IS MUSA AND THE MSC RELEVANT?

IN REGARD of the events of the previous week, of our decline to the supposed “debate”, we would like you to applaud the members of the MSC for such an astounding show of political finesse. It is regrettable that we could not accept this “debate”, as we must remain anonymous, nonetheless that does not mean that it could not be carried out on paper instead.

The MSC’s recent response is hardly an answer; questions on accountability, transparency and the checks and balances within the walls of MUSA; questions of the involuntary nature of the ongoing referendum and questions on the relevancy of the MUSA establishment are still left unanswered. What it shows instead is that the “referendum-neutral” MUSA is not neutral at all. Elections are supposedly a source of legitimacy; but would a union elected my a minority be truly legitimate? In our opinion, the clubs and societies are more legitimate than MUSA, with active membership comprising of students like you. CAMUSA does NOT seek power; we seek the disestablishment of the student union. Therefore, how would a post-MUSA campus look like?

Needless to say, there shall be a huge burden lifted from our shoulders. No more pointless regulations on associations, no more limits to accepting our petitions and no more “permits” required for fundraising, club events and speaking. Yes, speaking! The “Speakers’ Corner” is not the bastion of free speech as many of us think; there are limits to what one can say, and subjects of religion, race and politics are off the list. One cannot, as a recent Corner speaker claim, “talk about anything” if it criticises the policies of our beloved government or of socially relevant issues such as the state of our nation’s freedom of faith. Unfortunately, rather than these fiery issues, the MSC prefer speeches concerning the latest music videos instead.

Therefore we are giving MUSA a challenge:

If you are indeed for student rights, speak for our true rights as citizens rather than on infantile matters, let the students decide on what is best for them and loosen your grip on the club and societies who are the true representatives of the student body. Otherwise, there is no reason for your existence.

Email: ca-musa[at]hotmail.com Vote “NO” at the MyMonash portal

Blog: http://camusa.blogs.friendster.com © 2007 Coalition for the Abolishment of MUSA

PRINT>PHOTOCOPY>SPREAD

Comments

[another]

This is really pathetic. If you want to voice out and diss members of the MSC, have a backbone and stand up. When you insist on remaining anonymous, saying things like "we must remain anonymous", it's very hard to not picture you as someone who has a personal grudge against the MSC. Makes one wonder if you're a Presidential hopeful or from another team that lost or just someone who had some argument with the MSC. Either way, you sound sore.

I think the very fact that there is dissent and that your posters are still up and that the MSC has actually been (in my view) stupid enough to even bother trying to engage with you says a lot: THERE IS "FREEDOM", DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU CLAIM IT DOESN'T EXIST.

Your claim that the clubs and societies are more legitimate than MUSA is nonsensical (especially when one considers that C&S is a Division under MUSA - do us all a favour, and do yourself some research before making wild claims. You'd sound a lot less illogical if you did). Can you find statistics on how many students are actually members of clubs and societies? Can you guarantee that all of those students that are members of clubs and societies are ACTIVE members of clubs and societies? Show us some statistics, please, to back up your wild accusations.

If you're going to call for the abolishment of a student union, I'm afraid I have little choice but to compare you to John Howard (that Australian git who introduced VSU and crippled student unionism in Australia, leaving the administrative voice totally in charge of running the university and leaving no room for students' voices).

IF YOU HAD DONE YOUR RESEARCH (I can't emphasise enough how little effort has been made in this regard), you wouldn't be saying vague things like "no more pointless regulations" (give us an example, please?). You wouldn't say "no more limits on accepting our petitions" (if you'd actually read the fine print of the referendum, you'd realise that the changes they want to make actually make it easier for us to petition the MSC). You'd also know that the requirement to sign a legal disclaimer to speak at Speaker's Corner was not enforced by the MSC, but rather imposed by administration. And you wouldn't hypocritically point to the C&S Division as a bastion of "FREEDOM" whilst criticising their policies (btw, the MSC cannot interfere in C&S Division matters. The MSC can't even touch the C&S Division budget! There's decentralisation for you! Again, PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH).

