Democracy, as was defined in my previous post, is a system of governance by representatives elected by each of the citizen. Today, I'm going to discuss about the workings of democracy system in Malaysia (constitutional monarchy) and its flaws as well as the opposite extreme, monarchy system and its pros & cons. Then I will compare & contrast monarchy with democracy and my personal ideas regarding the solution.
Note : For non-Malaysian readers, Barisan Nasional (BN) is our current ruling party and it has 14 parties where UMNO is the leading party.
First, I will start off with the monarchy. Monarchy is a system of governance by a monarch, i.e. king or emperor. The people are the subject of the monarch and the monarch rules with divine rights. Often feared than revered, monarchy are often related and leads to dictatorship or tyranny. The monarch has the absolute power to decide on the country's fate as well as an individual's fate. Anyone who disrespects or going against (i mean the serious type, not the minor cases) the monarch are normally executed for treason to make an example for the others and to instill fear among the citizens in order to further enhance their divine rights. As was mentioned, the monarch will also decide on the utilisation of their land and labours along with the development of their country or kingdom. However, while dictatorship were generally the case, on some rare instances, monarch's power are put into good purpose and that ensures a lasting peace and prosper throughout the monarch's reign. For instance, Golden Era of China during Dynasty Tang, 100 years of peace and prosper.
So, the workings of the monarchy system is simple and obvious. Problems encountered are brought forward to a king or emperor, then after a discussion and debate between the king and his prime minister, ministers or council members, an ultimate decision is made by the king and the decision is passed down to the suppose target, be it citizens, workers or ministers in the form of royal edict. So the responsibility of the decision is borne by the king alone. Any consequences be it good or bad will improve or jeopardise the king's reputation. Certainly the king can shrug off the responsibility, perhaps partly to his ministers, but that will diminish his supposed divine rights and create doubts among his citizens and ministers, which expose himself to the risk of being overthrown if that action is perpetually done.
On the other hand, democracy system in Malaysia, Legislative division specifically, the decision-making involves working the bills through the Parliament before it is formally implemented as law. First the Prime Minister Department will issue a bill. Then it will go through the House of Common (Dewan Rakyat) for debates. I will not explain the workings in detail since we learnt it in our History text. In short, the 2nd and 3rd reading involves the debate between the ruling party and the opposition. Then the bill works its way through the House of Lords (Dewan Negara) and finally the signature of Yang Di-Pertuan Agong (our king, for those non-malaysian readers) serves as a verification of the bill before it's implemented as written law. The House of Lords and signature of the king are not factors to be concerned with since they can only delay the bill but not veto against it.
The problem lies within the House of Common. The majority of the MPs will form the ruling government, and thus more than 50% of the sitting MPs are from BN. With the implementation of the Whip System, every BN MPs are forced to vote in favour of their party's decision. Anyone who vote against it is forced into resignation. With this Whip System, every bill issued by the Prime Minister Department will be automatically implemented if it's a minor bill. A major decision will involve 2/3 majority of the sitting MPs. (Thank god that the opposition is stronger now and BN has less than 2/3 majority. They used to have more than 2/3 which is a 100% passing rate for any bill.) Thus far there is no resignation of MPs to be seen except for Zaid Ibrahim (yea he's a man) for going against the abuse of ISA. Some (or maybe most) current government MPs are just trying to stay low and reap their reward or profit from their position through both legal and illegal means, i.e. corruption.
Another main problem of democracy system that the responsibility bearer is often elusive. The bill is made in the Prime Minister Department. Although the Prime Minister himself may be in charge of the bill, but the true responsibility lies in the hands of the MPs within the Parliament. Whatever effect or consequences that may follow up, the responsibility is shared among the voters amongst the MPs. Prime Minister or even MPs themselves can often shrug off their responsibility by stating that it was a majority decision and escape justice.
