The myth of academic freedom

0

ACADEMIC freedom in Malaysia, for as long as I can remember, based on my quite lengthy experience in the public university sector, is very much a myth, similar to the myth of media freedom and the myth of freedom of speech.

To be sure, many academics – certainly those in many of our established universities – don’t even think of the concept, let alone wish to fight for it. Official restrictions are very much in place to put paid to any such thoughts should they ever materialise.

The existence of odious laws, such as the Universities and University Colleges Act, 1971 (UUCA) has played – and continues to play – a significant role in silencing dissent, in curtailing academic freedom. And academics and students are constantly reminded of these laws by administrators higher up in the administrative hierarchy.

And, as we all know, in this ‘sledgehammer’ country of ours, there is constantly a need for overkill, a need to demand consent. Hence, a few years back, some bright spark in the administration, evidently with a lot of free time in his or her hands, but obviously with very little in between his or her ears, decided to come up with the ‘Aku Janji’ (literally, ‘I promise’).

This document, which we and all students had to sign, to all intents and purposes, was an oath of allegiance to the university and, if I remember correctly, a promise not to create ‘problems’ for said university and I think the country as a whole, together with the government of the day. Or at least that’s what I felt was implied. I remember we all had to sign the darn thing in front of our deans, feeling rather stupid as we did so.

And I was reminded quite recently that this ‘loyalty pledge’ is still around in public high schools’ err, I mean universities.

But I really don’t think they should have bothered at all with this ‘initiative’, principally because systems are already in place in many local universities to vet potential ‘troublemakers’.

One of these, of course, is found at the early stage of academic staff selection. Again, based on my own experiences and observations over the years, selectors are primed to pick only certain candidates for academic positions and  training awards.

The ethnic criterion we all have heard of. But there’s also the ideological angle, with a screening system already in place at the entry level.

Of course some manage to slip through the cracks. But the point is, such a system, however informal, is already there, often firmly in place. Add to this a system of rewards, very much driven by what others have called ‘bodekism’ (brown-nosing) and, of course, you end up with a situation of compliance and conformity. A situation where large groups of academics do not want, nor are willing, to question much, beyond what is of advantage to them, often materially.

Within this system, idealism and principles take a back seat, and individual or personal gain becomes everything. Indeed, many within this system are socialised into upholding the status quo, tamed to not rock the boat. Over time, their profession becomes merely a job, never a calling.

As witnessed by the pathetic lack of support from his fellow professors when Abdul Aziz Bari was unfairly attacked on so many fronts recently, such a system has firmly taken root within Malaysian academia.

Indeed, you have a council of professors, supposedly learned, having very little to profess. It would seem that their principle role has become that of official propagandists – seen as being more financially beneficial – and not as public intellectuals.

Of course this isn’t something peculiar to Malaysian academia. The same sickness is prevalent within other groups, like within the ranks of journalists in mainstream Malaysian media.

Equally true is the fact that some, not many, break out of the straitjacket of conformity.

Which is why we get individuals like Abdul Aziz Bari, KS Jomo when he was an academic, and the late Ishak Shaari and Rustam Sani. But, of course, for every one of these, we get another 100 brown-nosers and a couple of hundred more frightened conformists.

The implication? An increasingly deteriorating intellectual climate in the country. The ongoing failure to make any impression in the world university rankings is only one indication of this sad state of affairs.

More evident has been the lack of intelligent debate in everyday life, the lack of critical assessments of assertions made, largely by politicians who really are quite clueless. And former state apparatchiks who throw out clearly stupid statements, like the recent ones linking human rights with communists – and are not challenged.

Indeed, just as these idiots are given free rein to propagate their anti-intellectualism, so do our famed professors fail to respond, refuse to offer a rebuttal.

Instead, they wait for a sign from ‘upstairs’, not from God, unfortunately, but from their nearest and dearest political master.

Within this anti-intellectual environment that we find ourselves in presently, academic freedom clearly does not exist.

And its non-existence owes much to the inability, nay refusal, of our academics to get in the firing line, to test the parameters, as it does to the politically-motivated restrictions imposed on academia.

Which is sad, really. Because, without questions being raised about the direction this country – our society in its myriad forms – is taking, whatever’s rotten that’s driving this system, all the inequalities, unfairness and anti-intellectualism within this system will remain.

And, like an untreated wound, it will fester.

Comments can reach the writer via [email protected].

(The writer’s opinion does not reflect that of the paper.)