Naratif Malaysia

[Pendaftaran] Syarahan Naratif Malaysia oleh Jomo KS

Ini merupakan siri Syarahan Naratif Malaysia 2/2021 pada tahun 2021. Syarahan kali ini menampilkan Dr. Jomo KS, yang merupakan Felo Akademi Sains Malaysia. Beliau akan membincangkan persoalan yang menarik dalam kajian Melayu dan Malaysia, yakni “Pemikiran Melayu Zaman Nasionalisme: Dari Penghargaan Diri kepada Pembinaan Bangsa.” Penyertaan syarahan ini terbuka untuk kumpulan NM dan lingkungannya sahaja. Walau bagaimanapun pendaftaran awam dibuka di bawah, tetapi ruang yang disediakan bergantung kepada tempat terhad yang berbaki. Setiap peserta yang terpilih akan diberikan pautan menerusi emel pada hari acara.

Program ini akan menggunakan pelantar Zoom untuk 100 peserta pertama. Walau bagaiamanapun, ia juga boleh diakses menerusi Youtube Naratif Malaysia (https://www.youtube.com/c/naratifmalaysia).

Tentatif:

08:30 mlm – 09:30 mlm – Syarahan NM oleh Dr. Jomo KS
09:30 mlm – 09:45 mlm – Ulasan oleh Abdul Halim Ali
09:45 mlm – 10:00 mlm – Ulasan oleh Dr. Muhaimin Sulam
10:00 mlm – 10:30 mlm – Soaljawab dengan hadirin.

[Pendaftaran] Syarahan Naratif Malaysia oleh Mohamad Abu Bakar

Beliau akan membincangkan persoalan yang semakin penting dalam alam akademik di Malaysia, yakni ” Tuntutan Intelektual: Sejarah Kecendekiawanan Kritis di Malaysia.” Penyertaan syarahan ini terbuka untuk kumpulan NM dan lingkungannya sahaja. Walau bagaimanapun pendaftaran awam dibuka di bawah, tetapi ruang yang disediakan bergantung kepada tempat terhad yang berbaki. Setiap peserta yang terpilih akan diberikan pautan menerusi emel pada hari acara.

Ini merupakan pra-pendaftaran siri Syarahan Naratif Malaysia bilangan 3/20202. Syarahan kali ini menampilkan Prof. Dato’ Mohamad Abu Bakar, yang merupakan Penyandang Kursi Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin, UniSZA, Terengganu. Beliau akan membincangkan persoalan yang semakin penting dalam alam akademik di Malaysia, yakni ” Tuntutan Intelektual: Sejarah Kecendekiawanan Kritis di Malaysia.” Penyertaan syarahan ini terbuka untuk kumpulan NM dan lingkungannya sahaja. Walau bagaimanapun orang awam juga dijemput menyertai Syarahan NM ini dengan melakukan pra-pendaftaran terlebih dahulu di bawah.

Tentatif:

8:30 malam – 9:15 malam: Syarahan oleh Prof. Mohamad Abu Bakar
9:15 malam – 9:45 malam: Sesi Q&A bersama Moderator, Sdr. Fairuzzaman Shaharuddin
9:45 malam – 10:30 malam: Sesi Q&A bersama Peserta dan Penggulungan

Kenyataan Media Naratif Malaysia

Dalam bulan Ogos 2020, Naratif Malaysia (NM) telahpun menerbitkan dua video dalam saluran Youtube NM yang melibatkan wawancara dengan Profesor Emeritus Dr. Ahmat Adam. Video pertama merupakan sebuah wawancara penuh yang berjudul “Ahmat Adam – Paduan Ilmu Sains Sosial dan Kemanusiaan.” Manakala video kedua adalah sorotan daripada video penuh tersebut yang berjudul, “Ahmat Adam – Tentang Sebuah Gerombolan Penipu.” Walau bagaimanapun, NM menyedari bahawa terdapat kandungan dalam kedua-dua video tersebut yang mengandungi suatu penyataan yang telahpun menjejaskan imej dan reputasi the Patriots dan the Patriots Holding Sdn Bhd.

Sehubungan dengan itu, NM telahpun mengeluarkan kedua-dua video tersebut dari saluran Youtube NM sebaik saja menerima tuntutan rasmi dari the Patriots Asia dan the Patriots Holding Sdn Bhd. Selain itu, NM juga ingin menyatakan permohonan maaf kerana memuatnaik video-video tersebut.

Kami merasa amat kesal dengan penerbitan dan kandungan kedua-dua video ini.

NARATIF MALAYSIA
13 Januari 2021

[Pendaftaran] Wacana Meja Bulat “Langkah Integrasi Kaum di Malaysia”

Pembentangan ini merupakan suatu usaha untuk mendapatkan input tambahan daripada pelbagai pakar dan pihak yang berkaitan bagi menambahbaik modul awal ini. Diharapkan dengan pembentangan ini, modul ini dapat diperbaiki serta dipertingkatkan keberkesanannya sehingga boleh digunakan sebagai modul utama dalam pembangunan suatu masyarakat yang mempunyai integrasi kaum yang tinggi serta nilai perpaduan yang utuh.