Furthermore, given the Whip System, they are highly likely to pass the bill (all bills if more than 2/3 sitting MPs from the ruling party) and reap the credit if their ideas succeed and shrug it off easily should they fail. Further more, Separation Of Powers does not exist in practice. Judiciary, Legislative and Executive divisions are interrelated. The head of the judge is appointed by the Prime Minister. Executive is obviously manned by the ruling party members and the ruling party MPs has the majority in the Parliament. To make things worse, the current government is corrupted, MPs and people are tradable with money and the current government will protect their precious throne by all means. Even if people are aware of the truth behind democracy, their civil consciousness are subjugated by ISA. In some sense, don't you think that the current government is transformed into an organisational form of monarchy? Hidden behind the 'curtains' of democracy and instilling fear to the people through ISA, taking advantage of their fear of getting detained.
Sadly we are not adopting the American political system, where the MPs can vote across parties and the President has the absolute power to veto against a bill, but not in favour of it. A refined democracy system as mentioned by my friend, but it won't be effective due to the corruption amongst MPs and parties (people are tradable). But of course ISA is the real obstacle towards the real democracy, and certainly BN will not give it up as it's their ultimate defence.
So, whose side are you on? Democracy or Monarchy? Well, in Western countries, their Democratic system works well as the citizens are given a lot of freedom, i.e. freedom of speech and thoughts etc. However, our country differs from theirs in terms of racial discrimination. Freedom of speech is limited and the Malays' special rights are unquestionable. Perhaps democracy only truly works in a country with equal rights. But in general, if given no options but monarchy or democracy, then I will still side with Monarchy system. Reasons? If we have a wise king, things will work far better than democracy. On the other hand, should we get a dictator as our monarch, then the responsibility is clear and his reign will not last long and will be overthrown eventually. The benchmark for the measurement of performance that I used is based on the responsibility of the governor or ruler. It might be different for each of you and hence you might disagree with me.
I'll describe one of the differences of criteria between a wise ruler and a dictator or power-hungry governor using examples. In ancient China, 刘邦 (Liu Bang) for example, it wasn't his wish to be a king, but the situation forced him to be one. In the era of 3 kingdoms, 刘备 (Liu Bei) will not revolt against the government and created his own kingdom if not for the tyranny of 曹操 (Cao Cao), and once again the situation around him has made him a king. Taking things nearer, George Washington retired from his presidency and returned to Mount Vernon to be a blacksmith even though the people wished that he could continue his presidency. Wise rulers in the olden days will not become rulers if given a choice, because they knew that the responsibility of a ruler is too heavy to be borne alone, yet they had to. They serve their country and the people even if they are dressed in an emperor's robe (民为上，君次之）, following the teachings of Confucius. In contrary, nowadays, the leaders all flock to the the top position like bees to honey. By any means, legal or illegal, honour or deceit, they will get it done. They succumb to their own greed and the promise of wealth and power of the top position has somehow ripped their humanity away from them. As was mentioned, in democratic system, one can easily shrug off their responsibility. Thus, good reward, low responsibility, why not take it?
Personally I would suggest a democratic monarchy system, which merges the pros and try to get rid of the cons of both systems. A country ruled by one elected ruler, perhaps a President if not a king. And this President will have the absolute power to decide on country matters. He or she may hold a conference during a decision-making process and decide on the ultimate decision on major issues and thus he will bear the responsibility if things do not turn out as planned. This president has no rights to determine a person's life and death, even if that person is a criminal. It will be handed over to a independent and separate entity, Judiciary division that is not subjected under the rule of the President to determine the person's guilt and hence the convictions. The promotion or appointment of the judges within the system will be done by an independent commission. Notice that I did not mention the Legislative division. Well, in my opinion, for Malaysia, the Parliament is just a place where the decision-making process are made democratic in appearance, but not in essence. It's a place for pointless debates which ultimately BN will mostly prevail as the speaker is from BN and thus will side with them.
