KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 28 – Higher Education Deputy Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah revealed today he explained and argued for students to take part in politics at the Umno supreme council meeting on Friday.

In a long explanation to the Umno supreme council, Saifuddin dismissed some 30 points particularly the excuse that students’ attention on their studies will be disrupted if they joined politics outside campus.

“If that’s the case, even working adults can’t join politics for fear that it might disrupt their work,” he said in a working paper presented to the council yesterday.

“The main reason why students’ academics are disrupted is due to another factor. There are even students who are not active in anything but still face disruptions in their studies, which is caused by other factors like clubbing, a broken heart, depression and the like,” he added.

Saifuddin also said that kind of thinking was the same as those who accuse co-curricular activities for disrupting academic studies, adding that this premise has been rejected by research including Harvard University studies.

He said that his 80-paragraph working paper clearly explained the perceptions, suggestions, main objective, obstructions, current developments, the step forward and benefits in allowing higher-education students to join politics.

“The paper also lists 30 reasons that oppose my suggestions and disputes them neatly one by one,” said the Temerloh MP today.

He added that Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak once again showed an open attitude towards discussing the idea of allowing university students to join politics.

“I praise Datuk Seri Najib’s statement at the Umno supreme council yesterday that even though the Cabinet has decided to ban higher-education students from joining politics, he is still open to discussing it.

“Datuk Seri Najib clearly understands the current political reality that celebrates the discussion of ideas,” he said.

Saifuddin added that Najib as the prime minister and Barisan Nasional (BN) chairman, he could dive into the minds and imaginations of students towards politics.

“His attitude is very significant in maturing the country’s democracy. This is the type of political leadership that students have been waiting for,” he said.

Najib also expressed his openness towards the idea at the BN Youth lab in the city yesterday.

Late last month, Saifuddin said that the idea of allowing students and lecturers to join politics would be proposed at the Umno supreme council to garner support.

The proposal however was rejected at a Cabinet meeting three weeks ago.

Explaining in detail the reasons in the working paper, Saifuddin also denied that students were not or not yet mature.

He said that the definition of maturity was used in the law.

“For example, in a rape case, a woman aged 16 years is considered mature to have sex; in a criminal case, an 18-year-old is no longer tried in the juvenile court; and a 21-year-old is eligible to vote.

“If a woman aged 16 years is considered mature enough to have sex and an 18-year-old is considered mature enough to face the law, and say that the two don’t have qualifications to be higher-education students, is it fair to say that higher-education students who passed SPM, STPM or the equivalent and got a high CGPA in a higher-education institution not mature compared to them?” said the Umno supreme council member.

On a different matter, Saifuddin said that as soon as someone steps out of the higher-education institution and becomes a graduate education service officer (teacher), not only is he allowed to join a political party but he is even permitted to hold a post in a political party.

“But, how many moments before then, the same person was considered immature?

“When aged 21 years, higher-education students are considered eligible to vote in the general election, but at the same time they are not considered eligible to join the political party that they voted for?” he said.

Saifuddin added that if the reason is to let them pick the political party they like after their studies, the government needs to delay the students’ voting age and allow them to vote only after leaving the education institution.

In fact, he rejected stories about the negative consequences of students being active in politics, such as joining demonstrations that destroy property.

“The stories about demonstrations need to be fair. It shouldn’t be the case where if it concerns our people, the demonstration is allowed, but if it concerns others, then the demonstration is prohibited,” said Saifuddin.

“The story of destroying property needs to be examined. For example, if a student is accused of running into the mosque without taking off his shoes. The logic is, if he is being chased, how does he have the time to take off his shoes!” he added.

The Temerloh MP explained that students who seek protection in a mosque are accused of breaking the windows.

“Actually, the glass broke from a pepper spray being thrown from outside the mosque towards the students. This is a scare tactic to create a culture of fear that is not good for the country’s development,” he said.

The higher education deputy minister also disagreed that university students were given room to join politics through campus politics.

“Campus politics does exist. In fact, it should be improved, for example by allowing students to conduct their own campus elections, just like what is going on in some of our higher education institutions and in the best universities overseas,” said Saifuddin.

He said that the issue now was to recognise their rights as citizens as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

“Campus politics is limited to co-curricular activities. The wider involvement of students in politics will heighten their idealism and help them to face the world post-higher education,” said the Umno supreme council member.

In relation to the excuse that students would be taken advantage of or humiliated by outside political parties if they became party members, Saifuddin asked: “Who told the students to be horses? Be the rider.”

Saifuddin said that the country should give opportunities to students as they were part of civil society.

“Statements like this dismiss students’ intellectual capacity. Actually, curbing students’ political rights is a way of humiliating students as it prevents students from expressing political views,” he said, adding that students were not told to reduce their focus on studies.

Saifuddin pointed out that there were no empirical studies showing that political involvement have caused students to fail in their studies.

“Many who have joined politics at campus are successful today. Some of those who were not politically active at campuses are not successful today. The goal to enter universities is to be a good human, including in the area of politics,” he said.

The higher education deputy minister also disputed other excuses on why students should not enter politics.

EXCUSE: Campus politics is the space for students to raise students’ idealism while outside politics will kill such idealism.

