Towards quality undergraduate education

Towards quality undergraduate educationThe National Economic Advisory Council (NEAC) wrote in March last year: “Malaysia faces an exodus of talent. Not only is our education system failing to deliver the required talent, we have not been able to retain local talent of all races nor attract foreign ones due to poor prospects and a lack of high-skilled jobs.”

Human capital lies at the heart of any high-income economy. It is key to Malaysia's transformation agenda. Not surprisingly, human resource development features prominently in the New Economic Model. Simply put, we will need to develop, attract and retain talent. Yet, the brain drain the cross-border migration of talent runs counter to the compelling domestic need for a more skilled, more innovative and more entrepreneurial labour force to be able to constantly add value.

Against this backdrop, the Malaysian experience is not unique. TheWorld Bank estimates that in 2010, 215 million people lived outside their country of birth; 80% from developing nations, with 43% living in high-income advanced economies. Within Asia, the most pronounced brain drain is in South-East Asia. Malaysia's brain drain is intensive; not because too many are leaving but because the skills base is narrow. This is compounded by the lack of compensating inflows. It is also concentrated in Singapore.

Students from Harvard cheer as they receive their degrees during the 360th Commencement Exercises at Harvard recently. — Reuters

A large part of Malaysia's problem reflected the poor quality of graduates from public universities. It progressively eats into the quality of its human capital stock. Among its top research universities, only Universiti Malaya is among the top 200 (at 180th) in the UK Times Higher Education 2010-2011 rankings. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia was ranked 291; Universiti Sains Malaysia, 314; Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 320; and Universiti Putra, 345. This poses a particular challenge.

Historical perspective

For years, the classic Ivy League American college envisages learning based on foundational knowledge of key disciplines or fields (“core”) and in-depth study of a key area of specialisation (“concentration”). This approach has been variously described as an unstable compound arising from the marriage between the German research university and the English liberal arts college.

Unlike the United States, the British Commonwealth public universities started following the British model. Today, these universities are, in practice, more akin to the already much deteriorated German experience, which for decades pride themselves on their egalitarianism in education. With the adoption of the 1963 Robbins Report, the British and Commonwealth public university system has become geared to advance this holy grail.

As a general rule, vigorous selective admissions of the 1950s and 1960s, with exceptions, have since gradually disappeared. A degree from one university is deemed to be worth just as much as the other. Every university will be run more or less the same, turning most of the once proud older universities into virtual extensions of government bureaucracy. Again with exceptions, professors and staff become public servants earning more or less the same pay at almost every university, based not on merit and academic excellence.

And so, just this one idea equality which turns out to be a bad one, is attributed to its undoing. This idea promotes the anti-elitist belief in equality of access to university education and equality of standing of every university. The consequence is for the state to pay to see this idea through. Since the best receives the same funding as the worst, the result in Britain has been, according to author Robert Stevens, “to homogenise English university and dumb them down to a lower mediocre mean”. It reflects a system designed to protect the weak instead of rewarding the best.

Understandably, this phenomenon has since led to a disentangling of intellectual privilege from social privilege. This new academic elite was led by Tony Blair based on the principle that some students are academically better and thus, deserve greater resources directed to their development. Otherwise, England was “in danger of turning into an incubator for the likes of Yale and Harvard,” says Oxford Professor Alan Ryan. Unlike the British system, the United States maintained an elitist rewards system, designed to develop the best and brightest. Here, competition is the name of the game. Top US universities stayed mainly independent of government funding. With independence, comes the ability to compete for academic success with the best the world can offer. This means vigorous competition for funding, the best students, and the best staff.

A liberal arts education pursues a spirit of free inquiry undertaken without concern for finding a job. It accomplishes two main objectives: (i) sharpens students' awareness of the world; and (ii) provides them with the tools to engage the forces of change. The breadth of subjects they study and the skills and habit of mind they acquire are intended to shape their lives after graduation. This is best exemplified in the overarching role of the US Ivy League colleges to educate students to be independent, knowledgeable, reflective, and creative thinkers with a sense of social responsibility. Towards this end, they are made to think and act critically. Their sense of history and theory enlightens and empowers them to act with great self-confidence.