In this system that I mentioned, certainly the President can delegate his powers to different ministries just as the ones we have. However, note that he should appoint ministers with required and sufficient knowledge of that particular field instead of our current 'fill in the blanks' trend. Due to the absence of Parliament, the President will have a heavy workload and hopefully is adequate to shun away the 'profit-seekers'. There will be an election hosted by an independent commission (involve foreign members if necessary) every few years (maybe 5 if we follow our current system) for a new President or to continue the presidency of the current President. The people has the rights to decide on which of the candidate is fit to become their leader and every citizen of the country is eligible for nomination. In short, what I am suggesting is that we should have a ruler that will serve the people instead of us serving him or her. This ruler will rule with his wisdom and take the consequences of his action like a man. And this ruler is removable, which is a safety valve against dictatorship.
Well, it's just a rough idea, I left out plenty of details regarding my system since I have mentioned, I am no expert in these fields. A lot of refinement will be needed if the system is to work, let alone effective.
In the short run however, as I have mentioned in my previous post, we should let the citizens vote for their own Prime Minister. But at the mean time, I think that our country need a change. We need a change of government, despite the fact that the current government is heavily corrupted, to show the citizens of Malaysia that our government is changeable.
So much for today. See you guys in few days time. Enjoy the post.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Fallacy Of Democracy
As I have promised in my previous post, I will write on the core topic itself. This time, regarding democracy in Malaysia. I hope those who read these are mature readers.
"A system of government by the whole people of country, especially through representatives they elect ; A government that allows freedom of speech, religion and political opinion, that upholds the rule of law and majority rule and that respects the rights of minorities; treatment of each other citizens as equals, without social class divisions" quoted from Oxford dictionary, a literal dimension of the definition of democracy.
Democracy....such a beauty, albeit an illusion. Behold, I shall reveal the reality of the world, the perversion of democracy, fueled by violation and abuse of power and left unchecked.
To what extent do you think Malaysia is a democratic country? I for one, think that save the fact that we are not sharing property, our country does not differ much from a communist country. Freedom of speech for instance, to your information, all newspapers, local TV channels, radio channels, schools, universities are under close scrutiny of the current government. Oh, we are slightly better than China, at least our internet access is not governed.
Universities & University Colleges Act (UUCA), another ideal example of the limitation of our freedom of speech, specifically targeting the students. The following is the amendments made for UUCA back in 2008
1) Section 2 of UUCA
Part-time and graduate students will now come under the Act. Previously they were exempted.
2)Section 15 of UUCA
- Students can join outside bodies but are still banned from joining political parties. Similarly, student
organisation can be affiliated to other organisations, but not political parties.
- Students and student organisations are barred from expressing support for, or opposition to, any political
party.
- Disciplinary actions can be taken against errant students.
Sources : http://www.y4c.org.my/?p=165
Why can't students take part or express their political views regarding their country? Perhaps the underage, but what about those students that are legitimate voters in terms of age? Based on the current trend, made apparent by the dissatisfaction caused by what our current government has done over the past few months (Perak especially), clearly the newer generations are the new 'thinkers', although these thinkers are relatively few by nature. By implementing UUCA, the government has effectively blocked away the new thinking and hope on winning the support from the easily swayed older generations, especially those that are less educated.
The current government's usual tactic of gaining support is through their last-minute-work, such as improving road conditions, meeting the demands of the public & donation for schools here and there etc. Typical. However, the elders nowadays are increasingly influenced by their children's modern thinking. Moreover, the recent upheaval in Perak where the citizens' wish of disbanding the Parliament and commence a new election is denied has clearly lighten up the mind of many. Najib claimed that he is not afraid of a new Perak election. Think of this, if he is not afraid, why has he been delaying and denying the election from the beginning? Why did BN have to snatch the rulership from Pakatan in Perak through their 'rightful' means? Why did BN has to pull Sivakumar out of the Parliament? It doesn't make sense to me. What do you think? I'll leave the interpretation to you guys.
UUCA is but a small issue in comparison to the infamous Internal Security Act (ISA). According to ISA, anyone who pose a threat to national security will be detained without trial for indefinite period of time. ISA is in fact a tool to be abused. Why are people so afraid of criticising and pointing out facts about the government and the so called 'sensitive' issues? It's all because of ISA. In practice, anyone who pose a threat to our current government will be detained without trial. A powerful tool indeed, erecting an inpenetrable barrier in front of our current government. According to my lecturer back in A-Levels, newspapers and medias are allowed to criticise the government for the sake of the public's welfare. Here, unfortunately, we don't. We are the subject of our government in fact, where unquestioned loyalty is demanded. I pity Teresa Kok, worse case, detained for no apparent reason.