Wacana Meja Bulat ini bakal membentangkan langkah ke arah integrasi antara kaum di Malaysia menerusi suatu cadangan modul perlaksanaan masyarakat harmoni. Modul ini dibangunkan bersama Merdeka Center berdasarkan siri perbincangan dengan kumpulan sasar melalui sesi FGD bagi mengenal pasti kemungkinan cabaran dan kekhuatiran yang mungkin dihadapi hasil daripada cadangan sebuah kem harmoni. Selain itu, modul ini turut mempertimbangkan cabaran dan kekhuatiran yang mungkin wujud menerusi perbincangan daripada bengkel pembinaan kapasiti. Bengkel ini bukan sahaja menyediakan peserta dengan persiapan teknikal tetapi juga teori dan perspektif. Semasa berada dalam komuniti, peserta diberikan satu jurnal yang perlu mereka isi sebagai sebahagian proses refleksi terhadap teori yang mereka bincangkan semasa bengkel.

Ringkasnya, pembentangan ini merupakan suatu usaha untuk mendapatkan input tambahan daripada pelbagai pakar dan pihak yang berkaitan bagi menambahbaik modul awal ini. Diharapkan dengan pembentangan ini, modul ini dapat diperbaiki serta dipertingkatkan keberkesanannya sehingga boleh digunakan sebagai modul utama dalam pembangunan suatu masyarakat yang mempunyai integrasi kaum yang tinggi serta nilai perpaduan yang utuh. Malah, ada lebih baik lagi sekiranya lanjutan daripada modul ini dapat melibatkan pihak Institut Kajian Etnik (KITA) dan Kementerian Perpaduan Negara (KPN) memandangkan kesemua pihak ini merupakan barisan paling hadapan dalam pembangunan perpaduan di negara kita.

Pembentangan ini akan diadakan seperti berikut:

Tajuk: Langkah Integrasi Kaum Di Malaysia: Suatu Kertas Cadangan Ke Arah Pembangunan Masyarakat Harmoni
Pembentang: Haris Zuan, IKMAS, UKM
Tarikh: 27 Januari 2021 (Rabu)
Masa: 10:30 pagi – 11:30 pagi
Platform: Zoom

TENTATIF:

10:30 pagi – 10:45 pagi : Pembentangan oleh Haris Zuan, IKMAS
10:45 pagi – 11:00 pagi : Ulasan oleh Prof. Dr. Denison Jayasooria, Ahli Majlis Penasihat Kementerian Perpaduan Negara
11:00 pagi – 11:15 pagi – Ulasan oleh Prof. Ulung Datuk Dr. Shamsul Amri Baharuddin, Penasihat Perpaduan Kementerian Perpaduan Negara merangkap Pengasas-Pengarah KITA, UKM
11:15 pagi – 11:30 pagi – Perbincangan hadirin

PENDAFTARAN PENYERTAAN WACANA MEJA BULAT “LANGKAH INTEGRASI KAUM DI MALAYSIA”

[Pendaftaran] Syarahan Naratif Malaysia oleh Syed Farid Alatas

Ini merupakan siri Syarahan Naratif Malaysia bilangan pertama pada tahun 2021. Syarahan kali ini menampilkan Prof. Dr. Syed Farid Alatas, dari NUS. Beliau akan membincangkan persoalan yang semakin penting dalam alam akademik di Malaysia, yakni ” Peranan Kaum Intelektual: Mencabar Eurosentrisme, Nasionalisme dan Sektarianisme dalam Penghasilan Pengetahuan. Program ini terbuka untuk kumpulan NM dan lingkungannya sahaja. Walau bagaimanapun pendaftaran awam dibuka di bawah, tetapi ruang yang disediakan bergantung kepada tempat terhad yang berbaki. Setiap peserta yang terpilih akan diberikan pautan menerusi emel pada hari acara.

Social Analysis from the Bottom-up Approach: A Conversation with Diana Wong

I grew up in Singapore, I was so shy, I was so afraid of doing things wrong, then having to go out of your comfort zone, forcing yourself to face the challenge of overcoming your own insecurities and fear of rejection, I was very afraid of being rejected, I thought my god these people are so nice and I’m just a horrible person from the city. You know. No manners, nothing. That is the constant fear in doing social science research on the ground.

NM: Good evening. We are here again on Naratif Malaysia podcast and video program. This is a podcast series where we discuss and speak to notable and experienced scholars within the fields of social sciences and also interdisciplinary studies in Malaysia and abroad. We are very grateful to have Dr Diana Wong with us, who is presently the dean of the graduate school in New Era College. She has studied in universities in Germany and Singapore in sociology and development studies. Also she has worked extensively in many places from Germany to US, in Singapore and Malaysia. Right now she is back and based in New Era College. Thank you very much Dr Diana Wong for being with us today.

Maybe if we could just have a casual conversation. I would like to ask you, in looking at recent events in Malaysia right now, there a lot of critical and big issues, maybe you could perhaps share with us and help us try to make sense of what’s happening now and what perhaps are the core issues or incidents or moments that we should try to understand and focus on.

