Critique on "Do we want peace or unity?"

The article "Do we want peace or unity?" by Wan Saiful Wan Jan argues the possibility that the effort to create unity and integration among the Malaysian people may cause discord and disharmony. Author Wan Saiful Wan Jan is the chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs.

The article speaks of how, in an effort to bring forth further unity among it's citizen, the government may be sacrificing peace in order to achieve it. The author argues that, if Malaysia is to be a liberal country, then we must consider respecting the choices made by those who want to live their lives parallel of others, so long as they are not harming others, rather than forcing them to mingle with others for the sake of unity.

The author's stance on the matter is that, if some choose to live in separate grouping and parallel to others, the government should not intervene or otherwise force an interaction as these individuals who chose this way of living is, in fact not harming anyone, and thus, living peacefully with others.

Although the author brings worth several valid points, I feel it falls short of convincing me that unity and peace are separate. Although the way the title of the article states, "Do we want peace or unity?" as if we must choose one or the other, yet, his arguments does not show that it truly is one or the other. True, he has stated the points and facts of living lives parallel to others as well as how living with separate groups does not threaten peace, but not much in way of how the price for unity would be peace or vice versa.The author gave several examples of the government's efforts to promote unity among citizens as the effect of their "intervention" but did not clearly state the effects, and more importantly, whether or not it was detrimental. At the end, the author states that the government's role is not to promote integration but to maintain peace, and states that "peace" should be our end goal, rather than unity.

To conclude, although the author has given several valid points as to how people living lives parallel to others does not threaten the peace of the country, he failed to touch on how unity, or, more accurately, government intervention to promote unity, would jeopardise the peace in Malaysia, which i felt would be a more compelling point in this article.

Critique by: Loo Zhen Yuan A155864

Critique on “Do We Want Peace Or Unity”

The article do we want peace of unity is written by a columnist, Wan Saiful Wan Jan who worked as Chairman at Istanbul Network for Liberty since Mac 2014 until now. He also worked as Director at CfBT Education Malaysia and as a Chairman at IDEAS Autism Centre for 3 years 8 months. The article is published on 12^th of Mac 2016 on The Star Online. The target audiences of this article is diversified and not confined to one scope of age, social status or specific group.

The writer’s intention is to persuade readers to consider the possibility that the attempt to create unity and integration, or the imposition of a “national” identity, is actually one of the causes of discord and disharmony. Then, the writer emphasize that he convince that the grouping and division will result in the peace among the citizens rather than detrimental to the country. Next, the writer insists that the authorities should intervene only when physical harm is caused. The writer also asserts that the Government’s role is not promotes integration but to maintain peace.

Fact and argument put forward by the writer is to raise awareness among Malaysian that people live in separate grouping will result in peace among citizens instead of detrimental to country. The writer has successfully presents an accurate and relevant data in a logical manner. Looking at the points present by the writer, he has provides multi-dimensional evidences, a few example of real life situation to support his stance. The example given was reliable in which every of it from his own view as a professional columnist.

The writer states that the Government’s role is not to promote integration but to maintain peace. Peace is not necessarily achieved through unity.  I think live in separate grouping is a good idea reveals by the writer as long as they do not harm others. Intervene of authorities to create unity will only brings a negative outcome, discord and disharmony to Malaysia. Peace is the important element that we should care about in order to produced a better environment for our country.

The tone and choice of words used by the author indicated his professionalism, with no biasness in term of language style. No notes of sarcasm are used throughout this article, and it has been delivered straightforward and honestly. There are no fear appeals or provoking words had been used throughout this article. Thus, the method of delivering points could be said neutral without playing of emotions on the readers.

Overall, looking at the points presented, the writer emphasize that he did not see live separately among people of different identities will brings detrimental to the country if it result in peace among the citizens. This article is not one-sided article as the writer already expressed a good and fair opinion for all parties. However, the writer had successfully delivered his points through the arguments laid out by him and making his stance clear.

Written by: Nur Shahazira Izzati Binti Shaharizan (A156968)

                           

Critique on “Do We Want Peace Or Unity”

            “Do We Want peace or Unity is an article published in The Star Online on 14^th April 2016. It is written by Wan Saiful Wan Jan, one of the regular columnist of The Star Online. Currently, he is the Chairman of Istanbul Network for Liberty, Director of CFBT Education Malaysia, Chairman of IDEA Autism Centre and Chief Executive of Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (IDEAS). Therefore, his credibility as a writer cannot be doubt anymore. As a people with a lot of responsibilities, he tends to write based on his experiences and knowledge rather than just based on his emotion.