What's wrong with it

Five things. Let me use Harvard, consistently the best of the lot, as an example. Harvard strives to be the best in many things; it often succeeds. Yet, over the years, I think it has allowed its main mission to drift. That's the first that that's wrong. Harvard veers from education towards increasingly, stakeholder satisfaction. It gives undue attention on developing an international brand and assumes the role of an education market-enterprise. It has gone from “harvard.edu to harvard.com.” Mind you, Harvard remains consistently a first-rate world-class research university.

Second: Relentless competition for research excellence has produced a university system optimised for research. Of course, this brought untold prestige and prosperity through scholarly discoveries and scientific inventions. But, I think, at a price to underlying student quality. For example, there are no KPIs (key performance indicators) for effectively imparting knowledge and inculcating habit of mind to make students wiser and productive 20-somethings.

University structures don't consciously promote responsible citizenship. Professors are rewarded for academic excellence. But no marks for helping students find meaningful lives.

Third: It is not that the great universities have been complacent. Indeed, over many years, deep and profound changes have taken place (i) in curriculum: now richer, deeper and broader, but without a clearly identifiable link between what is taught in class and what they do outside class; (ii) in grading: now more disciplined even though grade inflation still exists; but grades are now more credentials for employment and graduate schools, rather than instructional feedback from teacher to student; and (iii) in extra-curriculum activities: they have become broader and more diverse with competition going beyond intellectual undergraduate ideals; they are now more motivated by materialistic incentives.

Fourth: I think great universities have forgotten their basic job to turn restless 18-somethings into stable 20-something-adults, to help them grow up. The greater the university, the more intense is market competition for faculty, students and funds.

Increasingly, there is less attention on (a) developing good character; (b) building personal strength and integrity; (c) inculcating kindness, co-operation and compassion; and (d) offering extracurricular experiences that link up to formal learning.

Finally, the sciences and humanities have long been the foundation for curriculum thinking: the sciences being the transforming force, while the humanities, the means for moral uplift. Science will grow in stature. How can universities nurture and inspirit the humanities? Humanists today already feel marginalised. This should not be. New advances in the sciences offer possibilities to prolong human life, destroy life, artificially transform life in ways that challenge the very meaning of what it is to be human. As such, traditional focus of the humanities on questions of value, of meaning, of ethics, has assumed more importance. Somehow we need to ensure scientific advances are made to serve humane purposes.

Curriculum reform

The answer must lie mainly in curriculum reform. Education should be more than what we learn. At Harvard, fortunately, the undergraduate mission remains largely intact to transform teenagers (whose lives have been so structured by their families and schools) into adults with the learning and wisdom to take responsibility for their own lives.

It has taken Harvard the greater part of the 2000s to review its curriculum. In 2009, it replaced the existing 30 year-old Core Curriculum with a new Programme in General Education (PGE). Emphasising strength of character and scholarly excellence, the new curriculum is focused to (i) help students understand complexities of the human condition; (ii) come to grips with the basic questions of life; and (iii) fit seamlessly into its multi-talented, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-national student life.

To work, it has to gel with new commitments to pedagogical innovation, and to activity-based initiatives linking extracurricular activities to classroom experience. But the academic experience is its centrepiece, comprising (a) the concentration (in-depth pursuit of a disciplinary interest) (b) the electives (broadening interest beyond the focus) and (c) the PGE (connects and helps appreciate the complexities of the world).

In contrast to the Core Curriculum which exposed students to a number of different “ways of knowing” the new PGE seeks to provide new opportunities to learn (and faculty to teach) in ways that cut across departmental and intra-university lines; and achieve four goals that link up to life after college: (i) prepare for civic engagement; (ii) understand the traditions of art, ideas, and values; (iii) respond to deep change; and (iv) understand ethical dimensions.

To pursue these goals, students complete courses in (a) aesthetic and interpretive understanding; (b) culture and belief; (c) empirical and mathematical reasoning; (d) ethical reasoning; (e) science of living systems; (f) science of the physical universe; (g) societies of the world; and (h) United States in the world.

As I see it, restoration of the right balance between scholarly excellence and its education role requires developing in students a philosophy of life that brings dignity, honour and responsibility. Harvard has set the new gold standard in undergraduate education. Its first graduates will emerge in 2013.

