Malaysia Boleh anyone?
Dr. Terence Gomez's application for a two-year unpaid leave has been approved by the UM; this radical turn of events were the result of direct intervention by the Higher Education Minister himself. In addition, the minister also revoked his resignation, enabling the social scientist to continue serving at the UM after he has completed his two-year secondment at the Geneva-based United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD).
As much as I am happy and relieved for him at the eventual positive outcome of this whole issue, I think it reveals something of a fundamental defficiency about the way things are done back in Malaysia.
This issue has been going on for nearly several weeks and yet why it took so long for the minister himself to intervene and set the matter straight?
Furthermore, do we always need a minister himself to be involved in order to resolve such complications? Must the higher powers in the goverment always be invoked in resolving every single issue that comes our way?
Can't the university administrators be trusted to come up with an amicable solution, the nature of which does not defy basic common sense?
What appalls me even more is the reaction from the UM vice chancellor who firmly defends his earlier decision to reject Dr. Terence Gomez's application for unpaid leave whilst defiantly claiming that Dr. Terence Gomez's resignation was "not a loss to the country" and that Dr. Terence Gomez was not fully committed to UM and the country by accepting the two-year appointment with the Geneva-based United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD). He further added that "any individual should consider the interests of their 'students, country and the nation' before deciding to resign".
How could anyone in their right and reasonable mind concluded that the fact Dr. Terence Gomez was offered a post at the UNRISD to be a loss to the country?
How could anyone be so short-sighted so as to not be able to see the long term benefits and honour that comes with Dr. Terence Gomez's appoinment to the UNRISHD? Won't his experiences there be of considerable value to his students and other social scientists at the UM?
I mean, at the end of the day, his achievements would not be his alone to keep; ultimately it will be shared and savored by the UM as well.
Ever since when we Malaysians starts to have an antagonistic and almost reflex-like reaction to the prestige that comes from doing anything which have superlatives such as the 'highest, longest, fastest, tallest etc' attached to it? When did we begin to shy away from the limelight which often accompanies such feats?
Come on, where is the Malaysia Boleh spirit?
Reading the Vice Chanchellor's statements, I could not help but to wonder whether his arguments are going to proceed along the rhetoric of patriotism or of one's indebtness to the country which are often played out in our country. Is he going to question Dr. Terence Gomez's level of patriotism next? Will he start accusing Dr. Terence Gomez of being ungrateful for leaving his post at the UM to take up the post at UNRISD?
Frankly, it is not suprising to find a person who have a myopic understanding of patriotism such as that. What is suprising however, is to find such a person occupying a clearly important position in one of the country's top university.
No doubt that patriotism is one of the essential building blocks of a nation, but when the definition of patriotism is stretched too far, it will begin to lose its real meaning and risks being quoted out of its original context. When that happens, patriotism suddenly starts to be applied to every single mundane and trivial thing - the recent proposal to play the national anthem exactly illustrate this point - and failure to abide to them would conveniently make a person earn the label of being 'un-patriotic'.
Ultimately, patriotism would then become a one-dimensional 'tag' which one could easily put on and off at one's will; it has been reduced into a superificial accessory, a relic of its former self; it's true meaning lost forever.
As much as I am happy and relieved for him at the eventual positive outcome of this whole issue, I think it reveals something of a fundamental defficiency about the way things are done back in Malaysia.
This issue has been going on for nearly several weeks and yet why it took so long for the minister himself to intervene and set the matter straight?
Furthermore, do we always need a minister himself to be involved in order to resolve such complications? Must the higher powers in the goverment always be invoked in resolving every single issue that comes our way?
Can't the university administrators be trusted to come up with an amicable solution, the nature of which does not defy basic common sense?
What appalls me even more is the reaction from the UM vice chancellor who firmly defends his earlier decision to reject Dr. Terence Gomez's application for unpaid leave whilst defiantly claiming that Dr. Terence Gomez's resignation was "not a loss to the country" and that Dr. Terence Gomez was not fully committed to UM and the country by accepting the two-year appointment with the Geneva-based United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD). He further added that "any individual should consider the interests of their 'students, country and the nation' before deciding to resign".
How could anyone in their right and reasonable mind concluded that the fact Dr. Terence Gomez was offered a post at the UNRISD to be a loss to the country?
How could anyone be so short-sighted so as to not be able to see the long term benefits and honour that comes with Dr. Terence Gomez's appoinment to the UNRISHD? Won't his experiences there be of considerable value to his students and other social scientists at the UM?
I mean, at the end of the day, his achievements would not be his alone to keep; ultimately it will be shared and savored by the UM as well.
Ever since when we Malaysians starts to have an antagonistic and almost reflex-like reaction to the prestige that comes from doing anything which have superlatives such as the 'highest, longest, fastest, tallest etc' attached to it? When did we begin to shy away from the limelight which often accompanies such feats?
Come on, where is the Malaysia Boleh spirit?
Reading the Vice Chanchellor's statements, I could not help but to wonder whether his arguments are going to proceed along the rhetoric of patriotism or of one's indebtness to the country which are often played out in our country. Is he going to question Dr. Terence Gomez's level of patriotism next? Will he start accusing Dr. Terence Gomez of being ungrateful for leaving his post at the UM to take up the post at UNRISD?
Frankly, it is not suprising to find a person who have a myopic understanding of patriotism such as that. What is suprising however, is to find such a person occupying a clearly important position in one of the country's top university.
No doubt that patriotism is one of the essential building blocks of a nation, but when the definition of patriotism is stretched too far, it will begin to lose its real meaning and risks being quoted out of its original context. When that happens, patriotism suddenly starts to be applied to every single mundane and trivial thing - the recent proposal to play the national anthem exactly illustrate this point - and failure to abide to them would conveniently make a person earn the label of being 'un-patriotic'.
Ultimately, patriotism would then become a one-dimensional 'tag' which one could easily put on and off at one's will; it has been reduced into a superificial accessory, a relic of its former self; it's true meaning lost forever.
posted by wanaimran at
11:29 PM
1 Comments:
Malaysia memang boleh.
Tetapi sila semua rakyat, terangkan makna 'Malaysia Boleh' sekali lagi?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home