Don't care, or don't dare? Which of these restricts the freedom of expression among students? We find out.

We've heard it all before. Students are non-committal to the socio-political environment, preferring instead to follow tweets of the stars over updates of The Sun. Articles have been written about students being too carried away with the distractions of the world - technology, a 'me' generation, a short attention span - to be concerned with politics or economics.

But it's not this Gen-Y, 'don't care attitude' that restricts the tongues of young university students in speaking out freely, says Dr. Carmen Nge, Dean of the Faculty of Creative Industries at University Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR).

It's a cocktail of social pressures, dynamics and yes, the education system. It is basically all about fear.

But rather than the fear of the Internal Security Act (ISA, which is a preventive detention law that states that the government is at their sole discretion to investigate any and all suspicious activity that threatens the peace of the country) or the laws that govern the country, the fear, first of all, is from the social dynamics in which students find themselves in - amongst their peers, amongst their educators or even in their families.

"Students are very much dictated by the groups they find themselves in. These social dynamics play the biggest role in what they discuss among themselves, and what they don't," says Nge. "Rather than the law, students don't feel 'safe' to discuss such things because of social pressure."

Take for example, says Nge, a normal classroom discussion. Unless a lecturer brings up a current issue, or in the instance the subject taught is about laws, politics, and governance, very little will be discussed outside the classroom.

"Socio-political awareness among students is present, but oftentimes, it is on a very superficial level. They know the headlines and they know the 'hot' news. If their peers know about it, so will they," says Nge. "And I have found that the level of this awareness differs in private and public universities."

Not in the way that you think, however, says Nge. One would be inclined to believe that students in private institutions are more aware because they tend to be more privileged, but the opposite is true.

Having had 16 years of teaching experience in both elementary levels and tertiary levels of education (and in private and public institutions of learning), Nge has long noticed that the more privileged the students are, the more removed they become from socio-political realities. And as her faculty encompasses the study of media and communications, she has had direct experience with how important expression and speech is.

"I taught for a year at a prestigious private university here, and I found that the students there are very vague about these matters, possibly because they feel they are not directly affected by the issues swirling around them."

It is also an open secret that private universities are made up of a majority of non-Malays, who are less inclined towards politics - public universities usually see a larger number of Malay students, who believe that they are directly affected by the socio-political changes around them.

"I have taught an English course in a local public university, and I was pleased and impressed by the level of knowledge among them. They read the news and they keep updated with the decisions made in high places that impact them."

But there is the bigger picture: The way the education system has placed itself as 'don't ask, just listen' is where it probably begins.

"From a young age, students are told not to talk back, or bring up topics outside the classroom," says Nge. "And when they return to their families, their parents own political beliefs and values become their own."

After all, not many parents would enjoy a political debate with their child - it is 'children should be seen, not heard.' This belief goes all the way to tertiary level, where primary and secondary years have had plenty of time to condition students into believing that if they talk about it, they will be reprimanded for it.

"How often is politics or current affairs brought up in class? And in universities, unless a lecturer brings up a discussion about a particular topic, it is not often at the tip of their tongues to debate it out." Even as the 50-year-old soapbox in Universiti Malaya's (UM) Speakers' Corner finds itself in use again, only but a handful will stand up and speak upon it.

Added to that, there is a lack of knowledge of the law which applies to students, says Nge. And ignorance, of course, leads to a feeling of hesitation.

"How many students know about the law on freedom of speech - how many know about Article 10, and what are the amendments? What about what the ISA can or cannot do?"

In time, says Nge, the young who are not in the know will lead our country - this is why it is absolutely important to remedy this problem and for them to familiarise themselves with this knowledge.

And the only way to solve this is for a great change to come about, starting with the education system. "Right now, it is a ground for in-breeding of old beliefs, strict ideas and the non-discussion of social issues among students. Teachers who were taught to not touch upon these matters continue to educate the new generation the very same way."

In conclusion, taking all these things into account, Nge says that there is always more than meets the eye - she believes that it goes deeper than just apathy, or the inherent attitude and lifestyle of the Y-Gen. It is a culmination of many different factors: The education system, lack of in-depth knowledge, the social group they are in.