DW: That’s a big question. And maybe your generation can speak more to that. I imagine that you are in your 30s, or late 20s. The future is yours. My generation is much older generation, and maybe not even the most important generation in terms of what is happening, what has happened, what does country stands for. What it could be. And what it should be. We think of the founder generation. That goes back a long way but of course one fundamental event was second world war. The end of Nazi ensuing end of empire, and the fight for independence. That generation had their dreams, vision of what it meant to have a Malaysian nation. And I think from the very beginning, and that is something that I think would help us to understand what just happened in this country and what is so important for this country–there were different notions of nation. I think that is very important to understand… And to accept that there were conflicting and different notions of nation–of what the nation should be. And I think that was one of the main problems that my generation perhaps failed to understand, and maybe succeeding generations also failed to understand and to appreciate. That there are these questions of nations-of-intents. There are different nations… From the very beginning, different nations of intent. And I think we understand too little about it.

NM: In your opinion, is it the same as before or have these questions become more, if I may use the word, polarising or has it become more intense in the way we try to grapple with and understand this question as compared to previous moment.

DW: Well there have interests in the different notions on nation or the imaginations of the nation. That is something that we have to keep an eye on as well, especially as a social scientist. It’s not just imaginary. Because the imaginary is important but there are shifts in the relation of power. A lot of this is associated… has to do with sources of power embedded in language. I think so little is understood of alternative or conflicting or different visions of the nations because they are very often, in our country, expressed in different languages.

NM: By languages you mean?

DW: Malay, Chinese, English, Tamil, etc. The diversity of the linguistic groups in the country. And the dominance of the English educated. Recently put. I think that has been part of the problem of social sciences as well. Social sciences have been expressed in Anglo-Saxon language–that’s language of the universities. Of course its been replaced to some extent by Malay, and that has become a more important language of expression for also imagination of nation. But there’s also a vibrant Chinese language community, speech community…

NM: That I suppose many people are not familiar and engaged …

DW: That’s right. I think this has been a dilemma that we just have not been able to overcome.

NM: Since that you mention in the social sciences. In your opinion, do you think the existing or maybe previous social sciences approaches are adequate or do we need to explore more different approaches to try to navigate and understand and even maybe as you put it to just even connect them together to have a more meaningful conversation. Would you say? Are there any?

DW: I think when you first started, i don’t know whether you mentioned it in your introduction but you were talking about–as far as social scientists concern–the need to reflect on theory, on praxis, on what we do. I think quite apart from theory; we have to think maybe… A problem of social scientist in Malaysia, I think, is the question/issue of methodology also. It seems to me that… That’s the difference between, if I’m probably, one major difference between my generation of social scientist and I’m talking about generation that was trained in 1970s–and maybe the succeeding generation, there was a vacuum of social scientists. And then maybe about 10 or 20 years ago, we were thrilled to see a new generation coming out, emerging. But maybe trained a bit differently. More theoretically informed than my generation… Because probably you were trained, or of course it was a different era, but you were trained in a more sophisticated department abroad. But my generation, I think, we were trained perhaps in a new Marxist tradition at that time in the 70s. But it was a different political, international configuration at that time. It was the cold war. And there was still issues of poverty. So my generation actually went into the field, so to speak. I mean I decided to do my PhD on the green revolution in a Malay village in Kedah. I actually spent a year in a village in Kedah. When i came back to the country in 1998, I tried to catch up on the work that have been done in the meantime on the peasantry, on the rural countryside in Malaysia. Nothing. Virtually nothing. And I think that is one of the major problems for us now as social scientists wanting to comment or thinking of commenting in a more profound and analytical manner on recent events in Malaysia. We don’t have the empirical base to really be able to analyse in a more profound way. What are the social forces behind shifts in the imaginary but as well as shifts in the power bases? The social bases/forces which underlie changes… Of course, there would have been changes from the dilemma of 1940s to 2020s… But definitely will have that. We recognise an enduring pattern. But what are the shifts? Why has the pattern endured? I’m afraid we need social science researches… empirical researches rather than just pronouncement by public intellectuals in order to understand. And I think that is there the question of methodology comes. Theory of course. But you see unfortunately just as my generation looked for mode of production in every little village or town or historical epoch, theoretical paradigms which developed based on postmodern / post-industrial societies are important and useful but they may not bring us very far too in understanding… And they may also divert our attention away from the field, from the empirical social research which has to be undertaken. I think for example of what is happening in the country side. For example, what do we know about the Malay working class in Klang Valley, what do we know of the Chinese working class which has in a way bifurcated I think but largely entered into the rank of lower middle class living in the 100 of tamans in the Klang Valley. No longer squatters. I mean they constituted the majority of squatters in 1950s and 60s. Both in the countryside as well as in the urban centres. You don’t see them anymore, what’s happened to them. How do they think. What about the Indian plantation labour force that are no longer part of Indian plantation labour force? We hear things like oh nowadays no more Chinese gangs all Indian gangs already. That’s what people say. But do we have a solid study of how people survived, how do these young men earn their livelihood today, and what is their cultural universe to which they belong as against to cultural universe to which Malay working class in Gombak for example belong, or the Chinese lower middle class say in Kepong.

NM: So that’s all very glaring gaps within our understanding of how… It is just not there…

DW: I don’t know. Would you know of any studies?

NM: I think I suppose they may exist but not maybe in a systematic or conscious way of trying the unnerve all these existing questions on the ground…

DW: Social forces on the ground. That’s what we are just talking about the lower class.

NM: That’s just one layer, area.