In addition to ISA & UUCA, our education system has been made such a way that our way of thinking is moulded by the government. We blindly follow the footstep guided by our government (the mould), uncertain and unwary of the truth of our society and the forces at work. I gotta admit, the government has done a splendid job in educating the people to become pro-government. Of course, 52 years of rulership, they ought to sway the people in their favour in order to secure the throne. New thinking, such as mine, might be regarded as deviance and thus unacceptable. I'd wonder if I am now a threat to the government. lol.
All these factors, supplementing and augmenting the possibility of continuous racial discrimination. In America, albeit informal discrimination are still visible, yet all Americans know deep in their heart that everyone is equal in before their constitution. However, here, we are much like the secondary citizens of our own country, given the formal racial discrimination within the constitution. Such irony. We have no place nor say even in our own country, yet the government kept emphasising that we are all equal regardless of race and religion, and expect us to get along. But the truth is different races can get along, but people with different rights, wealth and power within a society simply cannot get along, generally. Just as Karl Marx stated, Bourgeoisies (property owners) and Proletariats (workers) are simply locked in a conflict for eternity. Although his theory of socialism is proven wrong in past history, but personally I agree with his views regarding the societies that practices capitalism.
I am no racist, nor do I hold personal grudge against the Malays. However, think of this, they claim that they are the rightful ruler of the country, yet their ancestors arrived from Indonesia. Despite that fact that the Chinese & Indians came later, but they lost their empire, their land. The coloniser took hold of Malaya, doesn't that indicate that Malaya had become a contested region? Furthermore, we gained our independence together, all 3 races, each race played a part in it. Yet the Malays are deemed supreme amongst us, and implemented laws to protect their rights as well as regarding special rights issue as 'sensitive'. So, what's the logic? Tell me. Back to the definition of democracy, do they respect the rights of the minorities? Or perhaps we are neither majority nor minority and stuck somewhere in between hence we are not promised our rights? Once again I leave the interpretation to you guys.
Once again I would like to clarify the definition of racism. Racism does not indicate a personal grudge or distaste towards the other races. For example, " I don't like the whites." The common reply in Malaysia will be, "Dang, you're such a racist!" This is a misconception. The problems between different races in Malaysia, be it grudges or hatred or whatsoever, is an ethnicity problem, not a racial problem. The true definition of racists are those who deem other races as inferiors and thus are hostile to them. So, be careful of how you use your words. Term it wrongly and you will become a laughing-stock of the truly educated ones.
If democracy is indeed a system whereby the country is governed by the people of the country, albeit through the elected representatives. I don't see a reason why our Prime Minister is elected within the ruling party itself, or worse, the dominating party within the ruling parties itself. If our country is truly a democratic country, why can't we adopt the American election system and let the citizens themselves vote for their favourite leaders? The political and legal systems are direct replicates of the UK systems, blindly followed, or perhaps to achieve certain hidden purposes? (Hope you guys know what i mean by 'hidden purposes') But of course, to allow a public election for a prime minister would mean that every citizens of the country would have an equal right to be eligible as candidates. This, they will not allow for that they are not yet prepared to give up the ruling power to other races.
We are denied of our freedom of speech and political opinions by UUCA and ISA, denied of our birthrights by a formal, written constitution that enable open discrimination. We are denied of our rights to elect our own ultimate leader or ruler of the country, the Prime Minister. These are the mockeries of democracy. So, do you still think our country is a democratic country? I agree with my lecturer on this. Malaysia is a democratic country in structural terms, but not in essence. A long way ahead before the actual democracy takes place. Now, tell me what you think.
"A system of government by the whole people of country, especially through representatives they elect ; A government that allows freedom of speech, religion and political opinion, that upholds the rule of law and majority rule and that respects the rights of minorities; treatment of each other citizens as equals, without social class divisions" quoted from Oxford dictionary, a literal dimension of the definition of democracy.
