What Matters: Intellectual Discussion or Academic Elitism

This had somewhat brought to my attention when the news regarding the Bar council forum was cancelled midway throughout the discussion about the conversion of Islam due to a protest outside organised by the crowd. The topic in question was to discuss about the conversion of Islam. That sparked a lot of controversies especially from the Muslims, and together they staged a protest outside of the forum venue.

First I believe that most of us would need to be educated on what is a Bar Council, what are their functions, and are their intentions to hold such open forums for discussion, whether is it for truth and justice. Because generally, or maybe it's just me, but I have a very vague assumption of what the Bar Council is used for. My first impression on the Bar Council, is that it is an organisation for lawyers to sign up as members, and then they'll established their own codes of ethics and getting some specific protection through the Council. Something like how the National Union of Journalists(NUJ) here functions.

However, after a quick check around Wikipedia, and our very own Bar Council website, I found out that a Bar Council is supposed to be provide a check and balance on the court cases that have already been discussed. Or it could just be serving as a platform to discuss on various issues and by providing a space for thinkers alike to present different viewpoints on the case. But this does not mean that they are rebelling against the court's decision, but merely pinpoint any faults in the law and giving suggestions on how to improve the law.

(I did like the way they put up their first purpose of the Bar council though. Which is: (a) to uphold the cause of justice without regard to its own interests or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or favour. Although I had doubts about their statement of "uninfluenced by fear", but that's just me)

And why would they do that? Well, from my intepretation probably because they are the practitioners of law. But as much as they practised it, our Parliament legislates and approves laws, sometimes to a point where we approve laws more than we debate those laws. (Seriously, I don't know where I read it, but our current Speaker actually laments the fact that we are not approving enough Bills. Wtf? I thought the Dewan Rakyat is used for debate, not to pass Bills easily man) So probably some lawyers, law enforcers wanted to open a forum to discuss, give opinions, you know, some laws are just too strict.

However, I'm a little baffled (and I'm sure many others too) by the reason of protest. Closed door discussion? Don't spark the anger? Don't make things worst? Hello. If I hear it properly they were discussing about the law, not the religion. I certainly do not recall any signs of condemning the religion whatsoever. But the demonstrators clearly was not happy with the way the Bar Council has done.

Which really brought me to question: Do they perceive the Bar Council to be elite? That they should not touch on what they do not know? Or rather, that they perceived that the Bar Council is just discussing on being an elite?

For me, I see it as an intellectual discussion, a way to understand what I do not understand. Because, as much as I'm interested in another religion, I wouldn't go all out and try asking really sensitive issues, even to the point about conversion. I mean it would be annoying, probably they might think that I'm interested to join the religion to ask so much. Heh. Sometimes curiousity is a pain because you want to know something, but if you go all out you might end up with really queer looks or probably they might pester you in return.

I'm sure a lot of Malaysians out there might reject a certain point of view, simply because they claimed themselves more superior than others, that their viewpoint is better, that people should listen to them. Soon, they begin to have followers, to have an audience of their own, and they begin preaching and still providing viewpoints of their own. However, when something out of the norm pops out, the first thing that these followers first do is to reject those messages, especially if they were highlighted by the preachers themselves.

Case in point: the recent Education in Malaysia "controversy" (because it's hardly one) where Ong Kian Ming highlighted a blogger, EC who called him "Bodoh" in the article. And many of the loyal readers of Education in Malaysia (who chose to remain anonymous for some reason) went to that guy's blog to bombard him for calling Kian Ming bodoh, before they even read his blog. Poor guy, but even though I admit that his arguments are flawed, I'd say kudos for providng a different point of view. I mean, it's true. Whoever said that just because you reach a certain age, your views are more important than the rest? Just because you age that means you deserve more credit?

And they wonder why youths hate to respect the elderly so much when some of them deserved the title "old crackpot" for not bothering to listen to the youths.

I mean lets face it, some people just do not listen to lecturers, professors, and the like because they like to claim superiority due to their intelligence, their certificates, their experience. But so what if all they are going to do is talk shit?

Sorry, just my opinion.

So maybe they have the leader of the country who said that discussing about religion openly is a crime, and then some very loyal members garner enough supporters to make a ruckus outside the Council Hall, and despite the many attempts to invite them to come in to discuss the views with them, they continued to make a lot of noise, until the forum was forced to cancel earlier.

Again, today many of the newspapers headlines had quotes from the Home Ministry, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, all saying that the forum was uncalled for. Wow, I thought the Executive branch is supposed to mind their own business, their own administration is also at risk of falling down and they have the time to bother what the judiciary is thinking?

Yea, those are my point of views, sue me.

Back to the topic, I guess it is up to how we perceive things. Some might call it Intellectual Discussion. Some might not be uncomfortable with the contents, and by that they claimed the forum moderators unfit to raise sensitive issues, branding them being Academic Elites, that they deserve their own say also. That is why they have the right to voice their dissatisfaction, that is why they should make a ruckus, and that is why people should give attention to them.

But what really matters, would you want to see an open discussion which (hopefully) have a certain transparency, able to allow to present different point of views which are, hopefully not just from the academics, not just the speakers, but hopefully the audience are able to participate as well.

I am giving more examples because this not only occur in the political scene, like the talk I've attended about Gavin Menzies and his discussion on how China discover the world first, way before anyone else did. So at first, the question was openned to the floor, and everyone had their turn, well, the elderly ones got their turn. Students did not bother to ask any questions, because if there are people who came all the way from London just to catch his talk, we should let them have the chance to answer. So after some time, they allowed the last question, and the man stood up, quite properly, went and asked Mr. Menzies in a serious tone:
"I have a son-in-law who's from Spain, and he's very interested in the Chinese culture, so what I'm asking is that, do you think Spain has Chinese ancestry in them?"

We, namely students, all fell down straightaway. What has your son-in-law's ancestry got to do with him discovering that China was the first country to sail around the world?

Sigh.

So think. Intellectual Discussion or Academic Elitism, or should we just practise plain "Ignorance is bliss"?

I rest my case.