A convoluted take on KPM’s new compulsory university subject decision

In this piece I would like to vocalise my vehement disagreement with regards to Dr. Maszlee Malik’s decision to introduce 2 new compulsory university subjects, i.e. the ‘Philosophy and Current Issues’ (Falsafah dan Isu Semasa) module and the ‘Appreciation of Ethics and Civilisation’ (Penghayatan Etika dan Peradaban), which will be implemented and take place in all Malaysian universities, as stated on his official Twitter account.

Our Education Minister has achieved a sustained period of notoriety and outcry from the Malaysian people, whom you’d expect to have varying degrees of understanding on education in general, and even so I feel that it would be unfair to criticise him personally, and will only focus my case on his policy track record that he should be held accountable for. With that being said I still do feel that the introduction of these two modules is uninspiring, toxic, impractical, and reflects on the Malaysian Education Ministry’s lack of direction and aim on uplifting economic and social empowerment of grassroot individuals through local public education.

These two modules would seem to centre around philosophy and ethics, which I would presume to be a brief, several month-long introduction towards the academic study to these fields. Philosophy, and its sub-branch ethics would be fine modules to take, and I do agree with Dr. Maszlee’s proposition that philosophy would assist with our ability to analyse, seek truths and plan solutions. Learning and appreciating ethics and its implications to modern human civilisation would also provide avid readers with the ability to maneuvre through texts or contexts of ambiguity to discern truth from fabricated lies, and ultimately right from wrong. These are great fields of study, and great modules to take per se if the subject were being taught at a satisfactory quality. I believe that our countrymen would be able to derive much utility out of self-exploration on topics that interest them, based on their liberty.

But how this seemingly trivial plan (alongside his other trivial ideas) would work, and its specifics in implementation seems a bit too unclear to me, especially when it is rolling out in 2019/2020 (please be reminded that we’re almost done with 2019). The fact that philosophy and ethics are not taught in all 20 public universities in Malaysia, let alone taught in an extensive scale is concerning as to whether or not practical considerations have been one of, if not the first things the education ministry should ponder upon.

These and many other seemingly ‘creative’ ideas by Dr. Maszlee, e.g. his proposal for schools to be cashless and specifying Malay and English speaking school days seem to fall under this pervasive category. How would basic notions in philosophy and ethics be communicated effectively if educators are given (say if he wants this to be enforced by 2020) 3 months of learning and training to teach these modules? It always just seems like any positive reinforcements from the education ministry, including this, would tie back to the same simple question. How?

Now let’s disregard practicalities and imagine if this were to work efficiently and effectively by the start of next year, i.e. there will be capable teachers and equally motivated students filling up classrooms to learn about these two topics. The next question one would ask obviously, is what are students going to study? Philosophy isn’t just like mathematics or science where it is straightforward to just teach what is researched upon and universally accepted. What sort of philosophy or ethical compass does the Malaysian education ministry subscribe to? Would it be more similar to Philosophy 101 common in American universities? Where students get to meddle with schools of thought from the Greeks like Socrates or Prato? Or would the ministry prefer to introduce important East and Southeast Asian thinkers? Lao Tzu, or the renowned Indonesian philosopher Hamka for example? What would the ethical subjects look like? How would such a subject reflect on pertinent issues such as capital punishment or the existence of the LGBT community in Malaysia?

Complications would arise naturally due to the diverse and varied nature of philosophy and how people viewed different ancient and modern civilisations. In a country whose ideological discourse is so fragmented and divisive since we’re all busy dealing with coming to terms and agreement on who we actually are and what we represent as Malaysians, introducing courses that teach us how to think would inadvertently lead to further fragmentation and controversy that we don’t need. We don’t need another Jawi debacle when there are more pertinent issues surrounding Malaysian education that we should ultimately care about, like provision of resources and solving problems surrounding the rural-urban divide in public schooling, or even better, supporting or replacing local NGOs that spend their hard work and time on improving educational access and infrastructure for rural students and the urban poor in the heart of KL.

This brings me to another important point with regards to the importance of these two compulsory modules. Why? And what’s the point? A majority of Malaysian students don’t have access to tertiary education and are not obtaining degrees, around 1 in 5 students drop-out of schooling before they complete their SPM, and an increasing number of students are choosing to opt-in to private and overseas education when they get the chance. By introducing these two modules as compulsory subjects in university we are 1) not even going to reach most young people 2) ignoring the practical aspects and goals to tertiary education.

Tertiary education in Malaysia has always pertained a more practical nature as opposed to training young minds to think, for example, we are more inclined to degrees with a definitive career outcome at the end as opposed to degrees that allow us to think critically. Believe you me I’m confident that most students would work hard for a few modules and forget about what they’ve learnt because all we want and need, is the ability to sustain ourselves and hopefully create an impact in the workplace one day. Now one can look at this from different perspectives and conclude whether this is good or bad, which is another topic for discussion, but fact stays as fact. What I’m primarily concerned about is how the government is seemingly injecting these ideas into fruition without clear aim, deliberation and consideration of the perspectives of the people. Wouldn’t a better idea to go with improving Malaysian higher education is to start with the culture and environment we have now, and amending it from the start as opposed to implementing these seemingly pointless policies?

I understand that these questions have been thrown to the education ministry time and time again, especially after Pakatan Harapan’s victory in 2018, and I do believe that giving them ample time to move forward and improve a new Malaysia is essential. But it seems to me, a common citizen of Malaysia that our education ministry especially has been very good at beating around the bush when it comes to introducing new and empowering initiatives with regards to the education system. When it comes to pointing out and solving the real problems, they don’t seem to be as focused as the trivial side-quests that they have mastered.

Some of these ideas may seem convoluted, but like any other policy for the common rakyat to critically think about comes back to a few simple questions. Why? How? And what’s the point? Perhaps the education ministry should take a rather simplistic approach than to churn out ideas that even to a simpleton may seem impractical and unfounded.