Students should be free to question political practices without fear
THE controversy surrounding a Universiti Malaya student’s remark about public donations to former prime minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak raises a question larger than the incident itself: how should Malaysians engage with opinions they find objectionable?
Her description of the donations as among the most foolish things she had witnessed attracted public attention, followed by reports of online threats and harassment. The episode invites reflection on both responsible public questioning and the boundaries of legitimate criticism.
READ MORE: Viral remarks on Najib put UM student in online firing line
READ MORE: No action against UM student who posed ‘tough’ question, says Zambry
A democratic society requires space for citizens, including university students, to question political practices and public leadership. Universities should cultivate intellectual independence, curiosity and the confidence to examine uncomfortable issues.
Political sensitivities should encourage careful discussion rather than discourage participation. Equally, the freedom to question carries a responsibility to express disagreement with precision and consideration.
The substance of a question and the language used to convey it deserve separate examination. Concerns about political accountability can be raised firmly without describing a practice in terms that participants may experience as demeaning.
Although criticising an action is distinguishable from insulting an individual, listeners may interpret dismissive language as a judgement of their intelligence or dignity. This can shift attention from the issue to the perceived insult.
For students and other public participants, a more constructive approach is to identify the concern, explain its basis, and invite a reasoned response.
For example, asking how political fundraising relates to accountability creates space for scrutiny while allowing others to explain their position. Such phrasing preserves the question’s strength and improves its ability to generate meaningful discussion. Courtesy can make a difficult question more effective.
However, shortcomings in expression cannot justify cyberbullying. Members of the public are entitled to challenge an argument, question its assumptions or criticise its tone.
That entitlement does not extend to intimidation, threats or sustained personal humiliation. A response becomes ethically unacceptable when its purpose shifts from examining what someone said to making that person afraid to speak.
These responsibilities should not be treated as equivalent offences. An injudicious choice of words and a campaign of harassment differ in their nature, scale and potential consequences.
Encouraging a student to communicate more thoughtfully must never imply that she caused or deserved abuse. Likewise, rejecting harassment does not require agreement with her judgement. Both positions can be maintained consistently.
The same care should guide how we describe online audiences. Netizens are not a single group with identical motives. Some may offer substantive disagreement, others may defend the speaker, and some may cross into abuse.
Fair discussion requires distinguishing these responses rather than condemning everyone who expresses criticism. The appropriate standard concerns conduct, regardless of political allegiance.
Public figures, educators and programme organisers also have an opportunity to model constructive engagement. A panel can acknowledge a legitimate concern, address its substance and explain why particular wording may obstruct dialogue.
Universities can strengthen students’ ability to frame questions, evaluate evidence and respond to disagreement. Online participants can contribute by checking context before sharing a clip and challenging abusive comments without reproducing their hostility.
These practices rest on a basic democratic principle: disagreement does not remove another person’s dignity.
Political convictions may be deeply held, but no individual or group possesses an exclusive claim to patriotism, intelligence or moral concern. Applying the same standards to allies and opponents is essential to civic maturity.
Malaysia’s progress depends partly on our ability to discuss difficult matters while continuing to work together. Citizens across ideological, ethnic, religious and generational differences share an interest in trustworthy institutions, educational opportunity and national wellbeing. These common goals deserve more attention than the satisfaction of winning an online confrontation.
The aspiration should be a nation whose people question confidently, answer thoughtfully and disagree respectfully.
We can examine our words, reconsider our assumptions, and protect one another’s right to participate. By doing so, Malaysians can turn disagreement into a contribution to national development and build a society distinguished by wisdom in speech and mutual respect.
AFI ROSHEZRY ABU BAKAR
ADI WIRA MOHD ZIN
UNIVERSITI TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN (KAMPAR CAMPUS)
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of theSun.