Malaysia need not reinvent the wheel to jump-start our own undergraduate uplift. There are valuable lessons to be learnt. For us, this means a ready blueprint to help our students to believe in themselves as skilled individuals, and to place themselves first, above members of any identity group. This entails creating community out of diversity, based on confidence in one's own principles. It remains key to raising the quality of an educated person and leader. Something we all want to emerge from our universities.

The end product

In the end, we have now readily available an experience to engage the increasingly complex world. As I see it, the Harvard PGE should enable new graduates to have the ability to compose a literate and persuasive essay, the insight to interpret a famous humanistic text, the capacity to link history to the present, the know-how to understand foundation science and scientific methods to unravel mysteries of the real world, and enough quantitative reasoning to sharpen analysis of problems.

We have to believe that tomorrow's world will not accept graduates not knowing the difference between a gene and a chromosome. Or, not familiar with select Nobel Prize-winning works in literature. This building of self-confidence must involve a capability to speak in English; and to articulate cogently, persuade others, and reason on moral and ethical issues. They are also expected to know how to collaborate with others on divisive issues, and to engage each other in a civil manner.

The job ahead is daunting. We need to start now.

It is noteworthy that since 2008, Melbourne University has adopted the US academic model requiring all students to take “breadth” courses and embark on more specialised training as professionals in medicine, law and engineering. Most of these pathways add an extra year, but they graduate with greater personal satisfaction and higher quality.

After all, what's another year in a student's lifetime? In Malaysia, life expectancy has been already lifted to 73 years in 2009, rising past 75 in 2010. As former Harvard president Derek Bok said: “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.” Worse is to be in denial.

> Former banker Dr Lin is a Harvard-educated economist and a British Chartered Scientist who now spends time writing, teaching and promoting the public interest. Feedback is most welcome atstarbiz@thestar.com.my.

Keputusan Pilihan Raya Sarawak 2011: Bom Angka!

Keputusan PRU DUN SARAWAK 2011: Angka Bom Jangka

PARTI		KERUSI	MUSLIM		DAYAK			CINA
Kaum			Melayu	Melanau	Iban	Bidayuh	Orang Ulu
Barisan Nasional
	PBB	35	17	10	5	3	1
	SUPP	6	0	0	2	2		2
	PRS	8	0	0	8
	SPDP	6	1	0	4		1
Jumlah		55	18	10	19	5	2	2
Pakatan Rakyat
	DAP	12	0	0				12
	PKR	3	0	0	1		1	1
Jumlah		16	0	0	1		1	13
Bebas
	Bebas	1			1
Jumlah		1			1	0	0	0
Jumlah		71	18	10	22	5	3	13
Jumlah Kategori			28		30			13

Senario politik yang mungkin berlaku selepas Pru Dun Sarawak 2011 ada angka jangka seperti dalam bom jangka dan politik adalah serba boleh.

1. Pola keputusan kembali kegarisan bangsa yang tebal: Melayu dan Muslim mantap dalam PBB; Iban mantap dalam semua parti, Bidayuh juga mantap dalam semua parti. Cina dalam DAP. 55 vs. 16 kerusi.

2. Ikut kategori: Muslim 28; Dayak 30; Cina 12. Gabungan bagaimana yg boleh memberi angka lebih 36, majoriti kecil.

3. 28+30=58 yang terbaik;

4. 28 + 12 =40 yang mustahil;

5. 20 + 12 =32 yang tak cukup.

6. Mengingatkan saya kepada suasana pra-Ming Court di mana terdapat 2 Timbalan Ketua Menteri Iban – Dato Alfred Jabu dan Dato Daniel Tajem.

16 September atau 31 Ogos: Hari Malaysia

Liku-Liku Runcing Sarawak Membentuk Persekutuan Malaysia

Di pertemuan Lautan Pasifik dan Lautan Atlantik pada garis khatulistiwa terbentang semenanjung dan ribuat pulau-pulau dinamai Arkipelago Melayu. Membina tamadun maritim tersendiri di antara dua tamadun besar, China di sebelah barat dan India di sebelah timur menjadi super-world economy mengeluarkan rempah-ratus yang mencetuskan revolusi perdagangan dunia yang bermula di Eropah ketika itu. Selama ratusan tahun semenjak abad yang pertama irama sejarah Arkipelago bergema dengan keunggulan Srivijaya, Kataha, Majapahit, Brunei dan Melaka menjaga ribuan pulau dan lautan demi kemakmuran perdagangan sejagat.