If you think that members of the MSC are not concerned about the political situation in Malaysia, think again... I know for a fact that some of those you've directly criticised are very much anti-government and anti-UUCA (google it), and I think they'd appreciate your views whenever they try to push for more freedoms.

Student unionism has made much impact globally, and it's a shame you can't seem to contribute to the students at Monash in a more constructive manner.

If you stood up and legitimately argued with the MSC about whatever gripes you have, I would gladly support you. God knows, politics is not nice, and I absolutely agree with you when you demand full accountability. I think there certainly is measure for accountability, but, as you have pointed out, most students here are apathetic (and I don't think that's the current MSC's or any other MSC's fault - you're more likely to find the causes in Mahathirism and the UUCA), so the responsibility of the MSC must first and foremost be to encourage a more active student culture.

Please do more research on your arguments next time, it's very hard for those of us who are trying to be good citizens and hold up accountability to not laugh at some of your efforts at "FREEDOM".

I sincerely hope you will take some of my advice, and fight whatever it is you're against openly. I'd take you a lot more seriously then, and would even want to attend any "education talks" you'd have.

But until then, adios. You'll have no credibility and respect until you earn it.

[CAMUSA]

No, there is no personal grudges, only political ones...namely the ongoing referendum and the bureaucratic cesspool of the system. And no, there aren't any Presidential or any political hopefuls amongst us, only those that are concerned of this latest move to manipulate the political structure.

Yes, C&S are part of MUSA but not the clubs and socs themselves. All clubs are represented by the C&S rather than by themselves.... obviously to limit the clubs' power in the Council.

Student union only puts power in the hands of a few "representatives"...we'd rather have a student union represented directly by the students themselves. However as direct democracy is currently technically unfeasible, the next best thing would be to decentralize the student union.... rather than a concentration of powers, it would be diluted to ensure consensus amongst all decisions as well as to avoid some oligarchic rule of a privileged few.

Of the budgets. Yes, we know the MSC cant manipulate the budgets of individual clubs but what about the MUSA budget? That is the budget thats under question; having a few snot-nosed YB-wannabes handling RM250,000 (FY2007 - yes, most student don't even know you guys have that much money) of student money.

You think a few 25 INDIVIDUALS represents the will of over 3000? The clubs are more representative as any tom, dick and harry can join them... just walk in and register. Can all 3000 students be members of the MSC? You'd need a big room for that budget meeting, sister...at least it will indeed be representative. But considering the structure allowing only a few to hold decision-making power....that is NOT.

P/S: we've already earned our credibility and respect. Ask the students, ask those who put up the fliers, ask the 347 students (and counting...) that emailed us their support...

[another]

I find it very hard to believe that there are no personal grudges, especially with your subtle attack on certain individuals in one of your posts.

But back to your illogical arguments... Again, it is very clear you have not done your research. Here, I'll help you: ask yourself why the student union is structured the way it is, then go out and find the answer. Along the way, make sure you obtain more information about the structures in Clayton, Caulfield, Gippsland, Parkville and even South Africa...

The fact remains that the student union structure of MUSA (which is based on these other campuses) has never been an impediment to democracy over there. So why is it an impediment over here?

You could say it's because of the MSC, but I beg to differ. Even if your accusations of the MSC being a greedy and power-hungry lot are correct (which I question because they're about to step down from office, so I fail to see what they personally will gain from the referendum), you should also remember that there have been corrupt office bearers in other campuses.

If you want to find a reason for all the issues that this campus' student democracy faces, I think you'll find you yourselves have provided the answer: "MOST STUDENTS ARE APATHETIC."

If students followed the practice of other campus', they'd stand up and hold the people they elect into office accountable. They fail to.

And in fact, you've failed to. You say you've earned your credibility and respect with the support of 347 students, but there is no way to measure that. WE CAN ONLY TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT. And as you've so blithely pointed out, EVERYONE LIES. You demand accountability, but you yourselves refused to be held accountable. Why should students listen to a bunch of hypocrites? I think a lot of students can see through your hypocrisy, but I guess this can only be concluded pending the referendum results.

