Most Read
Most Commented
Read more like this
mk-logo
From Our Readers

I am prompted to write this in response to 'Varsity debate topics changed not due to pressure, source claims'( malaysiakini Oct 26). I was present in the closed-door meeting held in Universiti Malaya and I have found some untrue information in the above-mentioned report.

Right from the start, the organising committee chairperson explained to all the representatives the reason for dropping the two topics. I heard it clearly that "the topics were rejected by UM deputy vice-chancellor on the ground that it was against government policy". She once mentioned, "This is unjust and they (the committee) have tried to maintain the topics".

In addition to that, she briefly told us how they had to deal with the student affairs department staff. So it is indeed shocking to hear this being denied it in the public days after that.

Now, what is the true reason of the two topics being dropped? I believe all the participating teams deserve the truth.

When the organisers claimed that they received full co-operation from the university, have they taken into account the fact that the two topics were dropped unjustly? (like what they have said in the meeting). Isn't that "pressure"?

In his speech during the opening ceremony (Chinese version), the president of Universiti Malaya's Chinese Society urged all to stay calm. He said, "Don't sacrifice the whole jungle for the sake of a short coconut tree".

What does that mean? I suppose their first explanation is loud and clear, that "Yes, we did face some problems from the university".

Secondly, the organisers refused to take responsibility for the topics being changed, so how could it have issued an apology for that? What are the organisers apologising for if this is not their fault? Are they representing somebody else?

I must insist no sincere apology was given in the meeting. A simple "sorry" cannot be considered an apology before the true reason is identified. Who should the victims forgive? Really, I find it ridiculous when it is said that the affected students "have accepted the apology".

Has the organising committee once again changed its stance and is prepared to take full responsibility? I am confused.

ADS