Mengiringi kapal perdagangan dan para peniaga Eropah ialah kuasa negara-bangsa yangn memulakan penjajahan di seluruh dunia. Pada tahun 1511, Portugal menawan Melaka dan kemudian di Maluku. Pada tahun 1578, menawan Cebu, Luzon dan Visaya. Pada tahun 1641, Belanda pula mengambil Melaka.

Britain pula tiba dan merampas Pulau Pinang pada tahun 1786 dan terus meluaskan penjajahannya Singapura pada tahun 1819 dan Melaka pada tahun 1824. Kemudian mulai 1874, Britain menguasai negeri-negeri Melayu; bermula dengan Perak, Selangor, Pahang, Trengganu, Kedah, Johor, Kelantan dan Perlis dan mengenepikan kuasa raja-raja dan pembesar Melayu.

Di Sarawak muncul pula seorang pemuda Inggeris bernama James Brooke pada tahun 1841. Bermula di Kuching dan kemudian memperluaskan pengaruhnya hingga ke Lawas pada tahun 1905, menjadi negeri Sarawak.

Di timur Borneo sebuah firma, North Borneo Charterd Company, membina jajahannya menjadikan Sabah mulai tahun 1888.

Masyarakat berobah menjadi majmuk dengan hadiran orang India dan China sama ada dibawa kuasa penjajah atau mencari kehidupan baharu di Arkipelago Melayu yang telah bermula semejak abad pertama itu.

Bermula dari perdagangan menjadi penjajahan sehingga kemudian menular menjadi persaingan ideologi demokrasi Barat dan komunisme Soviet Union dan China.

Perang Dunia Kedua tahun 1941 memberi sinar harapan kepada tanah-tanah jajahan Barat untuk melepaskan diri dari cengkaman kolonialisme dan berjuang menuntut kemerdekaan yang telah hilang selama ratusan tahun itu.

Di tengah-tengah kemelut perjuangan kemerdekaan oleh berbagai golongan, muncul seorang anak raja, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj yang berjiwa rakyat. Beliau berjaya memberi arah-tujuan baharu yang menyakinkan perjuangan menuntut kemerdekaan kepada parti UMNO dan kemudian diterima oleh parti Malaya Chinese Association dan Malaya Indian Association. Dengan watak dan keunggulan kepimpinan yang berjaya menyenangkan semua pihak, termasuk pemerintah penjajah Britain, Persekutuan Tanah Melayu telah meraih kemerdekaan dengan titisan dakwat pena, bukan pertumpahan darah, pada 31 Ogos 1957.

Terserlah gaya kepimpinan Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj yang dilantik menjadi Perdana Menteri Persekutuan Tanah Melayu seolah-olah mulai terdengar semula irama sejarah di Arkipelago Melayu mengiringi kelahiran sebuah negara baharu. Walaupun baharu sahaja mencapai kemerdekaan selama tiga tahun, Tunku Abdul Rahmann Putra Al-Haj, menyambung irama sejarah politik dan diplomasi antarabangsa dengan mengumumkan suatu gagasan baharu di antara negeri-negeri Melayu dalam Perseketuan Tanah Melayu dengan negeri-negeri British Borneo, iaitu Sarawak, Brunei dan Sabah pada 27 Mei 1961. Gagasan ini pada mulanya dikenali sebagai Melayu Raya kemudiannya menjadi Malaysia.

Ketika itu persaingan ideologi demokrasi dan komunisme sedang memuncak di seluru dunia. Komunisme semakin berkembang dan popular di bawah kepimpinan Russia dan China di mana mereka telah mula menarik sokongan golong bawahan di mana komunisme China telah berjaya menguasai Vietnam.

Dalam tempoh 23 hari, Sir Harold MacMillan, Pedana Menteri Britain, telah memberi tahu parlimen bahawa cadangan Tunku Abdul Rahman itu baik dan menarik. Pendirian Britain ini telah menjadikan cadangan ini perlumbaan pecut dalam sejarah intergasi politik dunia. Enam hari kemudian, pada 26 Jun 1961 gabenor tanah jajahan British Borneo, iaitu Sarawak, Brunei dan Sabah telah berkumpul di Singapura untuk membincangkan gagasan Malaysia itu.