Democracy....such a beauty, albeit an illusion. Behold, I shall reveal the reality of the world, the perversion of democracy, fueled by violation and abuse of power and left unchecked.
To what extent do you think Malaysia is a democratic country? I for one, think that save the fact that we are not sharing property, our country does not differ much from a communist country. Freedom of speech for instance, to your information, all newspapers, local TV channels, radio channels, schools, universities are under close scrutiny of the current government. Oh, we are slightly better than China, at least our internet access is not governed.
Universities & University Colleges Act (UUCA), another ideal example of the limitation of our freedom of speech, specifically targeting the students. The following is the amendments made for UUCA back in 2008
1) Section 2 of UUCA
Part-time and graduate students will now come under the Act. Previously they were exempted.
2)Section 15 of UUCA
- Students can join outside bodies but are still banned from joining political parties. Similarly, student
organisation can be affiliated to other organisations, but not political parties.
- Students and student organisations are barred from expressing support for, or opposition to, any political
party.
- Disciplinary actions can be taken against errant students.
Sources : http://www.y4c.org.my/?p=165
Why can't students take part or express their political views regarding their country? Perhaps the underage, but what about those students that are legitimate voters in terms of age? Based on the current trend, made apparent by the dissatisfaction caused by what our current government has done over the past few months (Perak especially), clearly the newer generations are the new 'thinkers', although these thinkers are relatively few by nature. By implementing UUCA, the government has effectively blocked away the new thinking and hope on winning the support from the easily swayed older generations, especially those that are less educated.
The current government's usual tactic of gaining support is through their last-minute-work, such as improving road conditions, meeting the demands of the public & donation for schools here and there etc. Typical. However, the elders nowadays are increasingly influenced by their children's modern thinking. Moreover, the recent upheaval in Perak where the citizens' wish of disbanding the Parliament and commence a new election is denied has clearly lighten up the mind of many. Najib claimed that he is not afraid of a new Perak election. Think of this, if he is not afraid, why has he been delaying and denying the election from the beginning? Why did BN have to snatch the rulership from Pakatan in Perak through their 'rightful' means? Why did BN has to pull Sivakumar out of the Parliament? It doesn't make sense to me. What do you think? I'll leave the interpretation to you guys.
UUCA is but a small issue in comparison to the infamous Internal Security Act (ISA). According to ISA, anyone who pose a threat to national security will be detained without trial for indefinite period of time. ISA is in fact a tool to be abused. Why are people so afraid of criticising and pointing out facts about the government and the so called 'sensitive' issues? It's all because of ISA. In practice, anyone who pose a threat to our current government will be detained without trial. A powerful tool indeed, erecting an inpenetrable barrier in front of our current government. According to my lecturer back in A-Levels, newspapers and medias are allowed to criticise the government for the sake of the public's welfare. Here, unfortunately, we don't. We are the subject of our government in fact, where unquestioned loyalty is demanded. I pity Teresa Kok, worse case, detained for no apparent reason.
In addition to ISA & UUCA, our education system has been made such a way that our way of thinking is moulded by the government. We blindly follow the footstep guided by our government (the mould), uncertain and unwary of the truth of our society and the forces at work. I gotta admit, the government has done a splendid job in educating the people to become pro-government. Of course, 52 years of rulership, they ought to sway the people in their favour in order to secure the throne. New thinking, such as mine, might be regarded as deviance and thus unacceptable. I'd wonder if I am now a threat to the government. lol.
All these factors, supplementing and augmenting the possibility of continuous racial discrimination. In America, albeit informal discrimination are still visible, yet all Americans know deep in their heart that everyone is equal in before their constitution. However, here, we are much like the secondary citizens of our own country, given the formal racial discrimination within the constitution. Such irony. We have no place nor say even in our own country, yet the government kept emphasising that we are all equal regardless of race and religion, and expect us to get along. But the truth is different races can get along, but people with different rights, wealth and power within a society simply cannot get along, generally. Just as Karl Marx stated, Bourgeoisies (property owners) and Proletariats (workers) are simply locked in a conflict for eternity. Although his theory of socialism is proven wrong in past history, but personally I agree with his views regarding the societies that practices capitalism.
