MANY MANY YEARS AGO, when the Baroness Lena Jaeger was a humble member of the House of Commons and in the executive committee of the Socialist International, she was invited to give a lecture at Singapore University. She was shocked to discover that at question time not one of the students had stood up to ask questions. Her revelatory article in the New Statesman about discovering a nation of sheep in "socialist" Singapore earned her a reprimand: she was henceforth persona non grata. 

Which prompts us to ask, what kind of students are we making now? After decades of Special Branch control, such as vetting for suitability certificates, how is thinking surviving? The latest incident at Universiti Science Malaya does not reassure us. It seems that certain members of the Chinese Language Society took part in a debate in Singapore without permission and are to face disciplinary action. It is certainly astonishing that today students have to get permission to debate with other students

Dato Toh Kin Woon, Economic Planning, Education and Human Resource Development Committee Chairman, who is also the Society's honorary advisor, says that the University should give more space for students to develop independent thinking even if their views differ from that of the government. Dr Toh Kin Woon was rudely told to mind his business; the university bosses think that the running of a university is their private affair and that the public should keep its nose out of its affairs.

It is worthwhile recalling the story of David Graham. While a student at Oxford in the year Hitler came to power, he drafted the pacifist proposal that "this house will in no circumstances fight for its king and country" which was carried by 275 votes to 173 at the Oxford Union. It created an uproar. But instead of being punished or expelled Graham graduated, and joined the British Broadcasting Corporation where he was in the top ranks of producers.

The atmosphere of intolerance and authoritarianism nurtured by long years of the ISA produces strange results. It does not surprise us that the education department solemnly advised women teachers to plan their pregnancies to avoid 'disrupting the teaching process.'  In the so called Husnul Hadi Halim letter affair, where a forged letter called on university students to act without fear of the ISA or the Universities and University Colleges Act, the University reaction was that the contents of letter could be considered an 'incitement', whatever that means

It is time that the teachers realised that the job of a  university is to produce people who think; that it is only the clash of ideas that will produce thinking graduates.  That they haven't a clue is very clear from the reaction of a university boss to the failure of an experimental Speaker's Corner: he concluded that it demonstrated "an erosion of intellectual culture," which was being replaced by the "championing of frivolous issues"!

Malaysian Academic Movement's president, Dr Wan Abdul Manan Wan Muda, was right when he said the criteria for universities to move up in ranking included the level of openness and the ability to generate new ideas. "Debates and the exchange of differing views are healthy intellectual activities and necessary for the advancement of knowledge and enriching the country"

We are glad to see that not all are keen on the creation of  a  nation of sheep, sheep that are fearful of Speaker's Corner.