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

As a life member of the Malaysian Social Science Association (PSSM) and someone who has attended all the International Malaysian Studies Conferences (MSCs) including the MSC 7 held in Penang on March 16-18, I feel obliged to say a few words in response to the above report.

First, I feel Dr Syed Husin Ali’s remarks should not be taken out of context, and its implications for PSSM should be made clear. In that brief speech, Syed Husin was initially lamenting the descriptive approach adopted by some of the paper presenters in the sessions he attended, and the lack of critical analysis and engagement in their presentations.

He then went on to suggest that this could be due to the ‘psychology of fear’ and strongly advocated that we overcome it. Now, to me, there are several issues involved here and we should not simplify matters, nor come to a hasty conclusions.

The lack of an analytical and critical approach, the tendency to be descriptive and the lack of engagement has been a shortcoming of Malaysian academia for sometime. However, questions of scholarly quality and the lack of a freedom of expression should not be conflated although admittedly there are cases when they could be related.

The decline in the quality of discourse could be due to a multiplicity of factors one of which is the lack of exposure to and training in critical analysis. The complexity of the issues and problems surrounding Malaysian higher education needs to be looked at more closely and this includes factors such as language policy, meritocracy vs affirmative action and the rise of a market-driven education system under pressures from neo-liberalism.

The government’s emphasis on science and technology, the focus on R&D and commercialisation has tended to marginalise the social sciences. Perhaps in response to this, the social sciences have become more quantitative and ‘mundane’ as opposed to being qualitative and multi-disciplinary, as has been pointed out by Prof Francis Loh in his keynote address at MSC7.

The latter approach would have led to a more critical Malaysian social science.

Second, as I see it, PSSM’s choice of the MSC7 conference theme as ‘Critical Transitions: Repositioning State, Market and Society’ clearly indicates PSSM’s policy of encouraging critical engagement. The choice of words such as ‘repositioning’ clearly suggests that we are not merely interested in preserving the status quo but are willing to question it.

This choice of the conference theme was important and significant since it outlines the normative structure of the intended discourse. It also provides a wide scope for critical engagement on issues pertaining to Malaysian studies. How participants choose to conduct the discourse is their individual choice.

I suppose PSSM could have chosen a milder theme for the conference such as ‘Malaysia and the Challenges of the 21 st Century’ but in its wisdom it did not. This is a clear reflection of its intention to provide an engaging forum on Malaysian studies.

Third, since there was a diversity of issues discussed during the conference, it is only natural that some were hotly-contested, while some were not. Not all sub-themes invite critical engagement with the state.

For example I was in the session on ‘Malay Medicine’ which discussed Malay herbal remedies and the practices of the bomoh . Such a session would therefore appear more descriptive and less analytical.

Fourth, all in all, I would not dispute with the spirit and intention behind Syed Husin Ali’s comments. It is a point all scholars should take note of. But what I disagree with is the insinuation and the negative aspersions cast by the report on PSSM, by framing those remarks in such a skewed context.

The writer is a life member Persatuan Sains Sosial Malaysia (PSSM).