            Basically, the main point of this article is about the idea that peace is more important to be promoted instead of integration or unity. The writer feels that unity and integration will create peace and harmony is a problematic assumption behind many of our current policies. He also shares his thought that if liberalism is about choice, then it is detrimental to unity when people choose to live separately based on their own ethnic group. He adds that we should respect other people’s choice as long as it does not harm anyone.

            As for the introduction, the writer shares his experience in Tasik Chini, Pahang with other 10 Ideas National Unity Youth Fellows. This story helps to convince the audiences that his writing is based on his real experiences and is an important issue when they discuss about it in the programme with other people with great ideas and personalities. His writing is more effective when he makes the audiences think when he questions some issues in the article. Therefore, instead of being a passive reader, they turn out to become an active reader as they start thinking spontaneously about the issue. He also seems strict in defending his idea when he said that he is not convinced by the assumption that the groupings and divisions are detrimental to the country. In addition, he supports his idea by giving parable that helps his audience to understand better.

            I am fully agreed with his opinion. As he said, the general assumption that divisions and groupings may bring harm to our country is not really convincing. I am also agreed that we should respect people’s choice if we talk about liberalism because somehow, that is what liberalism is about. For me, we cannot force people to live in other people’s identity when they already have one. It is enough when people respect each other’s. Like Wan Raja, I do not think something is wrong when it do not bring harm to anything. Besides that, how can we let people live in peace when at the same time, we force them to do something that they are not willing to?. We should leave them alone as long as they do not affect our country’s peace because peace should be our ultimate goal rather than just unity or integration.

            Overall, this article is about peace as the one that we should be focussing about than just unity or integration. The writer’s credibility and confidence in his writing make this article more convincing. He also successfully delivered his points in a way that people understand and his stance is clear. Thus, I become agree with him instantaneously.

(551 words)

Written by : Nurul Syuhaida binti Md Rawi (A156279)

Thinking Liberally

Tuesday, 12 April 2016

Do we want peace or unity?

BY WAN SAIFUL WAN JAN

 

Popular Now in Opinion

• Work together for better care
• A vision of peace that’s laudable
• Extra charge for using Touch&Go
• Changing how Malaysia (and the world) educates
• Tragic loss of a visionary civil servant

It is possible that the attempt to create unity and integration, or the imposition of a ‘national’ identity, is actually one of the causes of discord and disharmony.

LAST weekend my team and I were at Tasik Chini, Pahang with the 10 Ideas National Unity Youth Fellows who were selected for this year’s programme just a few weeks ago.

We arrived at Tasik Chini Resort on Friday afternoon.

On Saturday morning we visited Kampung Gumum, an Orang Asal village, to meet with the local community there in order to get a better glimpse of their lives and the challenges they face.

I am most grateful to Tok Batin Awang and the Rukun Tetangga Club for their hospitality. We had a good time mingling with the locals and they certainly made us feel at home.

The rest of the time was spent in workshops and discussions with the Youth Fellows. We covered quite a lot of topics, ranging from understanding the Federal Constitution to planning and running a media campaign.

I conducted a session on understanding classical liberal ideas. Interestingly, one of the Youth Fellows asked me a question that was also asked by last year’s group of Youth Fellows.

The question was, if liberalism is about choice, then what if people choose to live their lives separately from others and just among their own ethnic groups? If people liberally choose to live in separate groupings, wouldn’t that be detrimental to unity?

The issue of national identity is not an easy one to address, especially in the context of multicultural and multireligious Malaysia. That question is certainly a valid one. And it is also one that I myself am still thinking about. So let me now think aloud.

The general assumption that we make when formulating policies on national unity seems to be that the groupings and divisions are detrimental to the country. I am not convinced by this assumption.

Is it really wrong for people of different identities to live separately from each other? For example, if I am Malay, is it wrong if I go to Malay schools, attend a Malay university, live in a Malay village, work for a Malay firm, and have only Malay friends?

It would mean I live a life that is separate from non-Malay Malay­sians. But, if that is my choice and I do not harm anyone with that choice, what is wrong with it?

It may be detrimental to the traditional conception of unity, but I do not see how it is detrimental to the country if it results in peace among the citizens.

If we envision a liberal society for Malaysia, then we must consider the possibility of respecting the choices made by those who want to live lives parallel to others rather than with them.

