From P Ramasamy
The Special Committee of the Cabinet on Anti-Corruption has decided to introduce courses in universities on integrity and anti-corruption.
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has been roped in to structure the courses that might be made compulsory for students.
The idea to introduce these courses seems to emanate from the fact that corruption is on the rise, especially among the youths in the country.
Corruption has become so common that there have been suggestions that the government offer an amnesty to those involved in petty corruption so that the anti-graft agency can go after the major culprits.
Apparently, amnesty has been offered in some countries to clear the backlog in corruption cases pending investigation and prosecution.
It is something that can be thought of, although the idea of an amnesty might not go down well with those who have suffered as result of corruption or other misdeeds.
If it is a problem of clearing the backlog, then I suspect the government agencies entrusted with wiping out corruption have been dragging their feet.
Amnesty cannot be introduced without a thorough study. Neither can immunity be provided for those who are arrested for corruption, however petty the offences are.
I think MACC might not be an appropriate party to design and introduce courses in the universities.
Lately, MACC itself has been questioned by the public on why the agency pursues selective prosecution.
There is nothing wrong with the introduction of courses on integrity and anti-corruption, but whether these will effectively curb the practice of corruption remains to be seen.
Studying hard to pass examinations hardly prepares students to internalise the ethics, values and morality essential to stem out the scourge of corruption.
The introduction of these courses seems to be predicated on the false notion that taking courses particularly in relation to wiping out corruption might be the best way.
There is nothing objectionable about these courses, but whether they will have the desired effect remains to be seen.
There is nothing novel about this curriculum intervention; there are already courses in private universities that teach morality and ethics.
Designing and teaching courses in morality and ethics would be more meaningful than lectures on integrity and anti-corruption.
It is important to get to the root of the present malaise rather than haphazardly treating the symptoms.
I would like to suggest that the government appoint a consultant to devise courses in universities that might be intellectually and philosophically challenging to students.
Offering courses on integrity and anti-corruption should be more philosophical in orientation in determining why and where we have gone wrong in combating corruption, manifestation of financial misdeeds, and others.
In brief, the problem with universities today, at least in this country, is the complete lack of courses in philosophy.
It is philosophy that will provide some understanding as to human frailties and how to combat them.
Mere introduction of courses in integrity and anti-corruption will be just a waste of time and public resources.
P Ramasamy is Penang deputy chief minister II.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.