DW: The super-rich. What do we know about the super-rich? And how they are linked into the globalised elites. Transcontinental.

NM: Speaking of these researches and works, maybe we could go back a bit. If I can ask you, in your experience until now and your work, how do you see yourself or what kind of research has interest you or has always been something that you reflected on and on again and how have you seen these researches and works throughout different places you’ve been to and tried to study?

DW: I think for my generation, the imperative was how to cross bridges, how to cross barriers. And that’s why I did my PhD on a Malay village. I mean most of the academics in my time would have been urban creatures. Penang, born and bred; Singapore born and bred; KL born and bred. Mostly Penang born and bred. They were the best social scientists. So we had a lot to learn. It was a time when being part of… Growing up in cities was still not so typical. I think we had a lot to learn about the country.

NM: So you moved into… I think you mentioned about the green revolution. So you started off by studying the peasantry in Malay village in Kedah. Then and i think you’ve written on ethnic relations and gender. Has this been consistent?

DW: No. I think my first interest was in the countryside. And that was because I was Singapore bred. Then I did work on… Then I was in Germany. So there I did work… Somebody told me… I remember speaking to a senior academic friend and I wasn’t quite sure what to do next as a research topic. And she said to me, think about where the most marginalised people are. I was in Germany then. So I decided to do my next research project on refugees in Europe. At the time when refugees were still very much a problematic category… And then I came back to Singapore. And I did work… That was when my work on migration started, on refugees in Germany. And it was an eye opener for me because working on the peasantry, you think of people in place–you think of being sedentary, you think of being bound to the soil. Whereas when you work on migration, then I began to see everything was influx. People were moving about all the time, everywhere. That was what the world was about. Not just having your place in the world, but not having a place in the world.

NM: I can imagine even the research structure and method becomes even more fluid and very challenging…

DW: I suppose what it shows for many of us in the social sciences, what we do is really driven by our own need to understand ourselves. That’s part of the problem, part of the challenge of social science. I think one reason why we do social science. It’s not always a good thing, it can be very self-indulgent. But yes. So I at the moment… So i did some work on migrants and refugees… And in Malaysia, in SEA, it’s not so much refugees but labour migrants. So I did some work on labour migrants. That’s a moment I am the current research I’m doing was something quite different. Also related, there is a certain logic, and that is I’m doing a local history of Kepong. Kepong used to be a tin mine. Yap Ah Loy had couple of mines there. So it’s a classical tin and rubber economy kind of settlement. But what I’m trying to look at there is the long durée history of a Malaysian settlement. It started maybe in 1874, and we can follow it up to maybe 2004. Over a 100 years. As much as possible because there’s not much material available. But a long durée local history of a migrant community that settles down. So when we think of migration, we think always of the move. People on the move. But people actually also settle down.

NM: And that’s a very strong characteristic of Malaysian…

DW: That’s very much a part of Malaysian history. How we began… Almost all of us began as migrants and settled down.

NM: You’ve done a broad range of research… Starting off the research in village, peasant studies, to refugees, to migration to history. What helps you to draw link or is there a link at all if we can say. How do you reconcile these differences? Are there any connecting or linking themes or as you said search for meaning that binds all these different together and in so many different places?

DW: Personally it’s a search for meaning, obviously. I think, methodologically, I there is a theme running through what I have done. I begin to recognise it now. I don’t think I would’ve recognised it earlier. But a theme running through the work I did as a rookie social scientist in the village in Kedah till what I do today is the perspective from below via/through the lens of the household… Not just the individual but the individual in his family. Through the telling of… Well in peasant studies, the key concept was household economy. I suppose part of that generation we were taught, we actually had to go to a village and stay there and talk to the people. Engaging the masses…. Well you can engage with the masses. It’s not so easy to engage with the masses. It’s terribly difficult for me to learn how to talk to villagers. I grew up in Singapore, I was so shy, I was so afraid of doing things wrong, then having to go out of your comfort zone, forcing yourself to face the challenge of overcoming your own insecurities and fear of rejection, I was very afraid of being rejected, I thought my god these people are so nice and I’m just a horrible person from the city. You know. No manners, nothing. That is the constant fear in doing social science research on the ground. But having gone through doing that in Malaysia, in a way as a foreigner, doing refugee research in Germany–I did three communities ie Iranian, Ethiopian and Afghan. Again, in a way, as stranger and foreigner. But that was good because we were both foreigners. And now doing research in Kepong. Like a foreigner, I don’t speak Chinese. I have to learn to speak Chinese, my Chinese is still horrible. And language again. At each step of the way there has been the language. But at each step of the way, I’ve realised–especially as I’ve matured as an academic and as I learn to read academic text, theoretical text as well, from perspective that I have now acquired through my own research, I realise that this speaking to the people, doing research from the bottom up, and seeing the macro context from the view from below. It makes a hell of lot of difference, both theoretically as well in terms of theoretical outcomes. It’s not just a history now. You look at the way history has been written on Malaysia. Economic history has been divided essentially into sectors–we have history of rubber, tin, rice cultivators. That’s the way economic history has been written. Then now we have corporate sector–history of corporate sector. But they are all macro level data, and they are written with the help of documentation, very often company record, or archival materials. Which are colonial authority records. Of how the people below have been governed. You look at the list of the new village. Completely based on government documents.