Pada 9 Julai terdapat dari kalangan pemimpin seperti Ong Kee Hui dari Sarawak, A. M. Azahari dari Brunei dan Donald Stephen dari Sabah yang menubuhkan sebuah United Front. Bagaimanapun mereka hanya merupakan golongan kecil dan bukan suara rakyat di ketiga buah negeri itu.

Semasa persidangan Commonwealth Parliamentary Association di Singapura pada 27 Julai, wakil-wakil Sarawak, Sabah dan Brunei telah menubuhkan sebuah jawatankuasa, Malaysia Solidarity Consultative Committee untuk membincang dengan lebih terperinci mengenai gagasan Malaysia. Sarawak telah diwakili oleh Datu Bandar Abang Mustapa, Temenggong Jugah, Ling Beng Siew dan James Wong Kim Min. Secara umumnya jawatankuasa ini telah berubah dari menentang gagasan Malaysia kepada bagaimana untuk menjayakan secepat mungkin memandangkan ancaman komunis semakin kritikal dengan perang sengit di Vietnam di samping keganasan komunis di dalam negeri Sarawak sendiri. Sehubungan dengan itu ini negeri Sarawak telah mengambil inisiatif membentangkan sebuah Kertas Putih, Malaysia dan Sarawak di Dewan Undangan Negeri dan bersetuju dengan penubuhan Malaysia pada 4 Januari 1962.

Pada 3 Februari 1962, untuk memantapkan lagi persetujuan rakyat Sarawak dan Sabah, sebuah Suruhanjaya Cobold telah dibentuk yang dipengerusikan oleh Lord Cobold yang dianggotai oleh Sir Anthony Abell dan Sir David Watherton sebagai wakil Britain dan Dato Wong Pow Wee dan Encik Ghazali Shafiee sebgai wakil Persekutuan Tanah Melayu. Di Sarawak mereka telah mendengar pandangan rakyat dari semua lapisan masyarakat di 36 pusat, di bandar dan juga luar bandar di mana mereka menyelesaikan tugas ini pada 17 April 1962 dan terbang ke Kota Kinabalu untuk tujuan yang sama. Walaupun mereka mendapat tentangan oleh anasir komunis tetapi akhirnya majoriti rakyat Sarawak bersetuju menyertai penubuhan Malaysia.

Berdasarkan Laporan Cobold, Tunku Abdul Rahman telah berunding dengan Perdana Menteri Britain pada 1 Ogos 1962, lalu mengumumkan persetujuan mereka bahawa Malaysia akan diisytiharkan pada 31 Ogos 1963. Sebuah jawatankuasa, Inter-Governmental Committee telah ditubuhkan untuk mengkaji pengoperasian Persekutuan Malaysia, khususnya sebuah perlembagaan baharu.

Tentangan dari luar negara dan dalaman dari komunis telah meneguhkan tekad Sarawak dan Sabah untukmempercepatkan pembentukan Malaysia. Ekoran daripada itu, pada 12 September 1962 Dewan Undangan Negeri Sabah telah meluluskan penubuhan Malaysia dan Inter-Governmental Committee. Dewan Undangan Negeri Sarawak pula meluluskan sebulat suara Persekutuan Malaysia.

Dalam pada itu Dewan Perwakilan Philippines suatu resolusi menentang penbuhan Malaysia dan memulakan tuntutan ke atas Sabah pada 24 April 1962. Parti Komunis Indonesia menuduh Malaysia sebagai neo-kolonialisme di Borneo. Ini akan diikuti pemberontakan Parti Rakyat Brunei pada 8 Disember 1962 yang melibatkan beberapa Daerah Bekenenu, Limbang dan Lawas. Perintah darurat telah diisytiharkan di Bahagian Limbang pada 3 Januari 1963 di mana perintah berkurung telah dikuatkuaskan.

Pada 28 Januari 1963, Presiden Philippines, Diosado Macapagal mengumumkan tentangan terhadap penubuhan Malaysia semasa state-of-the-union speech dan selang beberapa hari ikuti oleh pengumuman Meneri Luar Indonesia, Dr. Subadario pada 11 Februari 1963. Keadaan menjadi sangat tegang dan meruncing yang dibimbangkan akan mencetuskan peperangan.

