Malay Version An Anti-Democratic Pledge An Oath of Loyalty will violate the academic freedom of pursuing knowledge in a free, non-partisan way
by Rosli Omar
Yet, this Pledge is very controversial with many negative implications for academics, society and the country.
First, let us look at a few of the things we are being asked to put our signature to - things which I consider controversial. We have to pledge to abide by all kinds of rules and regulations. But, to cater for rules they could not think of for the moment, they included a Catch-All-Clause: to pledge an oath of loyalty to “circulars and circular letters, regulations and orders issued by the Government from time to time throughout the period of my service to the Government”. Meaning, we are compelled to pledge loyalty to something that has not come into being, the contents of which we don’t know, whether such directives are good or bad. I can’t imagine how this could be asked of us. “I don’t know what I am being asked to pledge loyalty to or to whom, but I nonetheless will pledge loyalty no matter what is required.”
This action certainly doesn’t respect the academic community (or us as decent human beings for that matter). Our function as academics is to analyse the world and its social problems objectively without being supportive of any interested party without fear or favour. But we are asked to pledge loyalty to something that has not come into being. That’s absurd. If this is not controversial, I don’t know what is.
Controversial Points
To me, there are three other things in the pledge that are controversial: Item (i) “will always be loyal to the King, country and the government” [and University, maybe different universities might implement this differently]; what is the meaning of “loyalty” here? Critiques from academics in a transparent fashion may be interpreted as going against a directive, policy, or the implementation of a government policy. Such criticisms, which should be the responsibility of academics, may be interpreted as disloyalty towards the government. Note that loyalty to the government is not in the original Universities and University Colleges Act (or in the Rukun Negara). It is only added in Act 605/2000.
The “explanation” in Circular 17 regarding Pledge of Loyalty Item (i) is, “An officer who goes against or criticises a Government policy will undermine the integrity and stability of the civil service as a whole.” This sounds like someone who is lacking in self-confidence. Is the civil service so fragile that it cannot receive criticism at all? If it is indeed fragile, then it is criticism and comment that will strengthen it. Weaknesses in an organisation can only be overcome via criticism and comment. Otherwise, the organisation will not know that it has weaknesses. Self-denial, as they’d say.
Another thing also has contributed to similar controversy. Item (ix): to pledge “not to disobey Directives or to behave in a manner that can be construed as disobeying Directives.” As in the above case, would sincere comment and critique, which are not welcomed by certain quarters, be interpreted as disobedience?
Prior to this, during the intial stage of the war against the Nipah disease, the Health Ministry issued a directive that the disease was JE. The directive did not allow anyone, including academics, to give dissenting opinions that questioned the diagnosis. Based on the diagnosis of JE, steps were taken to combat the disease.
A number of academics, however, “disobeyed” the directive and declared that the disease was Nipah. Pressure was imposed on those who dared to disobey the directive. Subsequently, however, the dissenting opinion was found to be correct. (The Health Ministry tried to wriggle its way out of the embarrassment by announcing that the disease was both Nipah and JE, a description that remains to this day.)
The JE diagnosis with its attendant remedial measures—in the absence of the real diagnosis which was denied - caused deaths. Had the Ministry been open-minded and ready to receive opinions from various quarters, this disease could have been more effectively overcome without deaths.
A university academic staff union or association has been authorised by law to safeguard the interests of its members. An example is its questioning of directives given to members. But it would be meaningless if its members had already given their pledge of loyalty to any directive - not only those that have been issued, but also, more importantly, those that will be issued in future. From the moral and ethical viewpoint, it is certainly not right for a government to impose loyalty of this nature. What about the legal implications: questioning a directive after pledging loyalty? Has Circular 17 been thought through properly?
Outside Influence?
One last controversial matter, Item (viii): to pledge, “not to bring in outside influence or pressure in order to give support or forward claims of mine or other officers pertaining to the civil service”. Does this mean that academic unions/associations or each academic individually cannot obtain outside expertise that would help in matters that require external expertise - expertise that may not be available in the university? Or even legal aid? Can we not bring a particular problem to the attention of an international academic association, or Suhakam, Malaysia’s Commission for Human Rights? We don’t know what sort of assistance we would require in future. It’s rather risky and dangerous at the moment to pledge loyalty to Item (viii) when we don’t know what kind of problems we will encounter in future.
