Intellectual crisis in Malaysian Academia: In search of an overall philosophy

We often refer to the progress of western civilisations in terms of their contributions in science and technology. We believe if we can have access, or even replicate their technological advancement as well as achieve the same level of prosperity, we will reach the same status they enjoyed as developed nations. With relative prosperity that enabled us to acquire the best technology out there, the best infra and with democratisation of information, by right, we should be behaving and thinking like one. But yet, something is amiss. Our mentality, our culture, our politics, don’t seem to reflect one. Why can’t we do this? Do we lack the psycho-sociological make up to stand like one? (cite K Mahbubani, “can Asian think?”). Why don’t we feel like living in a developed society? We don’t behave like one, even worse, our collective way of thinking as a nation doesn’t seem to be beyond those of ancient civilisations, stuck in bygone era. If we look at our public dialogues more often than not, they quickly resort to narrow politics, zealots ramblings laden with racial and religious sentiments. Within this milieu, rampant corruptions, degradation of morality, poverty, environmental ransacking, rogue capitalism, retardation of younger generations, etc. seems to grow unabated.

One might tend to argue that this is due to the lack of intellectual contribution from the learned. However this is perplexing. We have quite a number of higher learning institutions, thousands of professors, produce hundreds of thousands of graduates every year. Yet, the current scenario seems to suggest we don’t have many thinkers, visionaries, quality scholars who can enlighten society. If attention ever brought to the academia, it is not in a positive light. Lately, every other week, there will be articles, blog posts, editorial, and opinions; lamenting the low quality of graduates, the slow progress of innovations, the irrelevance and redundancies of millions of RM of research. If there are opinions in defence of the local universities, they often come from the scholars themselves, insisting that the evidence of quality is in the local universities' ever rising positions in the University ranking games, citing various matrices such as publication numbers, graduate numbers, grants values, citations etc.

I think, as a nation, the problem lies in our philosophy of development, that is, effectively we don’t have a cohesive one. In whatever we do, we are clinging to disjointed philosophies and conflicting principles. Eventually, we are perplexed when different parts don’t come together as a wholesome solution.

Let us take the academia again as a case study. Academic institutions are struggling to harmonise their missions; between educating people, producing capable human resource, exploring new frontiers, portraying superficial prestige and quality in order to attract more resource, and coming up with innovative solutions. Managing academia seems to be not just a delicate balancing act, but rather at times requires reconciling conflicting objectives, which may lead to intellectual pathology.

For example, when they teach, do they teach new ideas or do they teach basic skills required by Industry? Do they emancipate or dictate? When they want to create value in society, do they share knowledge with all or only with those who are not worthy competitors to their ranking position? When they do research, should they do research in a technology that poses both as a threat or a benefit to society? Should they start inquiry with the view of societal impact or scientific impact? When the ministry allocates budget, should it be prioritised to poorer universities in need of basic facilities or focus on prestigious universities which promise even greater advancement for the nation? Without an overall philosophy and principles that guides best course of actions, intellectual crisis will be inevitable.

Imagine a simpler situation. A young man was given a list of names and instructed to stand by the front door of a building where a party is taking place. His specific instruction was to make sure only those people who are in the list to enter. Everything seems to be alright until the host realised that the food for the party is not there. Upon investigation, the caterer did come to the building to deliver the food but was turned away by the young man.  It turns out the list contains names of the guests to the party, and of course the caterer is not listed because he is not a guest. Eventually, the party is a mess, even though the young man, and the caterer have carried out their orders to their best ability. Of course one would argue common sense is missing here. But the lesson is without all party having the big picture; a well-planned initiative can go awry. The young man could have judged better perhaps if he was made to understand of the nature of the list and the event that is taking place inside the building.

The same can be argued for Malaysian academia, in the fact that there is no BIG PICTURE shared by all. Every party is focusing on specific sets of orders and instructions that at times they seem to be at loggerhead with each other. We might excel at some objectives but we might fail miserably at others. We might jump up a few notches on the ranking position, yet people complained of low scholarly contribution to alleviate social problems. We might be able to produce the required numbers for the job market, but not the quality required. We might be able to produce thousands of patents a year, but hardly any of these has commercialisation potentials. We might be able to churn out thousands of new knowledge every year, yet the public seems to be oblivious to them.

Could this be the same crisis befalling the host of the hypothetical party above? I am afraid very much so. Academia currently are just a bunch of clever people whose minds are occupied on a very small aspects of a very big picture. The hypothetical story of a group of blind men and an elephant is apt here.

Now what is the big picture? How do you draw one? The answer is an overall academic Philosophy. Philosophy deals with the fundamentals, the guiding principles, which allow a complicated network to organise itself into an effective system.  A caution here, this is not the same as saying that there is no philosophy. There ARE philosophies currently underlying all our academic endeavour,s but what is missing is a coherent, unifying philosophy that weave different principles into a harmonious unity.

Now Philosophy in this thesis here is not about specific belief systems as to be found in the past. Not about invoking Socrates right up to Derrida. No. Philosophy here is about we coming up with a unified understanding of missions and objectives, of principles that all agree at a very fundamental level, at philosophical level, to be the basis of all our academic efforts.

At his juncture, I cannot claim that I have a philosophy that helps us navigate around this issue. I don’t. We need dialectics. We need conceptual, abstract discussions, grilling and testing of propositions, counter arguments, a collective effort towards coming up with one. In fact I don’t believe we need a whole new philosophy of development, maybe rather an act of choosing, reconciling and combining the existing ones that would help us understand where we stand and where we should go. 

In my next rambling, i will propose that currently, there is ONE dominant philosophical thinking that rule academia, with numerous other conflicting philosophies in the periphery. And that this particular philosophy, is the reason that Malaysian academia suffers incapacitating crisis, shackling the nations intellect, and that it must be relegated to its proper place to be of any benefit.

Part 2 - The Scientific mind and modern world crisis.


Zaky Jaafar
3/8/2019