Maka tercetuslah tahap awal konfrontasi pada 12 April 1963 apabila sepasukan askar Indonesia telah menyerang dan menawan Stesyen Polis Tebedu yang dekat dengan sempadan selama seminggu sebelum ditawan semula. Communist Clandestine Organization (CCO) melancarkan kegiaan provokasi seperti menyebarkan risalah komunis dan mengebarkan bendera Parti Komunis Chian. Suasana di Bandar Kuchng berubah menjadi suasana peperangan, ribuan askar Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dan askar Komanwel membanjiri bandar itu. Raungan bunyi jet dan helikopter tentera mengisi ruang udara dan keenderaan tentera menguasai jalan raya.

Dalam keadaan runcing ini Jepun telah mengambil inisiatif membawa Perdana Menteri Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, Tunku Abdul Rahman; Presiden Philippine, Diosado Macapagal dan Presiden Indonesia, Sukarno ke Tokyo pada 31 Mei 1963 untuk perundingan damai. Indonesia bersetuju menghentikan tenteranya memasuki Sarawak.

Dalam pada itu laporan Inter-Governmental Committee telah diluluskan oleh Dewan Undangan Negeri Sarawak pada 23 Februari dan di Sabah pada 13 Mac. Pilihanraya pula telah dijalankan di mana parti Perikatan yang menang sebagai bukti sokongan dan penerimaan rakyat Sarawak dan Sabah terhadap Malaysia. Ini telah menjadi faktor terkuat untuk menyempurnakan Perjanjian Malaysia yang bersejarah dengan tandatangan pengesahan yang diketuai oleh Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, Perdana Menteri Persekutuan Tanah Melayu dan Harold MacMillah, Perdana Menteri Britain di London pada 9 Julai 1963. Sarawak telah diwakili oleh Dato Bandar Abang Mustapa, Temenggong Jugah, Abang Haji Openg, Ling Beng Siew dan P.E. H. Pike.

Sepuluh hari kemudian, House of Commons Britain telah meluluskan Malaysia Bill untuk memberikan Sarawak dan Sabah bertaraf berkerajaan sendiri untuk membuat keputusan sendiri. Lanjutan dari pilihran raya yang telah diadakan, maka pada 22 Julai 1963, Stephen Kalong Ningkan, pengerusi parti SNAP dan Perikatan, telah dilantik sebagai Ketua Menteri Sarawak berserta dengan kabinet pertama yang dianggotai oleh Abdul Taib Mahmud, James Wong, Dustan Endawie, Awang Hipni Pengiran Anu dan Teo Kui Seng.

Tiba-tiba Presiden Indonesia, Sukarno mengumumkan secara rasmi dasar “Ganyang Malaysia”, menandakan konfrontasi bermula, pada 27 Julai 1963 sedangkan tarikh pengisytiharan Persekutuan Malaysia pada 31 Ogos hanya sebulan sahaja lagi. Perdana Menteri, Tunku Abdul Rahman tanpa mengenal erti menyerah tetap tegas dan berani dan memanggil perundingan di Manila dengan Sukarno dan Diaso Macapagal pada 30 Julai. Setelah berunding selama empat hari hasil yang dicapai diluar dugaan di mana mereka bersetuju mengeluarkan tiga dokumen. Yang pertama ialah Deklarasi Manila di mana mereka bersetuju membentuk sebuah konfederasi MAHPHILINDO, gadungan Malayisa, Phililippines dan Indonesia. Yang kedua ialah Persetujuan Manila di mana ketiga negara akan berkerjasama dalam bidang politik, ekonomi, sosial dan kebudayaan. Dalam bidang politik ini, Indonesia dan Philippines dengan segera mengusulkan supaya Pertubuhan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu mengadakan pungutan suara rakyat Sarawak dan Sabah tentang pembentukan Perseketuan Malaysia. Maka tertubuhlah United Nation Malaysia Mission yang diketuai oleh Lawrence Michelmore. Anasir-anasir komunis di Sarawak membuat bantahan dan tunjuk perasaan di Kuching, Sibu dan Miri.