Do your research, please, on student union structures around the world before you start throwing around baseless arguments. FYI, this is another way to lose credibility: by just bulldozing your way in without having done necessary research. I don't think even politicians would be so stupid as to do that.

I think it's admirable that your group wants to do its bit for student democracy, but you're very hard to take seriously. SOME RESEARCH. PLEASE. Answer the questions I raised in this post, and come up with an intelligent proposal detailing exactly how your solution would work and exactly how it would solve things.

[CAMUSA]

First of all, your arguments are based solely on your belief that we actually need a centralized student union, an elite group of "representatives" to watch over us. That view is childish, infantile and naive. And just because the other campus were doing it does not mean that we have to. And your claim that "MUSA has never been an impediment to democracy", is naturally a biased view, your biased view. Rather than having 25 people telling how good they are at their job, we'd go for a decentralized system where the RM250,000 aren't concentrated in the hands of a few. That an impediment right there. In that system there is no need to demand accountability cause it comes through membership, rather than limited to a selected 25.

Yes, most students are apathetic, and because of that there are people that'll take advantage of it....hijacking a student website for instance. The only way to protect them from their apathy would be to eliminate the apathetic thing itself...the student union. Cause they're way more interested in clubs and socs than on you.

And how about free press and free speech? Surely having your people running around, taking down our fliers aren't a good sign to that...and about being anti-UUCA, you'd think a centralized, campus-sanctioned student body "representative" have the guts to come out screaming? We're not criticizing anyone specific, we're criticizing any and all that's linked to a centralized student union, a monopoly.

DO YOUR RESEARCH PLEASE, cause if your dream state is a do-everything government, you can move to North Korea...

[another]

Again, you are falling onto trembling ground. Accusing me of being your "enemy" is hardly a way to engage in dialogue.

What I have asked you to do (and what you have failed to do) is explain why it is that student unions in other campuses work, whilst MUSA apparently does not. I have asked you for hard facts that prove that the C&S is more "active" than MUSA. I know for a fact that not all students are members of clubs and societies, and that even if they are, they may not be active members. So how does this solve the problem of "apathy" as per your suggestion?

RESEARCH, please.

Btw, your example of Switzerland could hardly apply here. You've forgotten one very important fact: Switzerland is in many ways the closest thing to a direct democracy, with there being maximum democratic participation by the electorate. Since, as you yourself have said, apathy is the main problem, how can this system work FOR A STUDENT BODY?

Thus, the only thing I can conclude is that what you are trying to do is crippled student rights much the same way VSU did.

Again, RESEARCH, please.

PS. How did North Korea come in to the equation? I do not believe I made any reference to the state or its practices.
PPS. Obviously, you do not want to take to case my point that you have no credibility. Your arguments are so illogical that if turned around on you, it's very easy to see through you; "EVERYONE LIES."
PPPS. Did you not indirectly criticize the President in the email you sent to the General Secretary? Tell us again you don't hold any personal grudges against her.

[another]

Just been talking to a Swiss friend of mine, who would like to point out that there have actually been many questions over whether or not there is total fairness or democracy in Switzerland. Ie. Sealing of Council minutes for 50 years.

So I guess your "decentralized" utopia is hardly good for the rest of us, is it? At least the student council opens their minutes up to everyone.

AGAIN, RESEARCH PLEASE.

[another]

Again the utopia crumbles: despite your argument that decentralization will reduce apathy, your Swiss utopia apparently has problems with its electorate as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland.

I can't believe you guys call yourselves "credible" (but then again, EVERYONE LIES) when you don't even know the facts of the cases you hold so dear. My esteem for you grows weaker with every new post you come up with.