According to the explanation on Item (viii), “Any problem faced by an officer should be handled and resolved via official channels that have been put in place”. I have heard a lot of times about “official channels” in different contexts. Sometimes these channels are able to solve problems. Other times they are merely conduits to snuff out an issue the authorities are uncomfortable with, often buried under a number of committee meetings. In this case, other channels should be opened to enable a problem to be resolved. This is what natural justice dictates.
According to the explanation again: “the use of outside influence would give the impression that the leadership in the civil service is unable and incompetent to solve problems faced by its officers.” As said earlier, this sounds like someone who lacks self-confidence. If one is confident that the civil service is good, why worry about outside help? I personally feel that the explanation on Item (viii) is really defensive, fearful, lacks justification, and consequently plays the patriotic tune to convince one’s self into thinking how good the civil service is; and this conviction cannot be challenged. (I am reminded of the saying: “patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.”
Among others, the explanation says, “the efficiency and effectiveness of the civil service is very much dependent on the ability of its officers to manage their needs and problems through proper channels. In other words, the civil service machinery will run efficiently without meddling by or pressure from outside forces. Using outside influence would indicate that the officer concerned doesn’t have confidence in the ability of the civil service’s management system to solve his or her problems.”
If one really wants the civil service to run efficiently, do not give any opportunity at all for anyone to lodge complaints, to voice his or her views, official or unofficial channels notwithstanding. This is the efficiency of the autocratic system. Once again I say this, if we are so confident in our management system, we shouldn’t be afraid of outside forces. If, on the other hand, we are not capable, and if outside people can offer help, why don’t we learn from them? We certainly cannot indulge in self-denial, or be confident without being tested. Karl Popper’s concept of “falsifiability” - the capability of being proven false - should be applied the same way it is used in formulating a scientific theory.
Academic Freedom
If we examine closely this Circular, we will get the impression that it is aimed at government administrators, that is, people who implement directives (as in the way they end their letters, I Who Follow Orders). And I have been made to understand that this pledge of loyalty, which has been imposed on administrators, will be applied to academics lock, stock and barrel.
I feel that their different areas of expertise and responsibilities do not warrant a similar pledge of loyalty. An administrator enforces, and implements directives or policies of the government. Academics, on the other hand, are in institutions of higher learning. Academics need to analyse and introduce new ideas to develop knowledge and society. One way they do this is to help in drawing up policies directly and another way is to offer criticism and comment in a transparent fashion on a policy that has been promulgated.
According to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), “Institutions of higher learning are built for universal good, not for the welfare of individual academics or the institutions themselves. The universal good is dependent on a free pursuit of knowledge to search for truth and a free dissemination of the findings.”
And according to AAUP again, to achieve universal good and subsequently truth, “academic freedom is of utmost importance in both teaching and research. Academic freedom in research is essential in disseminating truth. Academic freedom in teaching is essential in protecting academic rights in teaching and freedom for students to study.”
AAUP was founded in 1915 to protect academic freedom soon after the famous economist Edward Ross of Stanford University was fired because Mrs Leland Stanford did not like his opinion on economics, especially business monopoly.
For Robert Hutchins, former President of Chicago University, “education should necessarily involve critical examination of all differing opinions; it cannot develop without the freedom to think, question and discuss.”
Philosopher Bertrand Russell, in his essay on the functions of a teacher, said, “It should be the responsibility of the teacher to instil in his or her students open mindedness that will help determine an issue based on its own merits.” For Russell, teachers play a very important role, “the only way to prevent totalitarianism in our highly organised world is to secure a certain degree of independence for bodies performing useful public work, and among such bodies, teachers deserve a foremost place.”
Noam Chomsky, a professor at MIT, in his comment on the responsibilities of intellectuals, said, “The intellectual responsibility of a writer, or anyone else, is to say the truth.”