This means, if birds of a feather choose to flock together, then so be it, as long as they do no harm to others. It may result in a Malaysia with multiple identities and groups of people living parallel lives. Yet it will be a peaceful coexistence and no one gets harmed. Surely that is a good outcome.

In fact, it would be better than having a Government that intervenes to create a national identity. Usually, it is the intervention that divides. The imposed intervention becomes the problem rather than solution.

We should really ask ourselves what is it that we actually want for Malaysia? Do we want unity? Do we want integration? Do we want harmony? Or peace?

The assumption behind many of our current policies seems to be that unity and integration will create peace and harmony. This is a problematic assumption. I am not sure if peace and harmony naturally come hand in hand with unity and integration.

Perhaps it is time we consider the possibility that the attempt to create unity and integration, or the imposition of a “national” identity, is actually one of the causes of discord and disharmony. The intervention is the problem, not segregation.

Wouldn’t it be more peaceful if people are simply allowed to live their lives the way they want to, including parallel to each other if they prefer, as long as they do not physically harm others?

Just look at the various interventions to create unity that we have seen up to now. For example, forcing people to speak a particular language, giving a legal definition of ethnicity, imposing an official understanding of religion, calling for the halting of diversity in the education system, and more. Have any of these really produced a better environment for our country today?

More important than that, why exactly do we see “unity” as the end game? Shouldn’t we put peace as the ultimate target instead?

If peace is our final destination, then perhaps unity is not really as important as we initially thought. Even if people choose to live segregated parallel lives, as long as they do no harm to each other, we can still get peace. Isn’t that is what matters the most?

In such a situation, the Govern­ment’s role is not to promote integration but to maintain peace. Authorities should intervene only when physical harm is caused. At all other times, we should be allowed to live peacefully in any way we want and the authorities should leave us alone.

Would that be too radical to envision for this country?

Wan Saiful Wan Jan is chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (www.ideas.org.my). The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.

TAGS / KEYWORDS:Wan Saiful Wan Jan , columnist

Are Our Varsities Still Relevant ?

     

    "Are Our Varsities Still Relevant ?" is an article published in the New Straits Times on 20 August 2014. It is written by Prof Datuk Dr John Anthony Xavier, a professor of management at the Graduate School of Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). Prior to joining UKM in 2012, Datuk John is a professor in Universiti Putra Malaysia. He was also an Administrative and Diplomatic Officer (PTD) for 36 years in the Malaysian Public service. Datuk John has published a number of books articles on law and public finance and management in local and international journals. Therefore, this article is said to come from a trustworthy source and can be debated.

         This article talks about the actual role that universities should play in the society and the declining of quality of our universities and also how it is seen to be as increasingly less relevant to society. As a writer, Dr John shares about his thought of making the university educational functional to live up the high expectation reposed in them. Besides that, he urges the universities to review its curriculum and consult with businesses and community leaders to map out the skills required of their graduates. An all-rounded education is said to be very important that it will surely make graduates more employable.

         The targeted reader for this article is anyone that involves in transforming our universities to meet the expectation and play its actual roles. They include the government, societies and also students. Dr John has done a great job with this article when he manages to arrange the content orderly. He starts with how universities play important roles in our society. Then, he questions whether our universities are still relevant and give some factors and examples of the irrelevance. Finally, he shares some ways to stop this irrelevance and to live up the high expectations reposed in universities. He also supports his claims and ideas with words from the famous historian that is related with education who is Cardinal Newman. Other than that, he does some homework by referring to the recent issue from the Economist. His ideas and claims are a little bias as if he just blame the university for the issue.

         I am partially agree with Dr John. I am agree when he said that our universities are becoming irrelevance from day to day. This is because nowadays, becoming a post-graduate students do not means anything. It does not even secure us to be employed once we graduated compared to the older generations. I do not agree with him when he just focus on the improvement of the universities to settle this problem. For me, what we need to settle this problem is the cooperation and a good teamwork from everyone including the government, society and even the students itself. Everyone must realizes their role and performs it well. Only then, everyone can achieve the same objective which is to make our universities more relevant. As example, a government should increase more job opportunities and allocate enough fund for any educational and leadership programmes for students. As for societies, they should help students to become all-rounded by giving them chance to contribute to the societies and supporting any events that they are holding. For students itself, they must be more independence by improving themselves with their own incentives to be a marketable graduates.   

