What's the BB Object?

"The advancement of Christ's Kingdom among Boys and the promotion of habits of Reverence, Discipline, Self-Respect, and all that tends towards a true Christian Manliness." This is the original BB Object designed by the founder, Sir William Alexander Smith in 1883 (read First for Boys by McFarlan).

Ten years later, in 1893, the word "Obedience" was added into the BB Object. This is also the version of BB Object that I was taught in 1994 when I joined the Boys' Brigade in Malaysia.
"The advancement of Christ's Kingdom among Boys and the promotion of habits of Obedience, Reverence, Discipline, Self-Respect, and all that tends towards a true Christian Manliness."

Several years later (exact year not sure), the BB Object in the Boys' Brigade in Malaysia became:
"The advancement of Christ's Kingdom among Members and the promotion of habits of Obedience, Reverence, Discipline, Self-Respect, and all that tends towards a true Christian Character."

This change from "Boys" to "Members" was due to the admission of girls into the Brigade. Although in my opinion, it would be more meaningful to have "Boys and Girls" instead of "Members", nevertheless, I came to accept that this will be the BB Object that I have to pass it down to the next generation of members.

Just a few days ago, I was shocked to know that there is a suggestion to further change the BB Object of the Boys' Brigade in Malaysia more drastically that I could ever thought of and it's something like:
"The object shall be pursued by the development of the upmost potential of members in a holistic manner; socially, physically, intellectually and spiritually and the promotion of habits of Obedience, Reverence, Discipline, Self-Respect, and all that tends towards a true noble Character."

Firstly, I cannot but felt pity for all the new members who will be joining the Boys' Brigade in the future that they have to memorise a much longer BB Object, not yet taking into account the understanding and appreciation of the content. Even with the current and shorter version, I have encountered so much difficulties in helping new recruits to memorise the BB Object correctly.

Secondly, on the technicality, the BB Object is the mission statement of the Brigade. It clearly states the objective and goal that the Brigade envisioned to impact upon boys (and later including girls). However, it would be rather weird to also include the means of achieving the objective in the mission statement. Why would the BB Object need to specifically include socially, physically, intellectually and spiritually; and isn't holistic sufficiently illustrate all these aspects?

Thirdly and the most important, where is the Christian Manliness or Christian Character that the Brigade envisioned upon for the past 125 years? This has been the highest focus of the Brigade that is to train boys according to the Christian principles (and not converting them to become Christian. To me, the decision to become a Christian is a personal decision and the Brigade only trained according to the Christian-based principles).

Is noble the same as Christian?

I cannot helped but felt disappointed. The Boys' Brigade in Malaysia has finally taken a reversal route to follow the Boys Scout. From history, we know that Boys Scout is a movement that originated from the Boys' Brigade, minus the religious value. Therefore, the act of removing the "Christian" value in the mission statement of the Boys' Brigade in Malaysia is very much adopting the principles of Boys Scout. Isn't that a move backward?

More importantly, by replacing Christian with noble, does this change signaled a shift in the philosophy of training in the Boys' Brigade. If nothing else but the wording of the BB Object changed, then how are the members going to reconcile the Christian-based training imparted upon them with the understanding of that being a noble-based training? It's like adopting one training style and yet conducting another training style.

Being a Christian, we pronounced our faith openly. We can't be ashamed of what we believe and yet not dare not publicly acknowledged it. Isn't that what Jesus reminded us in the Bible that if we are ashamed of acknowledging Him, He will also be ashamed of acknowledging us in front of the Father?

The biggest question of all is whether the change from "Christian" to "noble" as the ultimate aim of the BB Object, is after all an act of wanting to be seen less "religious" so as to attract more Boys and Girls to join the Boys' Brigade or merely heading for a different direction in the philosophy of training the next generation of Boys and Girls in Malaysia?

Brain Gain vs "Brain Tapping"

Brain Drain is a common phenomenon where the precious resource of human capital flows from a developing to a developed economy. Brain Gain is the opposite phenomenon where the human capital return to the source economy.

After reading a statement about Brain Gain project in Malaysia to attract the country's academics from overseas to return, I could not help but thought of another term called "Brain Tapping" that might benefit the developing countries and the "resource" more than the actual "brain gain".

Malaysian universities, especially the public institutions, had been urged to recruit world-class academics to boost the ranking and reputation. Millions had been spent to invite world-renounced "superstar academics" on a visiting status. UM and UKM had already embarked on such projects and received tremendous criticisms about it. Although the ranking did increase, but the crucial question is how did the academia in Malaysia benefit from it.