NM: That itself is a challenge as well. Because then your research conforms to a certain structure that has already been there. So if you do a history, say, tin min it perpetuates historical colonial structures. I suppose there’s a need to break this. I suppose this is where innovation or even cross disciplinary projects come in to try to connect dots that were previously not there. And maybe… I find it very interesting that doing research in so many places not only require interdisciplinary but also comparative perspective that transcends countries, borders, societies… And even borders we could say an artificial concept. Has that benefited you or how have they informed your research? Is it very pronounced…?

DW: I think the comparative angle has been very important for the way I look at things. It helps me a lot to clarify analytical issues. That is very important. So that is one of another problem for my generation at the time. It may not be the same for your generation. When we started out as social scientists, we were always encouraged to do our PhD on our own countries. Which is what I did. Except fortunately it was my country but it was not so familiar to me. So I suppose I went through that challenge and then experience of trying to cross border. And it has become even more important at this moment.

NM: Now that you mentioned it reminds us of all these issues of migration which are still very big issues in Europe right now. And more often than now, I think the noise and anger drowns out reasons and rationality to try to understand these issues which makes it very important.

DW: But the point that I really think ought to be made is… Reason and rationality are easy words to use. I think what we need are also facts on the ground. At the moment I think social scientists have largely abrogated that responsibility and passed it on to journalists. So we don’t really have the knowledge of the ground.

NM: So we don’t actually know what’s actually happening. So we haven’t even arrived at the stage of analysis yet when we don’t actually know what we have. That’s a big problem.

DW: Yes. That’s what I see as a big problem. That’s my pet peeve at the moment.

NM: Going off from there, in moving forward–at least from now–what do you think are the big challenges or critical areas that we should really look at and try to have a more inclusive and critical discussion. What would you think?

DW: Maybe let me just give a final statement to what we were just talking about. That’s why I think the social sciences are important. The social sciences properly practiced is absolutely necessary to the project of tolerance, nation building, and to the project of cosmopolitanism, of world building. But it must be a social science… It’s because it has to be understood as a set of ethical practices or professional practices. I think that’s very important. A professional practice but also as a set of ethical practices. And in this combination, and only in this combination, not merely ethical practices–I think the professional practices are critical to social sciences as well. It should not be seen as something that weak students do because they can’t do any other–go into any other discipline. It should be seen as a set of professional practices in conjunction with a set of ethical practices. Because I think many social scientists do it for meaning in their own lives. That’s why it has to be a set of ethical practices as well. That’s where the ethical commitment, imperative comes from. And honesty. But the professional practices are critical as well because it is, we claimed after all that it should be a science… We know that… But still, there must be a set of technical practices. I mean when you do a recording, you have a set of knowledge which have to be adhere to for the production of excellence. So I think professional practices as well as ethical practices would define the social science, or some social sciences that is of critical importance today, still. Even more today. To our country and to the world. Going forward, I think maybe that is perhaps the first thing that we have to make clear. That the social sciences are not something that only C-class students go to. To break the stereotype, then we can only do it through our own practice. That’s the challenge for the social sciences. Especially in our country.

NM: The field and profession. And I foresee with these challenges especially economic, it would face many more problems going forward in having financial allocations and attention. I think it would be even more contested which unfortunately we have to grapple with and go through.

DW: The thing is we don’t really much money to do good social sciences. That’s what i found working in Malaysia. If you are foreign scholar, you need your air fare, big project money. But the thing about working as a social scientist and doing serious research as a social scientist in Malaysia is that you actually get the best of both worlds. On the one hand you are in home country, sitting in your own garden and then go for interview one hour later… you’re not sweating it out in some god forsaken place in Kalimantan or something from which you cannot escape. On the other hand, the diversity of lifeworld in Malaysia means that you can expose yourself to that challenge of trying to understand the other–locally. And it doesn’t cost very much. We really don’t need very much money to do serious scholarship in Malaysia. And maybe that’s something that we should also make clear as a professional exhume in Malaysia. We don’t need to go that route of applying for grant. It cost a lot of time and effort. Whether its government consultancy, or international third party ground or Rockefeller foundation or ford…it’s always just for two or three years you are writing. You spend the first half year just getting a team together, and then you spend the last half year writing your report. We probably do not have to go that route to do serious scholarship. And honest scholarship in this country.

NM: I think the idea of getting more awareness and maybe active participation from people to at least get up and pay more attention to issues.

DW: Those ideas are to get people excited about doing social sciences. It’s great. You learn about yourself, you learn about your country, and you don’t even need very much money to do that. The idea is to have a view from below, I think that’s a very important thing. Even myself we keep re-finding ourselves. To wrap, it suddenly rings in my mind when you mentioned your colleague reminded you as who are the marginalised groups. I think we can all use that as a reminder and to know that social sciences is not only for personal understanding and also as an employment. But also, something which is more and bigger than that.

Dialog bersama Abdul Halim Ali dan Norani Othman

Dalam kajian global, kita bukan sahaja perlu memahami aktor utama di arus global yang memainkan peranan penting yang menjalankan inisiatif ekonomi global dan proses-proses global tetapi kita juga perlu lihat daripada aktor, individu ataupun kelompok yang memberi impak kepada global. Projek yang dilaksanakan oleh IKMAS “capturing globalization” merupakan contoh dalam sosiologi untuk memahami konteks dan aktor lokal.