[CAMUSA]

We've never said Switzerland is a "utopia", so don't put words in our mouths. The fact that the Swiss also had a centralized FEDERAL government proves this. But compared to the rest of the world the Swiss is the most decentralized, and look how well it doing now... Sorry to say, your angle of attack is way of course. :)

Does the student union in other campuses work? Questions had to be asked then, do they have a centralized union? Do they have hundred-thousand-dollar budgets? Who decides on these budgets, a selected few? How about press freedom, do you need the approval of the union to post fliers around campus? Does their "Speakers' Corner" limits "sensitive" topics? If YES is the answer to any of these then no they DON'T WORK. DO your research please~~~

And about the clubs and socs being more active, you should ask them yourself, see their membership list (We'd bet its more than 25). Research my dear Watson, research....

About our reference on the Daniel Tan affair. No, that does not prove any personal grudges, it proves that people seeking power would do ANYTHING to gain it. Yes, I've see the infamous "brown pigs" post myself, but as the rest of us I only see the smearing tactics so much used by politicians everywhere - naturally this reflects on who they REALLY are. The Coalition is united against false representation (whether in personality or politically).

FREEDOM!

[another]

How can you say Switzerland is doing well when it too has problems regarding voter apathy? RESEARCH. Please provide some hard facts.

As for the questions about student unions in other campuses, you really ought to be doing your research about that. If you can't answer any of the questions you yourselves have asked, how can you expect to be a viable opponent to MUSA? The fact is obvious: you don't know student unions work. You haven't come up with proper details of how your "ideal" student union would work. You have not done your research.

As for the clubs and societies, you should be providing the hard facts since you hold them so dear. You're providing a lot of assumptions ("we'd bet its more than 25") instead of hard facts (the number of students who are members of clubs and societies are xxx). You'd also be required to go into details of how the club is run (by an exec committee which is elected - oh my! How shockingly similar to the structure of the MSC this is!) and then define what constitutes an "active" member, and provide statistics on how many members of clubs and societies are "active". "Research my dear Watson, research..."

I'm beginning to think your whole effort is laughable. You claim you want to enforce reform, but your methods and background are highly questionable (I notice again that you have not wanted to take up my point of credibility; "EVERYONE LIES", so why should we believe you when you claim to be more credible than the MSC?)

As for your final paragraph, I am beginning to think it applies to you more than anyone else. So hungry for power you've devised a plot to smear the names of MSC members (and you are - you may say you're just repeating the truth, but you obviously have not done your RESEARCH on this matter as Temme said in an earlier post - I suggest you read Election Reports)?

Good luck trying to overthrow the MUSA system. At first, I though you might have a fighting chance, but having engaged in some dialogue with you, it's clear you haven't: you just lack the credibility, proper know-how (RESEARCH) and method of argument.

[another]

None of your solutions will properly address the issue of apathy, and I believe it is for that reason your cause will fail.

[another]

...I meant "solutions"

[another]

Btw, you still haven't addressed SEVERAL of the issues I've raised. Please go back to all of my posts and read each sentence one by one, then refute each sentence one by one, when you are next replying. It looks rather silly for you when you are arguing on a selective basis, despite the fact that you raised all of the issues in the first place.

[CAMUSA]

Our "assumptions", are simply a rhetorical (sarcastic?) questions. We don't need to give the facts (over 25 memberships...etc)...the answers and evidence are obvious. And your demands for "RESEARCH" simply shows you're either lazy or in dearth of points.

There is no such thing as an "ideal" student union. The idea of a student union simply shows what's bad about it - centralized control. Have you asked yourself what does MUSA do? And can those things be done by either the clubs or even by the students themselves? "Protecting our rights", is vague...anyone can campaign for better lunches or cheaper parking fees...etc. The fact that these are seen as student-union responsibilities is a joke in itself. If we hadn't known better, it seems that MUSA works more like NTUC in Singapore - a supposed union for the "interests of the workers" but in reality controlled by the government. Miss, you've either been duped or brainwashed into believing in a "benevolent" central figure. As Lord Acton warned us, power corrupts...how to get rid of this corruption? Get rid of the source of power itself, disperse it to the winds....

