Rethinking the role of professors, post-Rome Statute controversy

The recent controversy over the Rome Statute shows the pattern of thought by our public university academics. They think only in terms of a single race and their future from those in power.

It shows that the idea of the “professor” in Malaysian academic institutions is outdated and not in tune with the political development of the country.

With calls for more “democratic” space, the current government has also instituted more values to act as its governing conscience.

Based on my 30-over years of experience and observation, there is a problem of mediocre professors in our institutions. There must be alternative criteria of what this academic title should entail within a democracy.

There are three basic problems: the civil servant syndrome, the lab technician mentality, and the industry mindset.

The post of professor is tied in with the Public Service Department’s regulations. These were drawn when the country was in its infancy, and have all the hangover of the civil servant-disease. The rule of thumb is “the boss is always right”. Promotion is the only road to success and the general order is the bible.

As such, most professors will not engage in public debates as they are “servants” to a higher authority.

The “lab technician” mentality is symptomatic of those who think that their research and lab experiments are their only life and the classroom is heaven on earth.

For these professors, nothing exists beyond the walls of the university.

The industry mindset refers to professors who think that teaching and writing are a part-time affair as they maintain the industry relationship and bid for projects.

The result is that very few professors are respected as leaders in nation-building. One is afraid, another too busy on-campus and the third is out playing golf with politicians.

There will never be civilising elements in a nation when knowledge stagnates among the elite few. The formula of writing, research, consultancy, community service, administration and teaching are criteria “pasted” from various overseas institutions, devoid of a soul or conscience of what a true professor should be within a developing nation.

The old evaluation criteria are devoid of a visionary outlook of what life should be in this country, now and 50 years down the road.

Most academics easily fall into the rat race of satisfying a few journal submissions and the competition to inflate their research grants. The scholarship of teaching is not even a seedling to be discovered.

The Malaysia Research Assessment Instrument evaluation for academic production should be thrown out and replaced with something based on more realistic expectations of the Malaysian society.

Democracy is a decision-making mechanism. It has no soul or conscience. It is devoid of values. It is simply a mechanism to get laws passed by majority rule.

The main assumption in a democracy is that adequately intelligent, critical and discerning citizens can vote on laws deemed beneficial to the masses.

If the people are ignorant and their votes are for sale, then democracy is nothing more than a “sultanate” with five-year “interruptions”.

Malaysia is on the move towards a more enlightened and critical public who have begun to see beyond racist concerns, and who have considerations of universal ideas of justice.

If professors served their political masters in the past and continue to do so in the present, their new master in a democratic society would be none other than the people.

Professors have to engage in public debates as the public becomes stronger and carries heavy clout with the elected representative. After all, it is the public’s taxes that pay the salaries of these professors.

The new professor in a democratic country is a visionary with a strong sense of morality and a crusader of social change. And he does this through development and dissemination of knowledge.

Knowledge development is gauged from research, selective consultancy, multidisciplinary reading and networking.
Research should not be judged purely by number of grants, but the actual contribution to nation-building. Research in encouraging knowledge and technology transfer to spearhead national development should be prioritised, not research that would win awards despite its dubious relevance to nation-building.

Knowledge dissemination is the bridge between civilisations. There is a lot more work to be done in ensuring proper documentation and dissemination of the nation’s intellectual heritage.

Teaching portfolios for university students should be developed and given priority so that the proper critical evaluation of the practice and its future development is assured. Writing, public engagement, discourse and lectures should come a close second to teaching portfolios, and the creative manner in which a professor strategises social change must also be given serious consideration.

Last comes the administration of programmes as this can be done by any non-academic personnel.

The education ministry must prioritise the creation of public intellectuals who are concerned about the well-being of Malaysia in all aspects. The mantra of high-impact journals should give way to higher impact projects and discourse which provide important contributions to significant changes in society.

Professors and the academia must be evaluated by their weight as agents of change in the country.

Today, their understanding of many issues of religion and politics is at an infantile stage. Issues of environment are hardly touched on until people are evacuated due to toxic river pollution.

Economic issues are not strategised within a sustainable construct.

Who are to enlighten the public and MPs, if not the professors?

Civil society must draw out the professors, to question them on their ideas and blueprints for change in this country.

Malaysians have a right to expect that their tax money serves a better Malaysia, not just fulfils some people’s academic fantasies.

There are few professors who attempt to expand the public’s knowledge. Those who do so are seen as enemies by none other than the public university administrators themselves. To these university administrators, the university is their “kingdom” and those who defy the culture of subservience are traitors.

“Professors” can be agents of change with a principled moral foundation instead of getting caught in a web of academic politics, seeking titles. - FMT