Soalan: Soalan saya berkenaan bagaimana pelapis-pelapis muda seperti kami ini untuk menentukan kebenaran sama ada objektif dan subjektif kerana kedua-dua bentuk kebenaran ini mencetuskan sektor ataupun belahan yang kadang-kadang di antara pelapis ini mempunyai pandangan yang berbeza-beza. Seterusnya, mencetuskan polar yang sama tentang kelesuan itu seperti yang dikatakan oleh Prof. Abdul Halim Ali dalam panel sebelumnya. Oleh itu, bagaimana cara untuk mengatasi dan solusi masalah ini?

Norani Othman: Soalan ini agak berfalsafah dan akan senantiasa menjadi perbahasan buat selamanya malah akan lebih banyak perspektif yang dilahirkan. Sebagai penyelidik yang baru bertapak, sekurang-kurangnya perlu memahami dan merangkakan arena atau parameter terhadap permasalahan, objektiviti serta subjektiviti yang tertumpu pada tajuk kajian anda. Penyelidik tidak perlu meletakkan kajian tersebut dalam konteks falsafah yang terlalu besar dan susah dicapai. Namun, ianya perlu difahami secara empirikal dengan menggunakan idea dan tindakan politik yang dipelopori menjadi satu kebenaran dalam masyarakat. Perkara yang penting dalam membuat kajian adalah merangka atau merangka semula permasalahan, objektiviti dan subjektiviti yang berkaitan dengan kajian tersebut. Pengkaji perlu menjustifikasi permasalahan tersebut dalam konteks sejarah dan merangkumi hubungan dengan pembangunan sosial atau transformasi sosial di Malaysia serta peranan agama. Peranan agama melibatkan pelbagai aktor seperti parti politik yang mengatakan perjuangan mereka berasaskan ajaran Islam ataupun sosial aktor yang mempunyai pelbagai tahap dan ianya adalah penting bagi membina konteks dan kerangka persoalan serta permasalahan kajian yang lebih spesifik. Penyelidik juga disarankan supaya tidak mengkaji perkara yang terlalu luas yang bersifat general. Penyelidikan sosial perlu digarap dengan konteks dan mengenal pasti sebahagian kumpulan sasar atau dipanggil sebagai aktor. Kemudiannya adalah sangat penting untuk memastikan kajian tersebut berbentuk theoretically informed serta harus kritikal dalam memilih beberapa perspektif teori yang telah dipelopori atau yang terdapat dalam bidang kajian itu.

Abdul Halim Ali: Bagi menjawab persoalan berkenaan “kebenaran”, pada pendapat peribadi ianya perlu dijawab dengan pemilihan teori yang tepat dan berunsurkan pemikiran politik. C. Wright Mills ada menterbitkan satu penulisan pada tahun 1959 sebuah buku klasik yang bertajuk The Sociological Imagination yang tapi sayang sekali karya ini tidak pernah menjadi perbincangan yang popular di Malaysia. Antara perkara yang disebut dalam buku itu ialah personal travels are public issues. Sama sahaja seperti isu “tudung” yang merupakan personal issue yang ditulis oleh Maryam Lee. Namun begitu, secara peribadinya itu bukan lagi menjadi isu peribadi. Justeru, itu merupakan sociological question kerana ianya adalah public issue. Oleh itu, dinasihatkan agar generasi penyelidik muda ini dapat menggali karya lama pada 1959 dan melihat kerelevanan sesuatu isu dalam penulisan karya lama.

Pada 2014, seorang ahli ekonomi Thomas Piketty dari Perancis mengkaji semula karya Karl Marx iaitu Das Kapital dan menulis Capital in the Twenty First Century serta membuat beberapa kesimpulan yang menggemparkan ahli intelektual apabila membacanya. Antara keunikan penulisan ini, beliau mengutip data daripada 200 tahun yang lalu sejak tahun 1789 sewaktu Revolusi Perancis dan data tersebut diperoleh dari 5 buah negara yang maju. Kajian beliau mendapati kebenaran yang dinyatakan oleh Karl Marx dalam Das Kapital bahawa ketidaksamaan semakin berkembang dan apabila hanya negara berintervensi barulah terjadinya keadilan. Oleh itu, terbuktilah bahawa pembacaan karya lama dapat memberi value kepada penulisan terkini yang dicorakkan dengan nafas baru.

Soalan: Dapatan kajian semasa juga pada hari ini, salah satu tema-tema kajian yang menarik adalah yang melibat kajian yang berkaitan dengan pelbagaian bidang. Kajian ini akan melibatkan cross epistemology. Persoalannya kajian yang melibatkan dengan sosiologi agama dan yang lebih dominannya kajian yang melibatkan masyarakat Islam di Malaysia. Apabila kajian yang dijalankan bersifat Sains Sosial dan dikaitkan dengan Islamic studies mungkin wujudnya kesukaran kerana ianya mempunyai founding epistemology dan juga penghujahan-penghujahan yang berbeza. Oleh itu, dalam Sains Sosial mungkin dapatan berbentuk empirical data yang diperoleh daripada masyarakat dunia tetapi ianya berbeza daripada Islamic Studies kerana sumber data itu diperoleh melalui Al-Quran dan Hadis. Jadi, bagaimana sesebuah kajian dapat dilihat dari sudut cross-epistemological study ke arah menyelesaikan permasalahan dalam masyarakat?