Please don't be a child...you're an adult now, think like one.

p/s: And we did answer your points....

[another]

The problem with using assumptions to build a theory is that, as any theorist will know, assumptions often make for a fragile base. They can be attacked because quite simply, it is never a useful substitute for hard facts. My continued demands for research only point to one thing - that your arguments are full of gaps which can be easily tackled. I have asked that you please improve your credibility by providing some hard evidence. You have failed - it is you who is thus clearly in a "dearth of points."

I find your pattern of argument illogical: instead of clearly refuting a challenger's points (which you have failed to take up; please read my posts sentence by sentence and refute each and every argument, and I will happily concede that you have begun to make a legitimate case), you will take their thoughts into consideration for a moment or two, before spewing an array of vague nonsense.

That is what your second paragraph is: vague. Again, you fail to bring to light any student unions of the structure you want that actually work. You fail to prove that it is not a combination of possible mismanagement here or, as you have yourself named, "APATHY", which is the crux of the issue or whether it is the student union itself.

Your personal attacks (and your I find very insulting assumption that I must be female - perhaps this organization was founded for other purposes too?) will not deflect from the point that you are unable to provide concrete arguments.

You are not credible (EVERYONE LIES); instead, all you are capable of doing is spewing "philosophy" but failing to begin to differentiate between daydreams and reality. And if you want to see anything you say become reality (which it will so not because I doubt you've got the majority support among the students you claim to have - EVERYONE LIES), you've got to provide concrete facts, studies and statistics. You've got no numbers or hard facts to back you up in anything you say (only 700 students were members of clubs and societies in 2006? Less than half the total number of students? Wonder how many of them were "ACTIVE", and how many ELECTED THEIR OWN COMMITTEES SIMILAR TO THE WAY THE COUNCIL IS ELECTED. Could put a bit of a damper on your arguments. Better check this out before you next proceed to say like a bunch of incompetent and lazy wannabe researchers, "the answers and evidence are obvious").

Don't tell me you're actually foolish enough to want to call for reform based on an idea you haven't seen work for other student unions? Don't tell me you're actually foolish enough to want to call for reform when you've yet to state EXACTLY HOW your system would work (and I mean ALL the intricate little details included)? Don't tell me you're foolish enough to want to call for reform when you've actually got... Nothing?

[CAMUSA]

Again you've proven that your belief in centralized control blinds you from the concept of decentralization. "ALL the intricate little details"? A centralized student union would be interested in that; that would include numerous rules, regulations etc... Let me highlight the problem again, that is the centralized student union which functions in a way that all that is must pass through it, 6-digit budgets with opaque accountings, a decision-making system that is unchecked - what the party says, goes.

You're not even willing to answer our questions about the functions of MUSA as you yourself know these functions are as delegable to students and clubs themselves...thus making MUSA redundant. MUSA hold an interest to maintain the status quo...and you're simply echoing our the propaganda of "you need us". Systems are built by order, yes we recognize that as they came from interactions of individuals, I think economics students would call this the "invisible hand"....not of stone-set rules coming from above.

And of your feeble attacks on our credibility ("research please" and "everyone lies") by asking obvious questions - if indeed there is a collective 700 club members, than that way more than the MSC's 25. By not accepting these obvious answers - like asking a pastor proof of his Christianity - I'm afraid YOUR credibility is in question here....

Of reforms, reform what? the student union? There is no need for a student union...the student body and the clubs will keep on functioning without a student union, and that 6-digit budget will be put to better use if directly given to clubs instead.

p/s: list your questions next time please. :)

pp/s: And about the insult. That wasn't an insult apparently your use of language and tone mirrors someone i know who happens to be female, and I'm simply speculating that you're that someone.....btw, why do you find being deemed a woman insulting?

[another]

It's obvious there isn't going to be any real stimulating discussion here. Not through my lack of trying, mind you.