At its very essence, therefore, any pledge of loyalty to any interested party, including an Oath of Loyalty to any government, is very much against the academic function of pursuing knowledge in a free, non-partisan way, and without personal objectives in mind. To the best of my knowledge, there is no government that practises democracy that compels academics to declare loyalty to it, especially loyalty to anything that will only emerge in future.
In 1982, when Israel tried to elicit an oath of loyalty from Palestinian academics so that they would not support the PLO, 200 Israeli academics themselves signed a joint letter of protest because they felt it violated academic freedom. George Schultz, US Secretary of State, who is not known for his sympathy with the struggles of the Palestinian people, also opposed the Israeli government’s action, using a similar argument.
With this pledge of loyalty, academics would have had to keep silent on the case of Nipah mentioned earlier, or in the case where the government did not allow the Air Pollution Index (API) to be made public; nor can they discuss the effects of pollution on society. The reason for the ban on API is that the government didn’t want to scare foreign tourists. The health of the country’s citizens didn’t matter. Ignorance was bliss.
Spirit of Inquiry
Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamed, in his speech during the conference on “Issues and Mind-Opening Processes of Malay-Muslims” on 29 January 2002, said that Malay-Muslims must be open-minded in order to progress. He has often said that Islamic civilisation has regressed because of the ossification of knowledge and the lack of a spirit of inquiry.
But this open-mindedness and spirit of inquiry require an environment where one is free to discuss and question even those in authority. Thus, in and of itself, the pledge of loyalty contravenes this open-mindedness and spirit of inquiry. In order to progress, the kind of spirit contained in the Pledge—a spirit that warrants loyalty to anything that has been, and will be determined – must be banished.
The Pledge can weaken the enthusiasm of the young to enter public sector academia where they will have to face yet another oppressive factor. The lack of new human resources will result in present academics being overburdened with additional teaching and lack of research time.
With so many private universities, including foreign universities establishing local campuses - Monash University and University of Nottingham opening the floodgates - and with this pledge hanging over their heads, why would they want to join the public sector academia?
For some of us, even though we prefer to work in public sector universities, even with poor pay, the pledge could be the last straw. It might prevent new blood from joining or pushing those already in, to seek newer pastures less encumbered by oppressive regulations that undermine us and do not recognise academic worth. Public sector academia will be impoverished. I am very afraid for the future of our public universities.
The Pledge violates the objective of making our universities competitive at the international level. It will spoil the government’s own plans of creating potential Nobel laureates.
As an aside, I am attracted to what was said by David Reisman, professor of social sciences at Harvard University, regarding students who succeeded in their careers after graduating. Of these, he said:
Now, the government says that everything in the pledge is already part of existing acts and regulations affecting public sector universities. Thus there is nothing to object to since there is nothing new. But there is a world of a difference in principle. Before, the acts and regulations were imposed upon us. Now, through the pledge, we are to agree to the imposition. We are supposed to agree to go against what it means to be an academic. We are supposed to agree never to question anything that the government, our superiors, tell us, against our expertise that might tell us otherwise, against our conscience. As one law colleague said: we are supposed to sign away our rights under the Constitution.
An oath is a serious business. Some cynical and disheartened colleagues say, just sign it even though we don’t believe in it. Academia is just another profession. We need to pay rent. The pledge is making hypocrites of us, without principles. What example are we providing for our students? The authorities wonder why the young are cynical and pessimistic. They (the young) learned well from their teachers.
Academics should certainly pledge an oath of loyalty – to academic attitude: “I pledge to be loyal to the spirit of open-mindedness, of knowledge pursued in the name of searching for truth without prejudice, without personal interests.”
|
||||||||||||||||
The government wants us academics to sign the “Pledge of Loyalty”. The aim, according to Circular 17/2001, is “to create civil servants who are dedicated, committed, responsible and have a deep sense of patriotism in the endeavour to develop our country”. Members of the general public who read this objective would have the impression that the aim is noble and non-controversial.