Soalan: Ada 2 perkara yang sering disebut-sebut terutamanya beberapa minggu terakhir ini berkenaan dengan committed Social Science dan juga social activist. Istilah ini hampir tidak pernah didengari oleh generasi muda pada hari ini apatah lagi bercakap tentang Sains Sosial yang tidak bebas menilai. Oleh itu, apabila melihat literatur terdahulu, yang difikirkan ada kesenjangan yang besar dan mengapa wujudnya jurang ini. Mohon Prof. Halim dan Prof. Norani dapat memberi pencerahan kerana mereka telah pun melalui zaman-zaman ini.

Norani Othman: Epistemology is just a theory of knowledge or simply say how knowledge is produce basically. It is very much relevant to sociology because sociology is the study from all angles. The actor those acted upon, the ideas behind or in the head of the actors and the respond from those who are targeted by certain idea. Itu merupakan isu utama dalam Sains Sosial. Dahulu dari segi pembelajaran sebelum wujudnya Post-modernism, falsafah Sains Sosial tidak ada pilihan lain selain mempelajari dan menggunakan teori klasik bermula daripada Plato dan Socrates kepada Thomas Kuhn. Teori ini perlu difahami sekurang-kurangnya gambaran atau pengetahuan umum sehingga ianya bertambah dan digarap dalam konteks yang berbeza dari segi masa, status dan kuasa. Ertinya, bidang ini bukan sesuatu yang mudah. Sebagai penyelidik awam misalnya topik kajiannya ialah Identiti Politik dan Agama di Malaysia memerlukan asas yang kukuh dan pembangunan relevan dalam perkembangan maklumat dan ilmu sosiologi. Kajian ini akan jadi lebih menarik kerana ianya dimulakan dengan satu soalan asas. Walau bagaimanapun, ketika menjalankan pengajian penyelidikan, kerangka kerja dalam penyelidikan tersebut perlu diperkecilkan kerangka kajian dalam konteks politik, aktor sosial dan institusi berdasarkan objektif kajian. Selepas mendapat PhD, kajian tersebut boleh diteruskan dengan mengembangkan sesuatu isu dengan lebih luas tetapi masih perlu menguasai topik-topik tertentu dan memilih dalam kontekstual yang tertentu.

Sosiologi agama dalam sejarah perkembangan ilmu yang membentuk hukum Islam. Penyelidik perlu melihat kepada kumpulan pentafsir terdahulu yang sangat berpengaruh berbanding pendapat perundangan yang membentuk hukum Islam. Ini bermakna kita masih lagi berpandukan pada sebahagian perkara yang relevan dan keutamaan pada setiap tempoh dan kumpulan aktor yang tertentu. Sekiranya dikaji dari segi Sosiologi dalam Islam antara yang tersohor adalah Michael Cook dan Michael Fine yang merupakan ahli sosiologi yang terkini. Pada 1950 seperti Micheal Hudson, lihatlah usaha mereka semua adalah seperti yang telah diterangkan tadi. Mereka meletakkan usaha yang sepenuhnya untuk melihat perkembangan ilmu sosiologi. Cuba kaji dari segi pihak yang telibat, siapa kumpulan sasar aktor dan penulisan yang bagaimana mereka mahu paparkan serta perspektif teori yang manakah dapat mempengaruhi mereka? Kesimpulannya, para penyelidik perlu membina konteks kepada objektif, persoalan kepada permasalahan kajian dan barulah boleh membangunkan kerangka menjadi 2 perkara penting.

Abdul Halim Ali: Kalau dilihat beberapa dekad yang lalu, di peringkat global telah merosotnya kolonialisme, didapati Sains Sosial juga menghadapi pergolakan dan munculnya generasi baru yang melontarkan pertanyaan baru dalam ilmu. Mereka mula mencabar ilmuan yang sedia ada dan tentunya memerlukan penghuraian yang baru. Maka, antara disiplin Sains Sosial yang ada pada era itu adalah sosiologi yang dijadikan sebagai batu loncatan para saintis sosial seperti radikal pada waktu itu. Pada 1960 sehingga 1970 kebetulan teori Marxisme sebagai Sains Sosial dan bukan sebagai ideologi politik menjadi wahana utama bagi para saintis sosial radikal yang menolak aliran klasik. Justeru, krisis kapitalisme sistemnya itu menjadi kerangka rujukan di barat. Pada keadaan sistem yang sebegitu dan pada masa yang sama mempunyai rakyat yang banyak yang dipinggirkan telah menimbulkan satu kesedaran bahawa Sains Sosial yang asalnya sosiologi diciptakan untuk memperelokkan wajah-wajah buruk daripada kapitalisme. Dari situlah munculnya Committed Sociology dan sudah ada percanggahan daripada teori klasik untuk ilmu dan ada juga yang dikatakan kesusasteraan. Dari segi pengamatan peribadi sewaktu berada di Universiti Malaya, pelbagai corak pemikiran seseorang pada ketika itu dipengaruhi oleh Eropah, seorang lagi dipengaruhi oleh teori klasik German, seorang lagi dipengaruhi tentang Sociology of knowledge oleh Karl Mannheim, seorang lagi bersifat materialisme, seorang lagi dipengaruhi oleh budaya, dan seorang lagi terlatih dari LSC dan dipengaruhi oleh fuctionalism. Apabila semua ini bergabung maka timbul satu kesedaran oleh golongan terlatih di Barat yang mengamalkan tradisi radikal. Maka, golongan radikal dari barat dan juga dari kelulusan Universiti Malaya telah menyertai satu persidangan pada tahun 1974 membuat satu kertas kerja apabila Max Weber iaitu dewa golongan progresif di Amerika yang ingin menjatuhkan Karl Marx.