         In conclusion, I was partially agree with Dr John. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that he is surely a great writer. His ideas are also convincing as he includes some of the historian words and also information about the current issue that is related to this topic.


written by Nurul Syuhaida Binti Md Rawi (A156279)

'Are our varsities still relevant?' a critique

The article 'are our varsities still relevant?' is written by Professor Datuk John Anthony Xavier, published in the New Straits Times on 20th August 2014. The author is  currently the professor of management at the Graduate School of Business in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). Holding various degrees from several renowned universities both local and international, he holds a ph.D in Public Expenditure Management from the London School of Economics. 

The article talks of how universities of this day and age is beginning to fall out of relevance due to outdated education systems and curricula as well as various methods that can be done to improve the situation. Although this article is mainly geared towards workers of the educational sector with the purpose of convincing them of improving the system of education of Malaysian Universities and making them relevant again, it can also be seen as a way to inform the Malaysian public on the flaws of our education system and the need for change.

Throughout the article, the author uses a neutral tone as he describes the various faults of the current university education system, stating, "Despite their elaborate strategic plans, and that of the government, our universities are perceived as institutions without a clear sense of purpose and direction and that they have degenerated into diploma mills." and lists graduate unemployment as an example of how the current educational system is not working, "Despite the country enjoying full employment, one quarter of our graduates, or 52,000 of them - mostly from public universities - go unemployed." He argued that the reason so many graduates remain unemployed is due to the lack of languages and soft skills and industry-related competences, all of which are, according to the author, essential skills to make them relevant in the workplace.

The author goes on to suggest various ways of improvement, among them being to make academic education all-rounded, He explains the advantages and importance of humanities and sciences and why both are needed to produce an all-rounded individual. The author also states that extra-curricular activities help in making students more all-rounded,stating, "All-roundedness also implies that our students engage in extra-curricular activities-from the robust play of sports to the intellectual discourse of debates."The author also suggests that increased recruitment of foreign academics and students as a way to stimulate young minds and expose them to knowledge beyond what is learned in the classroom. The author ends the article with a hopeful note, saying, "There has been progress on these fronts. The reforms should continue."

 Throughout the article, the author uses a serious, informative tone.The way that the author states the facts and cites from various philosophical books, however, succeeds in inspiring the readers and provides insight into the many ways this issue can be viewed, In regards to the issue proper, I wholly agree with the author's thoughts on the matter. The author presents compelling arguments, made even more so when one considers his position and history. Although the article seems lacking in sources when comes to the statistics used, the way the author argues his point and discusses the issues are compelling enough nonetheless. The author has successfully delivered his points across, delivering an overall entertaining and enlightening article.

Written by: Loo Zhen Yuan (A155864)

Are our varsities still relevent?

Are our varsities still relevant? Is an article written by Prof Datuk John Anthony Xavier , that was published on 20^th of August 2014  in New Straits Times Online. Prof Datuk John Anthony Xavier is professor of management at the Graduate School of Business, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM).  He was graduated from the University of Malaya in 1974 with a Bachelor of Economics (Honours) degree. He holds a Master of Business Administration (High Distinction) from the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium (1986) and a Bachelor of Laws (Honours) from the University of London (External) (1988).  In 1996, he obtained his Ph.D. in Public Expenditure Management from the London School of Economics. The target audience of this article is generally for Malaysian especially for those who worked in an education sectors.

The writer intention is to persuade Malaysian to make universities education functional because universities have done little to improve their system of education. Therefore, Curriculum Universities have to consult with business and community leaders to map out the skills required of their graduates then they have to jointly overhaul curriculums to train graduates in requisite skills. The writer emphasize that an academic education must be all-rounded which means a dose of the humanities should be injected in the study of the sciences. All-roundedness also implies that our students engage in extra-curricular activities and also required student to appreciate the practice of their disciplines through attachments in related organizations. The writer highlighted that the academic environment too would need to offer greater stimulation to young minds by increasing diversity through increased recruitment of foreign academics and forge regular collaboration and exchange of faculty with other leading universities.

Fact and argument put forward by writer is to raise awareness that universities are seen increasingly less relevant to society. Looking at argument present by the writer, the writer had provided multi dimensional evidences, research result and real life situation to support his stance. The research result is reliable, in which one of it is carried out by Economist although without date.

