Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) authorities have hurriedly revised a dress code guideline for those attending its 50th convocation ceremony – including parents of graduating students – next week after a public outcry.
It makes me think, yet again, about the quality of university administrators as Universiti Malaya (UM) too was recently in the news over freedom of speech issues.
First, let me deal with the UKM controversy. A poster on “Dress Code for UKM Convocation”, which went viral on social media platforms, depicted the dress code for both graduands and guests, including clothes that were prohibited.
Among other things, it said jeans, short pants, T-shirts, short skirts, slit skirts, slippers, and sneakers were prohibited. Accompanying pictures showed that the saree, cheongsam, short-sleeved blouse and knee-length pencil skirt were also not allowed.
The saree and cheongsam, as we all know, are traditional clothes worn by Indians and Chinese respectively. In the past, graduating students have gone up to collect their scrolls wearing sarees, and certainly mothers of Indian students are usually in sarees.
So what’s the problem? This is among the questions netizens posed as they slammed UKM’s not-so-intelligent guideline, which led to the revision.
The revised dress code advisory of Oct 31 said, among other things, that graduands and guests attending the convocation ceremony would be allowed to wear baju kebangsaaan (national attire) and that all items of clothing worn must be dark-coloured, fully sleeved and extend to one’s ankle.
Does that mean the saree and cheongsam are still not allowed? If so, why?
Apart from the question of the freedom to dress as one pleases so long as it’s not indecent, there is also the question of whether, by its action, UKM is giving preference to uniformity over diversity.
But the problem at UKM, just as in other public universities, goes deeper than what is worn on the body. It indicates the sorry state of the thought process among university administrators, including at UM.
The UM students’ union organised a forum on freedom of speech during orientation week on Oct 13, with Election Commission deputy chairman Dr Azmi Sharom and the former president of the UM Association of New Youth (Umany) Wong Yan Ke invited to speak. However, it was reported, a politically affiliated student association complained to the UM authorities that Wong had a case pending in court over his protest action against the then UM vice-chancellor in 2019.
Wong had carried out a solo demonstration demanding the resignation of the vice-chancellor by carrying a placard with the words “Undur VC” (Step down VC) and “Tolak rasis” (Reject the racist) while receiving his scroll. UM later lodged a police report.
Wong had protested the involvement of the university in the Malay Dignity Congress in 2019, which many Malaysians saw as racist in nature. The congress was organised by four public universities – UM, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Universiti Teknologi Mara, and Universiti Putra Malaysia.
According to Gerak, an association of Malaysian academics, based on the complaint by the student association, “the (UM) authorities halted the forum, switched off the sound system and told the students – and Azmi – to leave the hall”.
Gerak slammed the action of the university authorities, rhetorically asking how a once great university had been reduced to this (more on this tomorrow). In supporting the forum organisers, Gerak said: “We condemn in no uncertain terms the fascistic display of power by the UM authorities who have ignored rights and academic freedom.”
Meanwhile, the students’ union said: “The university administration has no right to dictate who can or cannot be a speaker and should only take action against the speaker if their speech is inappropriate or against the law.” Well said.
It was not the first time UM had been in the news for clamping down on freedom.
In November 2017, Umany protested the reminder by the integrity unit of the vice-chancellor’s office to academic staff and students not to make any negative public statement by any means, including social media, about the university and the government.
Isn’t this censorship? Isn’t the dress code by UKM censorship? A university is the last place where censorship should occur.
It’s astounding that such things occur in our top public universities. It is also exasperating and sad.
A university is not a school, but many administrators and education ministers treat them as no better than the school.
A university is not a place which shoves knowledge down the throats of students; rather, it is a place which creates in them a thirst for knowledge and how and where to seek it. It is not a place that teaches students what is proper and what is not; rather, it is a place which creates an atmosphere in which they learn how to decide what is proper and not proper. A university is not a factory which produces students with uniform mindsets; rather, it is a laboratory where experiments are conducted and lessons learned to enable students to use their thinking faculties.
Universities should celebrate diversity. University authorities should not only have open minds, they should encourage their students to have open minds and think critically and clearly regarding all matters. One way of doing this is by encouraging debates and discussions like the aborted forum organised by the UM students’ union.
If we look around us at those who have succeeded in their lives, at those nations that are deemed successful or progressive, we will find that it is because they have an open mind, a questioning mind. It is because they keep the windows and doors to their minds open and well ventilated, but without losing their ability to think clearly and critically.
Universities should create a neutral atmosphere where academics and students can research and debate on a variety of issues. Even unpopular views should be heard, as it exposes students to a different way of thinking and, hopefully, will help them weigh the ideas critically and clearly.
Unfortunately, this is lacking in our public universities.
Those who are not open to ideas, who don’t weigh the merit or demerit of new ideas even if these ideas seem contrary to accepted wisdom or alien upon first consideration, are condemned to remain stagnant whether in their family, social or professional lives. So too a university. So too a nation.