Now, the Minister has urged the public higher education institutions to recruit Malaysian academics abroad that might have been retrenched due to the economic recession. I actually wonder how many Malaysian academics might had been affected.

On a practical note, if the country is serious to improve the quality of research and university, the utmost move is to recognise the "brain" that has drained out. The country can benefit not only from gaining them back to serve, nevertheless, in such a globalised and high-technological age, tapping on these brains can be more cost effective and yield greater benefit.

Instead of attracting one or two to return with huge monetary attraction, it would be more economical to establish network with as many as possible Malaysian academics outside the country. In many universities, particular those in the United States, academics are only paid 9 months a year by the university and are suppose to source the remaining three months of their salary via research funding. Therefore, if the country is sincere in wanting to tap on these Malaysian "brains", the most practical way is to provide funding opportunities for these "brains" to collaborate with the local "brains" in long-term research or at least provide joint-supervision for research students in Malaysia.

This is much more economical as the cost is much lower and at the same time, allow these "brains" abroad to continue serving Malaysia and enhance their career development overseas. Adding to the economical benefit, option such as this is also more attractive for academics to adjust and understand about the working/research culture in Malaysia before seriously thinking of moving back. After all, the fear of not being to adapt to the working/research culture in local universities is one of the most important factor for them to embark on the such a journey home. Such decision is certainly much more than a career decision.

Lastly, perhaps rethinking of "brain tapping" might be a more practical initiative on a short and medium-term to tap upon the Malaysian brains abroad and at the same time, providing the necessary avenue for Malaysian universities to benefit from such transnational exposure.

Some Thoughts about UM VC "Crisis"

Just some thoughts about the latest crisis regarding the appointment of Vice-Chancellor in the University of Malaya (UM).

1) Transparency
I would say, I don't even know who is on the search committee and how many people are there. I am, and I think the former VC, should also not be too surprise that there isn't a criteria for selection. After all, before her appointment, the only criteria mentioned was the next VC for UM is a female. There is also no clear criteria being outlined as to why she was selected in the first place, although her CV looks pretty credible, but is she the best candidate at that time?

2) Gender discrimination
Being given a 2-year contract instead of 3-year is silly. Why take the person in the first place? Because if someone is not competent for the job, why even give him or her one day to try out and here we are talking about leading the top university in the country.

If it's because the appointed candidate is a female and given a 2-year contract (and male given 3-year), as claimed, then please argue it before taking up the appointment and not after the contract is being terminated. Discrimination had already took place right at the beginning.

3) Political interference
I would think it will be a naive decision to ignore political interference at the point of accepting the VC appointment. The appointment was made by the Prime Minister, which is a political position. Therefore, to expect no interferences from the boss who is a politician, is almost impossible.

Adding to that, given the huge political baggage of UM, evidenced by the intensity of political enthusiasm of both students and staffs, it is a fact that UM never was and will never be politically neutral. Realistically, there are so many "academicians" who are there simply because of political connections and they survive purely based on such political networks without academic credentials. Simply too many to counts with fingers and even toes.

4) Academic freedom and university autonomy
The integral part of academia, but sadly, it's almost non-existence in Malaysia. I better not dwell deeper into this as these 5 words could well be a PhD topic.

Remarks:
From my brief encounter with her and gathering from students and staffs, I have to admit that the (now former) VC had tried to reform the university and was sincere in wanting the best for the university. However, I guess it's just too difficult to be fighting so many institutional, structural and political obstacles.

Philosophy

Philosophy. An important field of study. A challenging one indeed.

I have the first taste of it with KM (soon to be Dr KM) but didn't quite like it. Was adviced by several other "influential" people in my intellectual life to give it a try or even to seriously put more thoughts into it. But the most I have gone so far was to grab a couple of books and read not more than half of it.

Finally, attended an "informal" lecture with a philosopher, an educational philosopher to be exact. It was not really a lecture but more of a discourse along with some alcohol. Though the session was short and slightly more than an introductory, it has left so many questions in my mind about education. Certainly will spend more of my Tuesday evenings to explore philosophy with the group. After all, I'm here to study for a degree called the Doctor of Philosophy.

Just to share some questions as well as sort of reminder to myself:

What is education?

How to we justified someone as educated?

Why does education has to be confined within the framework of formal schooling?

Since I'm doing a Doctor of Philosophy, why is philosophy not part of my syllabus?

Why does the discourse had to be done so informally through the effort of a fellow coursemate to engaged the Professor?