Bagaimanapun persiapan menyambut hari kemerdekaan terus dirancang. Dan pada 6 Ogos 1963, Menteri Sumber Alam, Yang Berhormat Teo Kui Seng telah dilantik sebagai pengerusi sambutan hari kemerdekaan pada 31 Ogos 1963. Malangnya oleh kerana United Nation Malaysia Mission masih belum menyelesaikan tugasnya maka pada 19 Ogos pihak kerajaan telah menangguhkan pengisytiharaan Malaysia dari 31 Ogos kepada 16 September 1963.

Pada 4 September 1963 dalam Sidang Dewan Undang Negeri Sarawak, Ketua Menteri Encik Stephen Kalong Ningkan telah membentangkan usul Malaysia dan berjaya diluluskan dengan 38 menyokong dan 5 menentang.

Pada 13 September 1963 United Nation Malaysia Mission berjaya menyelesaikan tugas mereka denga membentang laporan rasimi yang mendapati bahawa rakyat Sarawak dan Sabah bersetuju membetuk Persekutuan Malaysia. Pada hari yang sama Gabenor Sir Alexander Wadell mengumumkan bahawa Yang Dipertuan Agong telah berkenan melantik Datu Abang Hj. Openg Hj. Shapiee sebagai Yang Dipertua Negeri Sarawak dan Temenggong Jugah anak Barieng sebagai Menteri Hal Ehwal Sarawak.

Pada 15 September 1963 tepai jam 12:30 petang Gabenor British, Sir Alexander Waddell secara meninggalkan Astana untuk menaiki kapal yang akan bawa beliau dan sejarah penjajahan pulang ke tempat asal mereka untuk selama-lamanya.

Seluruh rakyat Sarawak menantikan dengan debaran hari kemerdekaan pada kesokan harinya. Kemeriahan dirasakan dengan Pertandingan Bola Sepak Piala Sarawak peringkat akhir melihatkan Kuching menewaskan Miri. Menjelang malam pula diadakan perarakan tanglung dan kereta berhias tetapi telah dibatalkan apabila sebutir bom diletupkan oleh anasir komunis di Open Market, Kuching.

16 September 1963, tarikh yang penuh sejarah dan debaran akhirnya tiba. Hari ini tiada siapa yang dapat menghalang sejarah. Tiada siapa yang dapat menghalang suara rakyat yang mahukan sebuah negara baharu, Persekutuan Malaysia lagi. Seperti kata Perdana Menteri, Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj pada hari itu:

“The great day we have awaited has come at last – the birth of Malaysia. In a warm spirit of joy and hope ten million people of many races in all the states of Malaya, Singapura, Sarawak and Sabah now join hands in freedom and joy.”

Semangat ini terpancar di Padang Sentral, Kuching di mana kemuncak sambutan kemerdekaan bersama kelahiran Persekutuan Malaysia bagi negeri Sarawak diadakan dengan kemegahan dan kemeriahan ketikia itu. Encik Khir Johari, sebagai wakil Perdana Menteri telah melafaz Pengisytiharan Malaysia dan didampingi oleh Tuan Yang Terutama Datu Haji Abang Openg dan Dato Stepeh Kalong Ningkan serta barisan kabinet pertama sambil disaksikan oleh rakyat yang hadir.

SYSTEMATIC ATTACK ON MALAY IDENTITY

With Braudel's long duree insight the Malay identity has been attacked in a systematic way for more than a decade. It started in Singapura, a Malay nemesis, with a conference on contessting Malay identity that even Malay scholars supported in the name of an intellectual discourse. This was followed by the denouncement of keris, the Malay symbol of power, following an UMNO general meeting that saw even the once fiery youth cowed in the name of violence. The cultural basis of the Malay identity succumbed to the on-slaught by the Chinese, in particular.

In the past weeks, it was the spiritual identity became the target. In Pulau Pinang, a Malay Muslim prayed for a Chinese Chief Minister while excluding the King and the Governor in a few occasion during the holy day of Friday prayer. This was followed by a Chinese woman parliamentarian using the sacred prayer hall to give "tazkirah", a sermon.

In all these events it was the Malays who were consequently confused and divided as some political and Islamic leaders gave different interpretations and failed to take punitive actions.