Anybody submitting a class profile to the Thomian magazine today would find that there are no more class mottoes allowed in the respective class pages. The story behind their exclusion is an illustrative one, and it speaks volumes about what is happening in our schools today. It goes something like this:
Not too long ago, in a Thomian magazine, one student wrote ‘Go to school to get attendance’ as her motto. Perhaps she thought it was witty, perhaps she was being sarcastic, or perhaps it was a stab in the eye of the status quo – we may never be sure. But three things happened.
The first thing was that our Principal noticed. I can only guess at what he was doing when he went over the mottoes in the yearbook ... but there you go. He saw it. The next thing that happened was that he didn’t like what he saw. So he got rid of the mottoes altogether.
What is wrong with this story? I can point out a few things: firstly the banishment of the mottos in the school yearbook based on the actions of one student (no, make that one sentence) is unjustifiable. The girl had a right to her opinion, a right to personal expression within reasonable means – one that the school squashed under the heel of censure. And so what, if her motto swam against the current of conformity? Did the administration honestly think that the motto would single-handedly change the mindsets of the rest of its student population? Did it believe that class mottoes in a yearbook would damage the school’s reputation? And – more importantly – did the principal actually believe this to be reason enough to ban one of the remaining forms of personal expression – however pathetic it may be – in the school yearbook?
The truth is that: yes, it did; yes it thought class mottoes would be damaging; yes, the principal actually thought it reason enough. But don’t get me wrong: I have no problems with a ban on class mottoes in my school’s yearbook. Not by itself. Not with the right reasons. What I do have a problem with, however, is bigger than that: it is the simple fact that not even mottos – the smallest form of personal expression – is allowed in the Thomian. This is sad indeed: if the Thomian school magazine is not for the Thomians, then who is it for? The public? The advertisers? The school’s image?
Let's hold off that question for a little bit. I point now to The Square, which is the school's newsletter for students. It recently put out it’s 160th anniversary edition, a collection of articles then and now, charting the history of a hundred or so years of education. And while compiling features for that issue I ploughed through a stack of Old Thomians to see what things were like a few decades back.
And I couldn't stop reading.
The old Thomian magazines had soul. In the 1960s the students were allowed to write editorials on relevant, modern day issues – there was one about patriotism in the time of the Emergency and it was stark, honest, and wonderfully written. There were House reports too - the captains each had to submit one, and they took the space and the time as to wonder why their Houses did so badly (or so well) on Sports Day that particular year. I remember one Noel captain writing in his report how a lack of spirit after top athletes had left in his House had contributed to their defeat. If that had been written now, in today's St Thomas's, the principal would probably ban the whole section on the grounds of 'school image'.
During his last term as editor of The Square Ravindran had to handle a controversial pullback of every edition of the newsletter. The administration of St Thomas's had struck again: censoring this time an offending article in the center-spread about the state of the Science and Arts streams in the Malaysian education system. The strange thing was that there was nothing wrong with the article. It spoke truth, truth that anybody studying in a Malaysian school could testify to, and the administration pulled it back and removed it on the grounds of 'school image'. Here was the offending paragraph:
Generally, when one leaves secondary three, one is permitted to choose whether to continue their studies in either the science's stream of the art's stream. Unfortunately, the Form 4 arts students in SMK St Thomas do not have a choice. After going through their secondary 3 examination, they are forced to enter the arts stream as if it had been predestined for them. This is because they had failed to excel in their studies, and moreover, to be in the science stream, one has to achieve good grades in English, Mathematics and Science. Apparently, they just do not have the least laudable credentials. Furthermore, most of them belong to the categories that are uninterested in studies.But here was the context:
On the other hand, lower and upper 6 arts students are a tale of a different story. They enter arts stream through their own choices. They know what they want and exactly how to achieve their targeted goal. One thing is for sure, being in arts stream does not mean they are stupid and being in science stream does not guarantee one's success in life. I truly think that students should not be judged by their intelligence and therefore separated by boundaries created through the particular judgment. Students, in fact, should be looked upon as a whole which are then differentiated by their personal character so that the urge to be arrogant and discriminating against the poor would not be triggered.The article had struck a chord. It was true that there is a stigma between Arts and Science in Malaysia, one that, if had been recognized, could have been corrected. Singapore was fortunate because it had a visionary Education Minister who recognized the need for an Arts scene, but in Malaysia this perception did not yet exist. The writer, a Form 5 student, could have been encouraged to think critically about matters related to nation and state. But what was the lesson here? What did he learn from this fiasco? What did the administration teach him with censorship?
The lesson was this: the boy learnt that it did not pay to talk, think and speak the truth. It did not pay to voice his opinion, no matter how correct it was. And that it is better in the Malaysian context to sweep current issues under the carpet, to keep silent in fear of 'spoiling the image of the school'.
And I say to this: bollocks. If it seems that St Thomas's is a socialist regime with a censorship board of its own then that is because that it is. In many ways it reflects the current state of Malaysia: we present a idealistic, beautiful face to the world, while the paradoxes of our society stress and strain beneath the surface. The simple truth here is that we cannot hope do become a great nation with the suppression of critical thought and opinion. By extension, we cannot hope to create a dynamic, intelligent youth through the suppression of personal expression. We cannot grow if we cannot speak, and it would do well for our educators to sit up and take notice.
As the editor responsible for the redesign and revamp of The Square I have faced and dealt with many such instances over the last year. Sometimes I relent, because I understand the moral aspect of editorial power. Other times I am stamped out by the censorship board of the school because I stray too near to the truth. The administration complained after the late 2007 revamp that there were not enough reports and too many articles. But the results were telling: before leaving the school last year many Form 5s came up to me and commended our efforts on The Square. To them, it was a far better representation of Thomian life, thought and spirit then the Thomian magazine ever was. The irony wasn't lost on me, nor was it lost on the team - the truth that a small newsletter had beaten the school magazine (which bore the Thomian name) was funny in a very sad way.
You must realize that I do not speak of St Thomas's alone. The suppression of critical opinion is a national problem, created by a Government not fond of press freedom and implemented by Education officers like my principal. When submitting an essay on the effect of inflation my sister had her Kuching High teacher censor all parts mentioning the failure of the 1st Malayan Plan. My sister had merely seeked to prove the effect global prices had on national economic policy; her teacher saw this as 'sensitive' and red inked the whole paragraph. I am sure many such examples exist in our national school system, and it saddens me that my friends and siblings cannot learn to think for themselves.
At the end of the day my class would probably submit a profile without mottoes. It is merely one more sacrifice on the altar of school image and we're used to it. I won't fight for something as small as the inclusion of mottoes, but I will be watching closely the following issues of The Square, as well as further censorship moves the school might or will take.
If it improves, then bravo. But if it doesn't, if the school continues to step in and censor perfectly reasonable opinion, then be certain that you'll hear from me.
Till then.
Note: I edited this article and removed all hints of personal attack after long consideration. I want this to be interpreted as an objective piece, not as a rant, and I believe it is better for it.