I am no racist, nor do I hold personal grudge against the Malays. However, think of this, they claim that they are the rightful ruler of the country, yet their ancestors arrived from Indonesia. Despite that fact that the Chinese & Indians came later, but they lost their empire, their land. The coloniser took hold of Malaya, doesn't that indicate that Malaya had become a contested region? Furthermore, we gained our independence together, all 3 races, each race played a part in it. Yet the Malays are deemed supreme amongst us, and implemented laws to protect their rights as well as regarding special rights issue as 'sensitive'. So, what's the logic? Tell me. Back to the definition of democracy, do they respect the rights of the minorities? Or perhaps we are neither majority nor minority and stuck somewhere in between hence we are not promised our rights? Once again I leave the interpretation to you guys.
Once again I would like to clarify the definition of racism. Racism does not indicate a personal grudge or distaste towards the other races. For example, " I don't like the whites." The common reply in Malaysia will be, "Dang, you're such a racist!" This is a misconception. The problems between different races in Malaysia, be it grudges or hatred or whatsoever, is an ethnicity problem, not a racial problem. The true definition of racists are those who deem other races as inferiors and thus are hostile to them. So, be careful of how you use your words. Term it wrongly and you will become a laughing-stock of the truly educated ones.
If democracy is indeed a system whereby the country is governed by the people of the country, albeit through the elected representatives. I don't see a reason why our Prime Minister is elected within the ruling party itself, or worse, the dominating party within the ruling parties itself. If our country is truly a democratic country, why can't we adopt the American election system and let the citizens themselves vote for their favourite leaders? The political and legal systems are direct replicates of the UK systems, blindly followed, or perhaps to achieve certain hidden purposes? (Hope you guys know what i mean by 'hidden purposes') But of course, to allow a public election for a prime minister would mean that every citizens of the country would have an equal right to be eligible as candidates. This, they will not allow for that they are not yet prepared to give up the ruling power to other races.
We are denied of our freedom of speech and political opinions by UUCA and ISA, denied of our birthrights by a formal, written constitution that enable open discrimination. We are denied of our rights to elect our own ultimate leader or ruler of the country, the Prime Minister. These are the mockeries of democracy. So, do you still think our country is a democratic country? I agree with my lecturer on this. Malaysia is a democratic country in structural terms, but not in essence. A long way ahead before the actual democracy takes place. Now, tell me what you think.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Introduction of my own philosophy
I started this blog out of a friend's recommendation and boredom, since I've just finished my exams. As the title implies, the blog is about politics, philosophy & economics. I am no expert in these fields. I am merely an apprentice which is constantly trying to improve myself through further studies (undergraduates at the moment) and self-criticism. Feel free to share your views and comments with me.
Know that there is no room for sensitivity in this blog. Sensitivity is for the weak that can't defend their own position or views. I will point out facts that is ought to be pointed out with the exception of religious matters, in order not to be deemed sacrilege.
I don't believe in 'bias-free' either, as external knowledge is channeled through our mind. The different interpretation of different minds will provide different opinions and comments. And these different interpretation is the basis of conflicts, i.e. conflict of ideas. That means that we cannot express ourselves without involving a certain level of values (bias), but I will try my best to be as objective as possible.
I am currently taking my first year of BSc Economics. As I mentioned, I just finished my first year finals. In this one academic year, frankly speaking, the credit for the change of my way of thinking goes to my first year subject, Principles of Sociology. I hold great respect and much appreciation for my tutor and lecturer of Sociology.
So, what is a university? A place to gain more knowledge? A place to obtain a certificate to ease your job-seeking session? A manager of the taxation department in Pricewaterhouse Coopers once told me, the percentage of application of what he learned during his university life is ZERO. So, is this further studies within a university is merely a mean to get a certificate that can be discarded once a person secures an optimum job?
