Berani dalam Benar - "Too sensitive?" How about independently auditing the practice of appointing Vice-Chancellor (VC) ?

Dzulkifli Abdul Razak

February 28, 2025

 

A couple of weeks ago (Feb. 14), this column suggests that it is time to be serious about the appointment of VCs, sparked by the abrupt resignation of a VC then. Reportedly, the police has taken action on the case indicating there is enough to deep dive in search for the truth. After all, the said VC himself has also reported to police after resigning from the post. 

 

The issue must be serious enough in that the Parliament voices concern by urging the government to expedite the matter so that the higher education sector can be saved from being further demoralised. It worsened when the royal honorific title bestowed by the royalty, who is also the Chancellor of the university involved, was withdrawn from the VC in order to '"safeguard" the stature of the royal house. 

 

Many were at awe by the boldness of the action taken since it has never happened before in the history of higher education of the country. Instead, the opposite did when the title of Royal Professor was awarded for the first time to the country's foremost academic who was a Vice-Chancellor too. The contrast simply shows how the current Ministry of Higher Education has been awkward in its role to appoint a person worthy of the lofty position. As it is today, the process is fast plummeting to a new low, thanks to the present practices leading up to the mess we are in right now. 

 

Hence, it comes to no surprise when the media exposed how the minister concerned tried to side-step the issue by claiming it as "too sensitive." More so, in the face of the august Parliament whose core business is to look into various "sensitive" issues on numerous occasions before. It is for this very reason that the parliamentary debates are not shielded from all sorts of defamatory remarks and wild allegations just so that the "truth" can be firmly scrutinised and established. As a comparison, if the so-called 3R issues which are officially regarded as "sensitive" and seditious can get aired fully in Parliament as well as the social media, who is any minister to (mis)label any issue as "too sensitive" if not for the sake of self-interest and ego-centricity! What is more if the royal decree to unceremoniously withdraw the honorific title from the VC is not deemed as "too sensitive," can just anyone willy-nilly designate this and that as "too sensitive," much to the chagrin of the nation. In reality, it resulted in the Pandora Box to swing open and provoking demands for utmost transparency from a MP voted in by the rakyat (in this case, he lost and somehow made a minister still!) for a full explanation in words and action, since the rakyat paid for minister's salary and other perks to be honest! Period!

 

Failing to do so is indeed "too sensitive" in that it is unethical, paving the way to step down, or work for free as allegedly adopted by some personalities if warranted! Still undertaking the former must be accompanied by a public apology for the sheer lack of competencies. As for the latter, to remain earning the current income can arguably tantamount to being shameful and "insensitive" despite the standards demanded of a minister have fallen far short! 

 

Be that as it may the so-called ministerial "too sensitive" remark is indeed really "sensitive" since the Parliament is made a mockery off in eyes of the world, the civilised world that is. Period. Anyone working in the education sector must not be naive or act ignorant as to how brutal the academic world is in safeguarding its integrity against all sorts of charlatans especially the good-for-nothing political  versions. Even world-class university presidents were asked to vacant their position when the ethical red line is breached. What else lowly politicians who seem to have no idea what the academe is all about other than to secure votes (in this case not even that!) by asserting this and that. For example, it is easy to preach that university should be "human transformer" and "cultural builder" when in reality it is just the reverse. Putting them under wrap as "too sensitive" when it is convenient to do so. In such situation, the ultimate options are either to come clean in meeting the highest standards of integrity and ethics of the academia globally; or do nothing to allay the emerging doubts and suspicions that breeds a toxic and repressive culture throughout higher education! In choosing the former, apologies to the Chancellor is imperative; and as for the latter, the VC implicated must come forward to urgently detoxify the growing unethical culture before the higher education sector is burnout, and rot like a fish from the head downwards.

 

In summary, the unwarranted "too sensitive" remark must not be allowed to be normalised as lame excuses to cover up irresponsible act in fooling the public from knowing the "truth." This cowardly act to survive must be urgently unpacked through a high-level independent audit on the appointments of all VCs since 2004. No approach can be  dubbed as "too sensitive" to arrive at the "truth." It is the only way left to bring back dignity to the academe and the culprit(s) made accountable openly.