I started writing for the media some 30 years ago. I was then with Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, where I taught for 27 years before crossing over to UCSI University.
During my long tenure I was never served with any show cause letter for any of my writings in the media. I had heard of some rumblings and some discontent but was never directly admonished by the top leadership at either university.
However, it was my articles that paved the way for my optional retirement, with a black mark from the public university where I had worked.
Some of my pieces published in the media, particularly those related to my discipline of architecture were celebrated by both universities. My articles were seen to augur well for intellectual freedom and received praise for the innovative thoughts and ideas they displayed.
However, my other articles, on religion, education and politics, were problematic at best to both institutions.
I believe that the leadership may have been concerned that my critical views, which were not aligned with the Barisan Nasional government of the day, could jeopardise the career prospects of those eyeing more lucrative positions.
Over the last four decades, the leaders of public universities have not shown much interest in promoting knowledge for the betterment of society.
Tool for self-promotion
Knowledge was simply premised on the number of research papers one had put out, even if they provided no benefit at all to society. Knowledge was simply a tool for self-promotion and institutional aggrandisement.
Ministers of higher education were not beacons of change and did not offer hope for a renewal and rejuvenation of the spirit of nation building. The position was merely a tool with which to wield political influence. Such is the state of our nation, our public universities and private education providers.
For me, the idea of intellectual freedom has always been celebrated at both our public and private universities. Anything and everything can be researched and written about in journals and books.
The recent UKM circular which went viral was nothing extraordinary. I remember receiving similar letters during my time in UiTM.
It is simply to remind all civil servants, including members of academia, not to issue statements without permission and not to disparage the university or the government of the day and its policies.
Knowledge and wisdom
There has always been intellectual freedom within the boundaries of seminar halls, conference venues and academic journals; however, when it comes to writing and issuing statements, especially to the media, it is necessary to exercise academic wisdom.
After all, there is no such thing as freedom without any context or sensitivity.
The role of the intellect is to examine a problem and propose some solutions and ideas. The computer now has the intelligence to replicate the human intellect. However, the computer does not have wisdom.
This element of knowledge resides only in the realm of human, social and spiritual entities. Wisdom is not like intelligence where two plus two always equals four. Wisdom asks why we use mathematical operations when the answers to the problems we are faced with lie elsewhere.
Wisdom is also about how to present such horrifying events like the May 13 racial riots which may have repercussions on race relations over the next century.
Wisdom takes into account the context of politics, realpolitik and the social-religious temperature of the times.
To ignore these variables simply for the sake of intellectual freedom is foolhardy and unintelligent.
Registrars letter
Finally, is the academic a civil servant? The UKM registrars letter is drafted in a way, and with such words and expressions, that dates back 50 years.
The words are concise and instructive, like those used when running a factory producing footwear. The circular does not contain spiritual and philosophical language because the writers of the policy are unlikely themselves to have been academics of serious repute.
The letter should have contained a clause setting out the parameters within which academics can write for, and make statements in, the media.
Without such a clause, the knowledge spouted is as useless as the paper it is printed on. Civilisation will stumble and the nation as well as the world will plunge slowly but surely into the darkness of ignorance.
Malaysia is at a precipice of knowledge-fact and knowledge-perspective. Wielding knowledge is both sacred and dangerous.
The UKM leaderships response supports my idea of academic wisdom while also, of course, encouraging intellectual freedom.
An academic should be entitled to say anything in the media, provided it is accompanied by facts and clear arguments, and with a wide perspective or narrative, so that the nation is not held to ransom by careless and callous views.
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.