Last night gave a flashback to the 60s

Scott Ng

A place of learning should be a place for the free exchange of ideas and information, regardless of political inclination.

In the annals of fairly recent history, we can find numerous occasions on which students have helped change the direction of political or social discourse in a country. Some have gone on to become icons for movements demanding that the will of the people prevail upon those who would call themselves leaders, their images engraved in our collective consciousness.

Grosvenor Square. Kent State. The Civil Rights and Black Power movements. Tiananmen Square. The 1999 Iranian Student Protests. The Soweto Uprising in South Africa.

These movements have earned their place in the history of the human race and shown us that there is one fact that cannot be denied – a bright spark can set alight a great forest. They also exemplify the great fear of many an oppressive government; a bright, empowered student population could take charge of the national conversation, affect policy and create change. For a staid system that relies on the stability of the status quo to slowly corrupt and ruin a country inside out, there is no greater threat.

The student movement has seen a resurgence in recent years under the brand of the Occupy Movement. Originally created to protest the inequality of wealth distribution, seen as 1% of the American population having as much as the other 99% collectively, the Occupy Movement has branched out from America to become a worldwide symbol of youth protesting against policies and ideologies that they see as detrimental to us as a people.

Most recently, the Occupy Hong Kong movement fought tooth and nail against police and ostensibly Beijing-hired leg breakers to send a message: we are our own people. For a month, they have camped on streets, sacrificed school and jobs, been beaten and harassed, all to demand full democracy, the right to elect their own leaders.

They have been encamped for a month now, and there’s no sign that they’ll leave the streets anytime soon.

Of course, that’s not to say we have such a vibrant movement here in Malaysia right now. But we are seeing the beginnings of it in the nation’s premier centre of higher education, where students led by Fahmi Zainol have openly defied the university, and by extension it’s political masters, by having the cheek to invite not just an opposition politician, but the Parliamentary Opposition Leader himself, and refused to stand down despite warnings and “suggestions” against the very idea.

Let’s be fair. A place of learning should be a place for the free exchange of ideas and information, regardless of political inclination. The higher education environment is the place to crystallize the beliefs and ideologies that you inherited from your parents and culture, or a place to challenge and break them in favour of better ones, and thence go forward to define who you are for the rest of your natural life barring some life changing event or other.

Rhetoric and principles

But if we insist on the censorship of politics within the environment of higher education, it should not come with a caveat that allows only the government of the day to air its views to an audience old and experienced enough to grasp what is merely rhetoric and what are actual principles held by our representatives. Thus, in the case of Universiti Malaya, all politicians from both sides of the floor should not be allowed within its hallowed halls, whether invited or not, allowing the students to flourish on their own and gain ideals and ideologies from the objective study of history and culture and by observing their peers.

The minds of the youth are important to both sides of the Parliament house, as the party that better captures the imaginations and the aspirations of the youth will secure its position in the future of this country. This makes universities a battleground between the political parties of the day, investing into the futures of their parties by recruiting bright young minds to reinvigorate and refresh the ranks of the party faithful.

Make no mistake, a war is being fought by proxy within Universiti Malaya. The progressives, cultivated by interaction with Opposition, and the right wing, entrenched in the rhetoric of the grand old party, find themselves on a collision course within the dilemma faced by Fahmi and his brave crew of dissidents. Additionally, the full force of the administration of the university is brought to bear to prevent a healthy discourse, culminating in the showdown seen last night in front of the Kuala Lumpur Gate of UM, where chants of “Bangkit, Bangkit Mahasiswa” were heard from the crowd that braved rain and threat of physical harm to claim their right of open discourse.

Standing at the gates of UM, the students railed to be let in, and eventually imposed their will on the guards, breaking the gates open and beginning the long march to Dewan Tunku Chancellor. Anwar Ibrahim soon followed, basking in the limelight. The night however, belonged to the students and their leader, Fahmi Zainol, as he stood before the crowd assembled and declared the start of a better Malaysia, something bigger than even Anwar Ibrahim.

“We have brought back the spirit of academic freedom,” he announced, “the spirit to speak out.”

It is undeniable that last night started something that we have not seen in a while within Malaysia’s political landscape. Political discourse in UM, and indeed, other universities in Malaysia, will undoubtedly become more vibrant, with students beginning to question which way they want our country to move forward, much like the student activism of the 1960s, with Anwar Ibrahim himself as arguably the most prominent of its leaders. Those were the glory days of Universiti Malaya as a centre for the development of our future leaders.

So choose. Stand for freedom and the independence of Malaysia’s undergraduates, and be fair in allowing politicians of all stripes to make their case to Malaysia’s future leaders. Or stand for censorship and deny both sides of the aisle entry into our centres of learning. Denying one side entry like before will only result in a repeat of last night – a demand, loud and clear, that the undergraduates of our country wish for the independence to discover which side of the fence they are inclined towards.

Student movements are more powerful than authority would like to give them credit for. We would do well to listen to the voice of the youth before this leads to Malaysia’s own Tiananmen Square.