The suspension early this year of four students of Universiti Sains Malaysia, one of the foremost universities in the country, has necessitated a review of the state's democratic commitment.
The four undergraduates were suspended for engaging in 'anti-government' activities. Chinese Language Society (CLS) president Lee Yen Ting, Loke Chee Hoo and Fatin Nor Suhana were punished for their involvement in a demonstration against Vision schools while CLS secretary Choo Chon Kai was penalised for selling anti-Internal Security Act (ISA) badges and putting up an anti-ISA poster on the society's cubicle wall.
All were suspended for one semester and barred from taking their final-year exam, except Fatin Nor, a second-year student.
Lee, Loke and Choo appealed against the punishment. Just three days before their final examination began, they were allowed to sit for it though their appeal was yet to be granted by the authority concerned. More perplexing still, they were told that they would be allowed to graduate if they passed their exams.
To make matters worse, another 33 students, mostly members of CLS, who had gathered in front of the university's Student Affairs Department as a show of support for Lee and the other three students at their hearing on Aug 1 last year were hauled up before the disciplinary board just last Feb 6.
What has become of these students? What do they have to say now of what they had gone through? Do they think the punishments meted out to them commensurate with their 'crimes'? Why didn't they just go through the authority-exhorted motions of 'study, graduate and get a job' as had been repeatedly told to all students? Why did they do the 'unthinkable' and rebelled against the authorities?
'No regrets'
To the three final-year students, their fight is a conscious one, undertaken individually without influence from their counterparts or anyone else. It is their responsibility, they say, to be a knowledgeable student with a faculty for thinking and acting rationally, to 'help' raise public consciousness of state action.
They believe they took simple ways of expressing their opinion. They believe their critical opinions matter, more so on the issues concerned which can jeopardise the creation of a better and just society. They had no vested interest but to act on what they saw as the rot in the system.
Do they now regret their actions and deem them unworthy? No, they feel they have done their 'duty' well and conscientiously.
To remind themselves of that, Choo says the "passion" to right the wrong has to be there. Loke concedes it was difficult, but still "the task has to be done" while Lee notes that during their suspension period, the question of graduation or career opportunities was not the main concern, but their democratic right vis-a-vis power relations. He says, "I saw how power relations worked and the manipulation of that power in the hands of the authorities."
Apart from the students' democratic right to be heard, there are other concepts of democracy at play here, or perhaps not as we shall see. Perhaps conventional democratic literature can shed another angle on the university's seemingly righteous stance and actions against the students.
Essence of democracy
In the remote past, democracy was something negative. Plato suggested that a few people of knowledge should govern the society.
But now, almost all corners of the world claim themselves a democracy; including those with autocratic practices. With the addition of such 'democracies', the study and debate on democracy have widened. The irony is that this "has actually contributed confusion and disagreement, for 'democracy' has meant different things to different people at different times and places" (Robert A Dahl, On democracy , New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998, p 3).
The confusion can be seen from the debate between the western and the Asian leaders on democracy. The western notion is that individual right allows the expression of one's opinions, ideas and comments and is the utmost end in bringing to an accountable and honest government.
As for the Asian leaders, while freedom of expression is important, due to cultural and lifestyle differences, individual opinions may be joined with individual egos that are a danger to the general well-being of the society. Therefore, community harmony and consensus among the people take priority.
Both perspectives have their justification and are acceptable depending on their contexts. The basic thing is, if there is a government that is honest and capable enough in enhancing society irrelevant of which perspectives it adopts, then it is a democracy to that particular society as long as the common people are satisfied with the outcome of policies implemented. Unfortunately, history has shown that this is not exactly the ideal being pursued by the advocates of democracy.
To overcome the confusion mentioned earlier, democracy needs to be understood in this light. Dahl's definition of democracy is certainly worth studying.
Intrinsic equality
Dahl identified five criteria to democracy: voting equality, effective participation, enlightened understanding, control of the agenda, and inclusion of all adult members in collective decisions.
The first four are more procedural in nature and cannot come into being without the fifth. Therefore, the focus will be on the fifth criterion, which is the core element in determining the value of democracy and hence, diluting the confusion on the debate mentioned above.
There are two elements that subscribe in the inclusion of adults. First is intrinsic equality their eagerness is to correct the wrongs and counter the suppression of their 'passion'. The university's actions against the students show the decay of its democratic practices, if any.
SOON CHUAN YEAN is a research officer at the Research and Education for Peace Centre, USM. He is interested in the study of the democratisation process and political culture in Malaysia.
