We refer to the Malaysiakini report Malaysian scholars, be more critical, please!

Malaysiakini ’s ‘ticking-off’ of the Malaysian Social Science Association (PSSM) at the recently held Malaysian Studies Conference 7 (MSC 7) in USM based on a rather off-the-cuff overview by a former president of PSSM, Dr Syed Husin Ali, requires certain qualifications.

The report appears to homogenise Syed Husin Ali’s cautionary remarks about the ‘psychological fear’ affecting Malaysian social scientists based on his observation and participation in some sessions in the above conference. I was present at the panel that he attended.

It was a young scholars’ panel consisting of four presenters based on their research on Orang Asli and other indigenous communities in Malaysia. It seemed that in the context of the presentation and the questions raised from the floor, there appeared to be a reluctance on their part to touch on government’s policies on development.

I know that it is a normal practice of PSSM to encourage senior scholars in such a conference to attend these young scholars’ panels so as to be able to observe the quality of their presentation and if possible to give critical commentaries to the young presenters, with a view that with these inputs they are able to improve their papers for future publications.

Indeed in this respect, PSSM had in the past taken upon itself to organise many capacity-building workshops for such young scholars so that they would be able to raise their papers to a critical level of scholarship.

My observation in that particular session was that many of the papers were descriptive rather than analytical. They seemed to be lacking in critical theory rather than suffering from ‘fear’ as such. In past conferences, PSSM always paid close attention to these young scholars’ panels and tried to organise commentaries immediately after their presentation, rather than ‘letting them off’ the hook during the conference proper.

So it was in that spirit, that I took upon myself on that day to comment on each of the papers presented. My objective was to conscientise the young scholars to the theoretical and analytical perspectives in the study of indigenous society which can elevate their discussion to a more critical level of scholarship. I did point out that such an exercise should not be understood as being ‘anti-government’.

As scholars, we have access to data and knowledge based on our research by which we can use to critically examine and question policies affecting the people whom we study (in the above case, the indigenous communities).

When social scientists question policies, they do so not as propagandists, but rather as scholars based on ideas, arguments, perspectives, concepts, theories and the corpus of knowledge generated by cumulative empirical studies in a particular field. Such an academic discussion may certainly be critical of ‘government’ and ‘policies’ but it is not the same as being ‘anti- government’.

Indeed if one were to have observed, there were many other panels put out by PSSM at the above conference – ranging from keynote speakers, institutional panels, non-institutional panels and round table panels – of which the subjects and topics of discussion touched on almost ever aspect of Malaysian life.

They would have been pleased to note that most of these sessions were free-flowing and vibrant with ideas, arguments, and questions ‘outside the box’ and in no way reflected that Malaysian social scientists are suffering from a deep-rooted ‘psychological fear’.

Just as a footnote, Syed Husin Ali did shake my hand after that particular session, thanking me for my commentaries and referring to the papers merely as not being ‘analytical’.

The writer is vice-president, Persatuan Sains Sosial Malaysia (PSSM) .