In conjunction with the issue above, my tutor of Sociology has pointed out a very interesting question. "If you are given a chance to take up doctorate , i.e. Ph.D but you are not allowed to use the Dr. title, or perhaps you are not given a certificate after your graduation, which means you take it up for the sake of knowledge itself, how many will actually take it nowadays?" Do not question the settings of the question, but dwell on the essence of the question. That's all i ask for.
To me, a university is not merely a place to gain knowledge nor to get a recognised certificate. It's the new way of thinking that is the fruit of the toil. Dumped into different situation, first we will listen to the issue and different ideas from our counterpart, critically analyse the issues/ideas and forming up professional opinions, comments or even solutions for the matter using knowledge at hands or those that we came across previously. That is what I strive to do and have been doing recently.
Meanwhile i would like to clarify the definition of professionalism. Professional doesn't entirely means exceptionally good or experienced in something, it also means the abililty of coming up with emotionally detached judgement of an issue at hand even if he or she is personally involved in it. Emotionally detached doesn't indicate an absence of feelings. Emotion clouds our judgement most of the time and would lead to poor judgement. Getting rid of emotions during the formation of ideas temporarily would provide a clearer and much more formidable judgement and thus provide a better solution for the issues or matters at hand.
I'm not sure if this is too much or too little for my first post. I would dwell on the mainstream of the blog itself in my coming posts unless things here need further clarification or debates. Feel free to comment, criticise or provide your opinions and views, but please do so with some level logicality. Enjoy the post :)
Know that there is no room for sensitivity in this blog. Sensitivity is for the weak that can't defend their own position or views. I will point out facts that is ought to be pointed out with the exception of religious matters, in order not to be deemed sacrilege.
I don't believe in 'bias-free' either, as external knowledge is channeled through our mind. The different interpretation of different minds will provide different opinions and comments. And these different interpretation is the basis of conflicts, i.e. conflict of ideas. That means that we cannot express ourselves without involving a certain level of values (bias), but I will try my best to be as objective as possible.
I am currently taking my first year of BSc Economics. As I mentioned, I just finished my first year finals. In this one academic year, frankly speaking, the credit for the change of my way of thinking goes to my first year subject, Principles of Sociology. I hold great respect and much appreciation for my tutor and lecturer of Sociology.
So, what is a university? A place to gain more knowledge? A place to obtain a certificate to ease your job-seeking session? A manager of the taxation department in Pricewaterhouse Coopers once told me, the percentage of application of what he learned during his university life is ZERO. So, is this further studies within a university is merely a mean to get a certificate that can be discarded once a person secures an optimum job?
In conjunction with the issue above, my tutor of Sociology has pointed out a very interesting question. "If you are given a chance to take up doctorate , i.e. Ph.D but you are not allowed to use the Dr. title, or perhaps you are not given a certificate after your graduation, which means you take it up for the sake of knowledge itself, how many will actually take it nowadays?" Do not question the settings of the question, but dwell on the essence of the question. That's all i ask for.
To me, a university is not merely a place to gain knowledge nor to get a recognised certificate. It's the new way of thinking that is the fruit of the toil. Dumped into different situation, first we will listen to the issue and different ideas from our counterpart, critically analyse the issues/ideas and forming up professional opinions, comments or even solutions for the matter using knowledge at hands or those that we came across previously. That is what I strive to do and have been doing recently.
Meanwhile i would like to clarify the definition of professionalism. Professional doesn't entirely means exceptionally good or experienced in something, it also means the abililty of coming up with emotionally detached judgement of an issue at hand even if he or she is personally involved in it. Emotionally detached doesn't indicate an absence of feelings. Emotion clouds our judgement most of the time and would lead to poor judgement. Getting rid of emotions during the formation of ideas temporarily would provide a clearer and much more formidable judgement and thus provide a better solution for the issues or matters at hand.
I'm not sure if this is too much or too little for my first post. I would dwell on the mainstream of the blog itself in my coming posts unless things here need further clarification or debates. Feel free to comment, criticise or provide your opinions and views, but please do so with some level logicality. Enjoy the post :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)