I have repeatedly asked you for solid facts to back up that your decentralised system will in fact work. If you think it is OK to throw all caution to the wind and force on students a model which has not been tried or tested any has no empirical evidence to back it up (and you will be forcing it on them btw - since even you cannot credibly claim to hold the majority of opinion in Monash), then your whole premise is reckless. If you want a reform or to even criticize members of the MSC, I'm all for it - democracy is supposed to support all of that. But I cannot, and I think you will find most students will not, support a system which really has no basis.

You ask, "can those things be done by either the clubs or even by the students themselves?", but you have so far not even been able to provide an example of a club which does just that. Empirical evidence is one thing - but you can't even provide a single example to back up your arguments.

I'm not sure how religion got into the mix (I find that pastor claim so unbelievable on so many levels, I don't know where to start - for instance, does being a pastor mean one is automatically a good Christian? But that's another issue for another day), but you forget another vital point about club structure. Although there may be 700 club members (again, PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH, you couldn't even obtain such a simple statistic such as that, why not start by finding out how many students are members of clubs or societies today?), the fact is each club is run by a COMMITTEE. Similar to the MUSA structure, eh? But wait, the C&S Division is under MUSA (do your RESEARCH!). But it's not so simple as that - then you have to go into the dynamics of how many members are actually ACTIVE, set a standard for ACTIVE... MUSA is structured very similarly - all students are members of MUSA, and all of them have a right to vote in elections. Apathy has its roots deeper than Monash - Mahathirism and the UUCA did that.

Empirical evidence, PLEASE. Without it, your whole argument has no basis.

PS. Next time, read every sentence of your opponent's argument.

PPS. I find the tone you've used to address - "Miss" - to be a very condescending one, which is why I found you insulting. As for the identity, speculate away. But as you yourself have said, that shouldn't be so important - "As for our identities, I think we need no introduction."

[CAMUSA]

Apparently we're running along parallel lines here, either that or it is not in your interest to understand decentralization (like you said, it's opened to speculation). Empirical "evidence" of FULL-decentralization does not exist (the best would be Switzerland, although like was mentioned it also has a centralized federal government), however such "non-empirical" ideas abound. The womens' suffrage movement in the 1920's for instance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage), was never backed by empirical evidence (cause it'd never been practiced before) but by "theoretical" ideas of natural rights and common sense. Sound familiar? What about the Black civil rights movement (never existed before too)? Again based on natural rights and common sense. And democracy itself, the ancient Athenians broke ranks by not having an all powerful monarch to rule, but instead the people....it had never been done before, but did that stop them? Thank God it didn't!!

You would claim that "all students are members of MUSA", this again I'd highlight, is a unilateral declaration of "legitimacy". However, considering that only a minority participated in the MUSA elections, this "legitimacy" is only nominal. True legitimacy is made by participation...if a student registers into a club, he/she simply says "this club is legitimate to me". Yes, apathy (political apathy, that is) is the center of this "legitimacy" problem, but why attempt to fix a problem when you can get rid of it once and for all? Clearly the students aren't interested in campus politics...what are you going to do then? FORCE them to get interested? Hijack every Monash website out there? If such things are the "cure" then that is Mahathirism in action. You have to recognize, the only reason how DrM could trample on our right is by having a centralized government.

And again, you cry of "PLEASE DO YOUR RESEARCH" proves that you're not listening to yourself. You gave the statistics (700 club members vs 25 of MSCs, which one's more legitimate?). And of the C&S Division, yes, we know its part of MUSA and thus the clubs and socs are under MSC's thumb....it does not prove participation of all the clubs and socs, but a "representative" instead... and as mentioned, "representatives" (i.e. individuals) does not represent the will of those he/she supposed to "represent".

P/S: the issue of religion is not the case...thats simply a allegory of asking a question that you already know the answer. That is, you don't need to ask a pastor if he's a Christian...

PP/s: Of your COMMITTEE argument. Which is more decentralized? Having ONE powerful committee on top (the MSC) or a dozen+ equally powerful committees (clubs and socs)? Decentralization is not about structure, it's about dispersing power.