Answer: This suggestion wants to widen the space to increase students’ participation in democratic processes. The question is, what is students’ idealism now? What kind of idealism is being portrayed by Umno/BN that kills students’ idealism? Actually, students have the ability to shape outside politics. Such examples exist in the history of the students’ movement outside and within the country.

EXCUSE: If students become members of political parties, they are no longer free to criticise their party.

Answer: That is the party’s problem if it cannot be criticised, not the student’s problem. Or, if the student chooses not to criticise, that is his personal problem.

Students can pick parties that are suitable with them. What is interesting is that people who use this reason are well-known for their attitudes in not encouraging students to be critical.

They always label critical students as “radical”, “anti-establishment” and “pro-Opposition”. So, when they use this reason, it is merely an excuse.

EXCUSE: AUKU (Universities and University-Colleges Act) is to protect students’ idealism thus far and to shape students’ leadership skills in their own direction.

Answer: What is the example of a student’s idealism that has been birthed by AUKU (UUCA)?  What direction is students’ leadership heading towards today?

The idealism of students is not just to claim for a reduction of PTPTN loans, boarding school food prices or bus fares. Students’ idealism is based on a battle for the love of values like truth, justice and unity, as well as hatred towards bad values like falsity, cruelty and disunity.

Among others, idealism is based on al-Quran sentences that call for goodness (‘amal makruf’) and prevent badness (‘nahi mungkar’). Plenty of studies on the UUCA Amendment 1975 do not show that the act births students’ idealism. If it is true that UUCA is good for the government, why was it not translated into Election 2008 that saw young people leaning towards the Opposition?

EXCUSE: When lecturers join politics, it will disrupt the learning process at universities because they will try to influence students. Lecturers will fail students from other political parties.

Answer: Universities are fully equipped with methods to control the quality of teaching and learning. Lecturers that fail students for political reasons do not deserve to be lecturers. Just punish them. This reason basically shows a distrustful attitude towards lecturers.

Lecturers are seen as lower than teachers (who were once their students) that are now allowed to join politics. Lecturers influence higher education students? If that is true, then we were wrong for allowing teachers to be politically active. This is because if university students can be influenced, what more school pupils. Once again, this reason results from distrust towards lecturers.

EXCUSE: This populist approach does not benefit the campus community, but instead invites danger to the education system that will be politicised.

Answer: What is wrong with populism if it is for the good of the people and not individuals? It is better than having no approach or personal stand at all. Why does education need to be separate from politics? Right now, we have politics among universities, lecturers and students. What we don’t want is weak and doubtful politics, and dirty narrow politics. The best place to generate new politics of knowledge and fresh and clean politics is the university campus. How odd it is if this big honour is rejected by universities and given to others instead.

EXCUSE: If all students join politics, there will be many more problems.

Answer: Firstly, what is the problem? Secondly, who says all students? Thirdly, students who are truly politically active are not the biggest group. Fourthly, are there no problems at all now?

EXCUSE: Imagine if all students were free to say anything, what would happen to national harmony? We have many sensitive issues.

Answer: Firstly, we have sufficient laws to manage national security, like the Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act, and the like. At higher education institutions, there is a code of ethics.

Secondly, we have been independent for a long time. We need to learn to discuss sensitive issues and not sweep them underneath the carpet.

EXCUSE: Majority of students are “anti-establishment”.

Answer: Hasn’t it been for almost a decade that student council elections at public universities were almost 100 per cent won by groups said to be pro-Aspiration? So, it is not true majority students are “anti-establishment”. In fact, what we need to think about is how to prevent students from hating the “establishment”, unless the “establishment” does not want or cannot be criticised.

EXCUSE: We need to look at the pros and cons of this issue.

Answer: Does that mean we need to look at the pros and cons of the right to assemble as enshrined in the Constitution? There is no need to use such a simplistic strategy in this argument. If it is so, even marriage will have its pros and cons. This kind of thinking is designed to simply create an excuse to disagree or to exaggerate this excuse.

EXCUSE: Only Malay students are interested in politics. Chinese and Indian students pay more attention to their studies.

Answer: This is a racist opinion. It is as if other races do not care about politics. Actually, non-Malay students are also interested and active in politics.

EXCUSE: Students will lose their non-partisan approach.

Answer: The question of becoming the member of a political party is the individual’s right. The question of being “non-partisan” is at the organisational level and the students’ movement is a different question that can be retained. In fact, even individuals in their own political parties can still take a bi-partisan approach, for example, in the United States congress and senate where a Democrat does not necessarily support a bill by a Democrat.

EXCUSE: Not all students want to be members of political parties.

Answer: Who said “everyone?” This is simply to allow anyone who wants to do so, even if it is a minority. The majority should not prevent the minority who wants to do so. On the other hand, the majority protects the rights of the minority in a healthy democracy.

EXCUSE: An advanced nation has a different background from us. We cannot imitate them.

Answer: Don’t be so stupid as to copy blindly. Just filter and choose. Aren’t there good practices? We learn what is good. What is bad is made the boundary. The good and bad needs to be measured with the scales of truth and not denial.

EXCUSE: Students lack general knowledge.

Answer: Since when did becoming a member of a political party require one to pass a General Knowledge paper?