgment about what’s right and wrong as long as they are students and scholars? How will they write short analyses and theses in which they are required to make mature evaluation of political and national governance issues as causes, and connect these evaluations to socio-economic consequences? Are university students supposed to refrain from making the right analyses for fear that they would be going against Section 15(5)(a) of the UUCA? What kind of thesis would it be that is biased and dishonest, and what kind of university graduate would it be who can’t even tell what’s right and what’s wrong because the government had told him he couldn’t support or oppose any political thinking? How ridiculous can a law be!

I have thought all this while that we are supposed to have universities to develop the country through the creation of generations of intellectuals who will take over the country, not a bunch of graduates who fear the government and when they become leaders will also make the same silly rules to gag future students. I believe that if we succeed in spending millions upon millions of ringgits to produce puppets and robots, our country will simply go down the drain, like what is already happening to us now!

For decades now, our freedom of thought and speech has been curtailed so much that many Malaysians are suffering from the disease of blindly obeying and mindlessly believing what certain leaders are telling them. Isn’t it any wonder that not many people are daring enough to oppose certain mental manipulations by leaders, kowtowing and nodding their heads as if they are in a deep state of hypnosis? Since their time in primary schools, they have been brainwashed, through the Ministry of (Dis)Information, that the government is right all the time, and that the people’s duty is just to believe and obey. And worst, we are still being made to believe that the opposition is lying, day-dreaming, making empty promises they can’t keep, can’t do anything to help the people, just a bunch of noise makers and irritants, even deluded and evil leaders who will cause chaos and disasters if they take over the government! But are the people frightened of the opposition? Hardly, judging from the recent Sarawak general election and the 2008 political tsunami!

We can pose more and more question on this and will only make this anti-intellectual provision more and more ridiculous. What we need to realize is that, all this while the institutions of higher learning are places where students and professors are muted and curtailed from performing their duties to produce generations of critical, creative, innovative and pro-active leaders in all spheres of national activities. Section 15(5)(a) was actually included in the UUCA because the government feared, and still do fear, students from becoming too smart and eventually lean towards the opposition. But they forget that truth can’t be hidden forever, and university students will eventually know who is actually lying to them. With or without Section 15(5)(a), they will still voice out their feelings one way or another, and this is more dangerous to the government because they will be working undercover and discreetly.

The BN should understand that they are borrowing time from the next generation of leaders, which are the present students. The future belongs to the new generation, not to the present ruling elites. As I see it, the present leaders are succeeding very well in destroying the future, and the future leaders will have a very hard time trying to repair a lot of damages which are being done and will be passed on to them. If the BN is sincere about wanting to do the right thing, it would now let students participate fully in the political process, to say what they want to say. The future is already their responsibility NOW, not later! Khalil Gibran was right when he wrote of children: “...they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls; For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.” If you try to shut them up, they will one day shut you up. It’s as simple as that!

Comments (1)...

written by vhari, November 05, 2011 15:19:00

It`s implication is that students can lawfully campaigne in the coming election .

But not known if government servants can lawfully campaigne or not.