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?