Whitewashing defects in the university system

Chow Kum Ho’s article in the New Sunday Times on 11 September entitled “When Academics and Officialdom Clash” tried to bring the controversy surrounding academic freedom in Malaysia to the attention of the wider public. But it offers a highly lopsided or partisan perspective, more interested in airing the views of those who see nothing at all wrong with the current university system.

Let us start with the basics of journalism: the people Chow interviewed for the article. Almost everyone represented officialdom. Former Education Ministry director-general Murad Mohd Noor and Deputy Higher Education Minister Fu Ah Kiow were given generous space in the article, with Universiti Putra Malaysia’s Prof Nik Muhamad Nik Abdul Majid offering only a small comment about how academics’ unhappiness is associated with promotions.

Another person often quoted by Chow is former UM history professor Khoo Kay Kim, who sees nothing wrong with the current system because he believes academics must not be partisan.

What about academics who had expressed problems with officialdom or the current system? Believe it or not, only one—Professor P. Ramasamy, whose contract was not renewed by UKM last month—was quoted. How often? Only twice or two sentences.

It also appeared doubtful if Chow actually interviewed him. Malaysiakini readers would be excused for thinking the two Ramasamy quotes Chow used had been lifted from what Ramasamy had said or written for the news portal right after UKM ended his contract.

Chow did not interview Professors K S Jomo and Edmund Terence Gomez, who also had problems or run-ins with officialdom.

Partisan reporting

Chow also referred to what he called a classic case of the clash between academics and officialdom. It involved former UM sociology and anthropology professor Syed Husin Ali, who was arrested under the ISA in 1974 after he took up the cause of landless farmers in Baling. Chow allowed Khoo to give his view and suggest why Syed Husin was arrested.

But did he bother to interview Syed Husin for his take on his own arrest and the whole situation surrounding the current system? No, not at all!

Why, Chow? Because Syed Husin is now with Parti Keadilan Nasional, thus partisan? If so, what about Murad and Fu, whose establishment views Chow quoted generously?

Or is it because Syed Husin, together with Jomo and Gomez, did not respond to Chow’s request for an interview? If so, Chow could have easily mentioned that. Indeed, that was what he did with UKM vice-chancellor Prof. Mohamed Salleh Mohamed Yasin, after the latter declined to comment on one of Chow’s questions.

Getting back to former UM history professor Khoo, whom Chow used to emphasise the point that academics must remain non-partisan. Chow did not hesitate to hammer at how academics like Syed Husin and Ramasamy were quick to join political parties after they left or were terminated from their university positions.

But what Chow or Khoo failed to ask is: what about those academics who have only positive views of what the BN government has done, for example those who have been appointed to top administrative positions like chancellor, vice-chancellor, etc?

Chow actually does not need to interview Gomez and Ramasamy for examples of academics who are partisan towards the BN government. He himself alluded to it when he quoted former Education Ministry director-general Murad as saying that sometimes academics “forget that universities are funded by the public”. Because of that, Murad went on to say, “There are parameters drawn up for academicians by the public through their representatives in Parliament.”

Chow failed to mention two points here. First, not all taxpayers, whose money helps fund universities, are BN supporters. And, second, as we know all too well by now, the dominance of BN in Parliament makes the legislative body largely a rubber stamp for the BN. Where, then, is the objectivity or non-partisanship that will be transferred to university policies mentioned by Khoo?

Yet another reason why Chow was hasty in accepting Khoo’s notion of non-partisanship for academics is that he failed to understand it is never as clear-cut, black and white an issue as Khoo painted.

The myth of objectivity: upholding the status quo

Leaving aside the highly questionable assumption that universities have been non-partisan, academia has also undergone major changes at least in the past 30 to 40 years. Relatively newer disciplines and academics have emerged to question the notion of non-partisanship and objectivity in scholarship. One reason is that the so-called non-partisanship or objectivity professed by some academics is nothing more than accepting the status quo derived from establishment data and evidence.

In recent decades, subjects like political economy have become more acceptable if not popular. By its very nature, political economy examines the distribution of material resources in a critical way—i.e., to see if the existing distribution is an efficient or wasteful one, if the distribution is geared towards promoting only a small group at the expense of others, etc.

Now, if academics (such as Jomo, Gomez and Ramasamy) have been getting data from their research that shows the distribution is a wasteful one that benefits a small group at the expense of the majority in the country, should they disguise, sugar-coat or ignore that in the interest of not offending the status quo?

What really is most pathetic, though, is Chow has nothing to say about teaching and research—two extremely significant demands on an academic’s university tenure. These two demands are, indeed, what renowned universities used yardsticks for academic excellence.

Jomo, Gomez and Ramasamy had written books and research articles that were published in juried publications highly regarded in their respective fields. They also attracted a lot of students to take their subjects every semester. Now, why did Chow leave out all that?

Indeed, world renowned universities—whether publicly or privately funded—are much more interested in a professor’s teaching and research than about whether the professor is partisan, supports the establishment or not.

All told, what the NST has done is use Chow’s partisan article to whitewash the defects of the current university system.