The writer states that graduates remain unemployed because they lack the skills to make them relevant in the workplace. I think universities have a higher purpose and should not be seen as degree factories, whose role is simply prepared people for a job market. This reality is this view is losing ground and so we have to look sensibly at what it means to create an industry-relevant universities in order to prevent the crisis to be faced when student finished their studies. The way to encourage industry-relevant included candidates for this role must be well trained, universities must worked with employers to defined learning outcome and assessment process should included industry-based assignment.

The tone and choice of words used by the writer indicated his professionalism, with no biasness in terms of language style. No notes of sarcasm are used throughout this article, and it has been delivered straightforward and honestly. There are no fear appeals or provoking words had been used throughout this article. Thus, the method of delivering points could be said neutral without playing of emotions on the readers.

Overall, the purpose of this article is to persuade authorities to continue reforms and make some change in education system in Malaysia. However, the writer had successfully delivered his points through the arguments laid out by him, and making his stance clear.

Written by : Nur Shahazira Izzati Binti Shaharizan (A156968)

Critique On ‘Are Our Varsities Still Relevant?’

CRITIQUE ON ‘ARE OUR VARSITIES STILL RELEVANT?’

‘Are Our Varsities Still Relevant?’ is an article written on the relevance of varsities being an influences in unemployment issue among graduates in Malaysia. It is written by Prof Datuk John Anthony Xavier, a professor of management at the Graduate School of Business, UKM. He has published a number of books and articles on law and public finance and management in local and international journals. This article was published in a column of New Straits Times, on Wednesday 20 August 2014.

The target audiences of this article is to aim a specific group who should be responsible towards the tertiary education system in Malaysia such as the government instead of the common Malaysians. However, the Malaysians somehow should open their eyes and see what is really happening now, facing the truth and also solving the problems occurred with the help of the authorities involved.

The author’s intention is to deliver information to the readers regarding the issue where universities in Malaysia is actually outdated and need to be change and improve at same time. This can be seen through the choice of content for this article. Starting off his writing with stressing out how universities play a vital role in developing a country which possessed powerful generations who will definitely contribute to Malaysia’s economic growth.

Other than that, he mentions that university is a place where youngsters have a chance to involve in debate and dialogue related to either cultural or political issue safely and this leads them to interpret those issues in a good way. Indirectly, it gives a huge impact towards their intellectual capacity.

Next, he highlights on how the universities in Malaysia increasingly less relevant to society. He takes unemployment issue among graduates in Malaysia as an example as he states one quarter of our graduates, or 52,000 of them who mostly from public universities are unemployed. In 12^th paragraph, the author writes about why graduates remain unemployed. This is because they lack the skills to make them relevant in the workplace. They lack language and soft skills and industry-related competences. Regarding to this issue, he provides a way to solve this problem by taking a look back at the universities’ curriculum. The universities have to find out the skills required of their graduates by seek information or advice from businesses and community leaders and then, train them with those skills.

Nevertheless, the importance of teaching the theory to the students is still one of the priorities. He also states that an academic education must be all-rounded. An all-rounded education will surely make graduates more employable. All-roundness also indicate that the students who involves in extra-curricular activities, have a good grade with soft skills and leadership will prepare themselves before they go into the ‘real’ world. Moreover, they are required to appreciate the practice of their disciplines through attachments in related organisations.

Besides, the author emphasizes on ways to attract young minds in pursuing their studies in university. The methods mention, is by providing academic freedom and also collaborating and exchanging of faculty with other leading universities.

The tone and choice of words used by the author are calm and casual but very convincing as the article is full of facts. No notes of sarcasm are used throughout this article and the method of delivering points is neutral without playing of emotions on the readers.

In conclusion, I can say that I am totally agree with the author about this article. All the points presented with strong evidences shows that the author writes a really good article without being biased. He managed to deliver his points in a clear manner.

Written by : Nur Atiqah (A155581)

Are Our Varsities Still Relevant?

Are Our Varsities Still Relevant?

By: Prof Datuk John Anthony Xavier

Published in: New Straits Times, Wednesday 20 August 2014

OUR universities play an indispensable role. They are factories for the country’s

talent, ideas and innovation. Thereby, they contribute to economic growth. Their

teaching nurtures impressionable and young minds to become better citizens and

future leaders.

The impact of a university education on the student’s intellectual capacity is

enormous. It expands minds and the capacity for thinking and comprehension. One

can readily sense the contribution of each progressive level of academic study to the

intellectual capacity of an individual. Universities improve cultural and political

understanding by offering a safe environment for dialogue and debate. With their

democratisation, universities have become vehicles for social mobility.

