Banish public relations slogans from education reform

The goal of sustainable development is for society to achieve living conditions that meet human needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The term originated with the 1987 Brundtland Report, and is rooted in 20th century environmental concerns.

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) is the education ministry’s current flavour of the month. This slogan fits snugly into the jigsaw puzzle of many UN-generated initiatives. In the field of education, every time the UN system turns language into slogans, developing nations like Malaysia adopt them.

In 2015, the United National General Assembly (Unga) set the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to be achieved by 2030. There are 17 SDGs, and higher education is mentioned in target 4.3.

SDG 4.3 “aims to ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university”. It “ensures inclusive and equitable quality” education. The focus is on technical and vocational education.

Over the decades, sustainable development focused more on economic and social development while protecting the environment. Sustainability emphasises a human-ecosystem equilibrium. It refers to the holistic approach that leads us to the end point of sustainability. This outlook to development obligates nations to reconcile their economic development strategies with preserving natural resources and ecosystems. The role of humans is key.

It is doubtful if our policymakers in the education ministry have critically examined the relevance of SDG 4.3 to Malaysia’s national unity. After all, national unity provides pristine conditions for the synergy between resources and our ecosystem. The “agent provocateur” would be the tolerant, inclusive and compassionate Malaysian citizen.

However, none of the 17 SDGs focuses exclusively on the socio-cultural aspects of sustainable goals. There are only four sub-targets that refer to culture, cultural diversity and education for “global citizenship”. As it stands today, Malaysians are grappling with our own difficulties with identity and citizenship. We are still debating who the “original peoples” are, who deserves constitutional rights based on their ancestry and what language should represent the Malaysian identity. The concept of a global citizen is unreachable.

Obstacles to ESD in the Malaysian context involve socio-cultural and religious hurdles. Even though Malaysia’s discourse on education reform runs parallel to the global ESD narrative, it is also disconnected from our socio-political-, cultural- and religious-specific obstacles. In the Malaysian context, ESD should not just be about economic viability and industry relevance. Our leadership engages too much in the rhetoric of UN ESD language, leaving us with a messy vision of what Malaysians should achieve by 2030.

Education Minister Maszlee Malik outlined three core areas of much-needed higher education reform. First, he claimed universities must be empowered. In a September 2019 statement on this matter, he posed the question, “What does it mean to empower universities?” His answer was that universities should be a place of learning, a place where “knowledge is explored, uplifted and imparted”.

Maszlee’s concept of empowerment is that universities should be “places that uplift society, be it through values, ideas, or solutions for real world problems”.

Universities are supposed to uphold a standard of education that offers more than cutting-edge research in the scientific, technical, AI, data and engineering fields. Five public research universities in Malaysia have been allocated RM400 million in grants for R&D. The focus is on collaborative high impact research and innovations in the five fields listed above.

Even though such research may lead to sustainable applications in industry, it will not “uplift” society in terms of human values and personality. How could these R&D activities empower universities to provide solutions to real world problems that are rooted in hatred and intolerance among the different races in our society?

Real world problems in Malaysia concern racial and religious tensions. For example, they are about intolerance and the uneasiness different races feel when sitting at the same table during a meal. For instance, beef and other non-vegetarian dishes at a Muslim kenduri form an acceptable menu for the majority race. Hindu and other vegetarian guests often adapt to the situation and willingly “make do” with whatever is available to them. The celebration proceeds harmoniously. However, the reverse may be an entirely different scenario. The halal issue has divided us only because we Muslims have forgotten the compassion of how to adapt our mindset and personality to the fluid situations in our daily lives.

The majority Malay/Muslims, merely by demographics, have the ability to promote national unity. They should be able to raise the standard of values by being confident in their humanity while preserving their religious beliefs. The two are mutually compatible. Unfortunately, interracial and religious tensions have grown. For example, it is utterly unnecessary to ask the hosts of a Deepavali lunch how the chicken was slaughtered before eating sumptuous chicken curry. On the other hand, it is second nature to every non-Muslim in 21st century Malaysia that halal food will be served during all multi-ethnic and religious celebrations, whether in public or private.

Our universities should be focused on more courses and research in the social sciences, which address the details of such intolerance in our society. If the goal of ESD in Malaysia, according to Maszlee, is to uplift society through values and ideas, universities should be empowered to run more modules in the social sciences, specifically dedicated to prejudice, racism, bigotry and intolerance. These modules should be approached historically and examined from all angles, drawing from research and published material from other societies and experiences.

Most importantly, our political leaders must refrain from politicising this. They must abandon the “fear factor”, that such courses could be a threat to national security. The truth of the matter is that most Malaysians would welcome such transparency.

Malaysian university academics must have enough integrity to be transparent in their classroom discussions on why Muslims and non-Muslims seem to get along less now. This subject matter should not be confined to faculties of Islamic Studies or other religion-related modules. This issue cannot remain veiled behind religious dogma and rituals. It must be exposed in philosophy, history, sociology and anthropology courses. In other words, ESD in Malaysia has to highlight the social sciences and humanities if we want to achieve sustainable development by 2030. Federal budget allocations should prioritise such academic activities in our university system.

Maszlee’s recommendation to amend Act 605 (Discipline and Surcharge) is progressive. It will give lecturers much-needed academic freedom; freedom to publish articles and make public statements, even on sensitive topics. Once there are no civil service restrictions on academics, they will (theoretically) be able to churn out critically-acclaimed scholarly works. More social science academics will feel free to devote their research and teaching to fundamental problems that are dividing the races of our nation. This is crucial if we are to achieve a successful ESD, which is truly holistic. - FMT