The recent protest at a Sabah university – where students rallied against corruption and set aflame an image of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim – warrants closer scrutiny.

While their concerns may have been sincere, the methods and reasoning of these student protestors have exposed a troubling political immaturity.

Invoking their freedom of expression without appreciating its boundaries and blindly copying actions and events taking place elsewhere reveal a superficial grasp of civic discourse. Such acts cannot go unchallenged. What will they do next—burn sacred texts?

Students who launch protests are often deluded into believing that they can bring about immediate change in a country. We have seen this in China, Indonesia, and even here in Malaysia, although ours may be on a smaller scale.

The youthful urge to challenge the status quo and steer society onto a new course is real. I know it myself.

I felt the same way when I was in my twenties in the US and steeped in the Islamic Reformation ideology. I felt that it was up to the youth to challenge and change what the old guard had left behind.

But at the time, 40 years ago, there was no internet or social media. Neither could we flip open our smartphones to communicate with thousands in real time.

With hindsight, I can say that many student-led political actions are rooted in immature politics.

Their causes may be noble, but students usually fail to grasp systemic complexities, do not know the best strategies for expression, and cannot envision the long game. I would give them an ‘A’ for passion, but an ‘F’ for execution.

The 1985 Memali tragedy is a case in point. The police were seeking to arrest Ibrahim Libya, previously linked to PAS, to prevent the spread of his extremist teaching on Islam.

Clashes erupted after the villagers of Kampung Memali sought to protect him, resulting 14 villagers and four police officers losing their lives.

At the time, I was in the US pursuing my master’s in architecture, and received news of the incident, framed according to particular perspectives, via the Malaysian Islamic students’ group, of which I was a supporter.

The narrative that came through to me at the time was one of police brutality and the heavy-handedness of the Barisan Nasional administration, then led by Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

At conventions, we often heard of the “syahid” (martyrdom) of Ibrahim Libya and his followers. For PAS, they died as martyrs, a position the country’s religious institutions have strenuously denied.

As a young student at the time, I was naïve and immature, with a limited understanding of the role religion played in extremist politics.

Fast forward to the present and I can see with my own eyes how religion is used by social media influencers to incite and draw viewers, by politicians to get votes, and by independent preachers seeking popularity.

That has led me to change my entire perspective of the matter.

When the Iranian Revolution took place, many students, myself included, rejoiced for Islam.

Now, I can see what clerical politics has turned into and I no longer support a political manifesto premised on religious ideology.

In Malaysia, there are two political parties today that have ideologies based on religion. I reject them both. I wish we had a law that disallows the use of religion as a political ideology.

When Sisters in Islam won its recent appeal, there were calls for the group to remove any reference to Islam from its name due to differences of opinion between conservative and progressive Muslims in the country.

Well, what about political parties that have “Islam” in their name? Should that go, too? Forty years ago, I would have said no, but things have changed, and so have my views on the matter. I have seen the dangers of a religious narrative being spun both in politics and society.

I would be the first to support the idea of student political activism, but there must be some safeguards to allow students to express their views in a more holistic manner.

What happened in Sabah was embarrassing, if not dangerous.

All students intending to express political and social concerns must be made to consult senior academicians before organising any event which may turn controversial.

To that end, the higher education ministry must allow for discourses, forums and discussions on controversial topics aimed at eliciting varied perspectives and a deep contextual understanding of issues at hand.

In that way there would not be any need for street demonstrations that may have the tendency to ignite into something untoward. After all, the objective here is to educate, not to incite hatred against any individual.

Academics must not shirk their responsibility of participating in panel discussions with activists and experts in various fields, including history and philosophy, to provide balance to any discussion.

Students must be taught that before they can change their country, they must confront the need to change themselves. While it is commendable that they care for certain issues, they must also learn the importance of understanding them in their full complexity.

For that to happen, they must learn to listen to those with knowledge and experience in politics and governance.

So many of them today fail to realise just how little they actually understand of anything.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.