Cardinal Newman had this to say of a university education: “A university… raises the

intellectual tone of society… It gives a man a clear conscious view of his own

opinions and judgments, a truth in developing them, an eloquence in expressing

them and a force in urging them.”

However, recently, amid scepticism of their value and accusation of government

meddling, universities are seen as increasingly less relevant to society. Despite their

elaborate strategic plans, and that of the government, our universities are perceived

as institutions without a clear sense of purpose and direction and that they have

degenerated into diploma mills.

Take the case of graduate unemployment. Despite the country enjoying full

employment, one quarter of our graduates, or 52,000 of them — mostly from public

universities — go unemployed.

Despite their latest equipment, research at universities rarely fulfils industry needs.

Mostly pursued by individual researchers, research is meant to fulfil their KPIs than

to advance the cause of society. Buckets of money are poured into research with

little societal impact.

So the question, “Are our universities still relevant?” is a justifiable one.

The tightening of the public purse and limits on tuition fees have driven public

universities to seek additional funding from endowments and consultancies. Stefan

Collini, in his book What Are Universities For? frowns at the idea of universities being

made to partly defray their costs. Rather than being caught in the web of

marketisation, universities must guard against the erosion of academic freedom.

Relatedly, John Finnis, the Australian philosopher, in his book Natural Law and

Natural Rights argues that one of the seven basic human goods that man ought to

pursue for its own sake for a worthwhile life is knowledge.

Such assertions have merit. Notwithstanding, a growing country like ours cannot

afford the luxury of pursuing knowledge for its own sake alone. Knowledge must also

be pursued for its instrumental value. It must contribute to societal growth. The reality is that taxpayers fund the universities. Rather than seeing academia going on

a frolic of its own, taxpayers want immediate and more quantifiable returns on their

investments.

So how can universities live up to the high expectations reposed in them? The first

task is to make university education functional.

In its recent issue, the Economist highlighted that the system of education in

universities has remained the same since Aristotle taught at his school in Athens.

That was over 2,000 years ago! Since then time and circumstance have changed.

Yet, universities have done little to improve their system of education.

The writing is on the wall. Graduates remain unemployed because they lack the

skills to make them relevant in the workplace. They lack language and soft skills and

industry-related competences.

So, of immediate concern to a university, therefore, is to review its curriculum.

Universities have to consult with businesses and community leaders to map out the

skills required of their graduates. They have to then jointly overhaul curriculums to

train graduates in the requisite skills.

That should not mean the universities should give up on the broad education that is

their high calling. An academic education must be all-rounded. An all-rounded

education will surely make graduates more employable.

There must be a dollop of science in the arts discipline. Vice versa, a dose of the

humanities should be injected in the study of the sciences. The crunchier sciences

impart the needed skills in society while the humanities help students to understand

society itself. Take history for example. Arnold Toynbee, the great historian, says

that history is crucial to understanding our present and to carve out a better society.

The humanities help us to understand why we are different, what binds us to a

common destiny and why our society is ordered the way it is. They help understand

culture that provides meaning to all our actions. They fortify our spiritual anchor.

Without the humanities we risk being incapable of the judgment needed to function

as a human being.

All-roundness also implies that our students engage in extra-curricular activities —

from the robust play of sports to the intellectual discourse of debates. Such activities

will prepare them to withstand the hard knocks that society will deliver when students

find their rightful place therein.

All-roundedness also requires students to appreciate the practice of their disciplines

through attachments in related organisations. As Lenin once remarked, “Theory

without practice is pointless; practice without theory is mindless.”

To impart the needed skills, nurture better citizens and leaders of tomorrow and to

prepare them for the school of hard-knocks may require longer years of tertiary

education. If the current period of undergraduate education has to be expanded to accommodate these features of university education then that is the price to pay for

its increased relevance.

The academic environment too would need to offer greater stimulation to young

minds. There are two ways to going about this. First, greater academic freedom and

increasing diversity through increased recruitment of foreign academics and students

will expose our students to knowledge beyond their books and profit from the diverse

experiences and viewpoints.

Second, our universities should forge regular collaboration and exchange of faculty

with other leading universities. These connections can contribute to the overall

quality of education while serving as a magnet for international students to choose

Malaysia as their destination.

There has been progress on these fronts. The reforms should continue.

john@ukm.edu.my

Source : http://www.iais.org.my/e/index.php/publications-sp-1447159098/articles/item/download/395_c7f7cada304ecdf2e885b264a226d2bf.html