Soalan: Based on a few minutes that you just spoke; my assumption is that you wrote me a key about Post-modernism. Obviously in the west, Post-Modernism has marked that as the migrant narrative. They have allowed for a lot more flexibility to fulfill wealthness as well as experimentation when it is come to concept and ideas. Persoalannya, melalui pengalaman dan pandangan peribadi Prof, adakah di Malaysia secara lokalnya perlu menolak Post-modernism dalam mengembangkan kajian di Malaysia.

Soalan: Kalau di Jerman, khususnya di Jabatan saya khususnya banyak desakan daripada pensyarah untuk menggali kembali atau menggunapakai teori dan konseptual tempatan untuk digunakan dalam konteks tempatan sendiri malah penggunaan teori-teori barat selalu disanggah kerana sifatnya yang universal dan tidak particular. Oleh itu, mereka juga menganjurkan kepada penggalian kearifan lokal. Bagaimana pendapat Prof?

Norani Othman: Saya tidak menolak Post-Modernists dalam konteks reflexivity itu adalah penting bagi kritikal perspektif, kritikal sosiologi atau non-Post Modernists. What I found was some of the political role of Post-Modernists, particularly in Western University, Australia, some of American University and some University in England, where they reject completely C. Wright Mills, and other perspective of sociology just because they don’t speak for those study. The point about reflexivity, being looking critically at the author not just the texts and that is important. But to nullify the contribution without taking in the consideration seriously the findings, the relevant and the point raise by the other theoretical perspective. Bagi soalan ke-4 saya kira ianya amat relevan kerana dari segi kajian pembangunan komuniti serta sewajarnya dimasukkan ke dalam kajian yang melibatkan peranan aktor lokal dan juga konteks lokal. Malah, dalam kajian parti politik tajuk itu juga sebagai bahan yang perlu diselidiki dan difikir semula. Saya kira tidak ada masalah sekiranya kita merujuk kepada konteks lokal terutamanya dalam bidang pembangunan sosiologi yang harus memikir semula gambaran, keluhan, peranan dan pelbagai isu yang ditimbulkan oleh aktor sosial.

Abdul Halim Ali: secara umumnya saya setuju dengan apa yang dikatakan oleh Prof Norani tadi. Menurut Hans Dieter Evers bahawa ketiadaan tradisi teori yang kukuh dalam kajian sains sosial di Malaysia dan jawapan kepada persoalan ini ialah seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Presiden Sains Sosial Malaysia yang sudah ke arah itu. Pada masa yang sama, tidak juga menolak kepada teori universal tetapi menggali pengetahuan dari dalam negara. Pada satu ketika dahulu, hanya ada 2 aliran utama tentang globalisasi dan IKMAS satu-satunya institusi dalam negara yang mengemukakan aliran ke-3 iaitu yang menyokong kepada globalisasi dan menolak globalisasi. Ini merupakan upaya untuk menggunakan dan menggali sejarah lokal. Pada 2019 IKMAS telah menerbitkan buku connecting oceans yang membawa konten deep history and surface structure. Buku ini juga mengandungi 12 disiplin Sains Sosial dan menggunakan pendekatan yang sangat dipengaruhi oleh teori sejarah aliran Perancis yang menggunakan konsep zone budaya.

Norani Othman: Dalam kajian global, kita bukan sahaja perlu memahami aktor utama di arus global yang memainkan peranan penting yang menjalankan inisiatif ekonomi global dan proses-proses global tetapi kita juga perlu lihat daripada aktor, individu ataupun kelompok yang memberi impak kepada global. Projek yang dilaksanakan oleh IKMAS capturing globalization merupakan contoh dalam sosiologi untuk memahami konteks dan aktor lokal kerana the discourse about globalization came and was dominionly influential by western or particularly American train social scientist very much intune with certain strength of economic dan economic development.

Teks ini merupakan transkripsi sesi dialog bersama Abdul Halim Ali dan Norani Othman, masing-masing merupakan mantan profesor sosiologi Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). Dialog ini dilakukan semasa Bengkel Pembangunan Kapasiti Penyelidik Muda (Pembentangan Abstrak) pada 24-26 Julai 2020 di Hotel Dorsett, Putrajaya. Bengkel ini adalah anjuran Naratif Malaysia (NM) dengan kerjasama IKMAS, UKM, MARI, USAID dan Kedutaan Amerika.

Media Statement by Concerned Malaysian Academics on the Proposed Emergency Rule

We, the undersigned, note with grave concern the latest political development of the rumoured decision by the Cabinet to advise His Majesty Yang Di-Pertuan Agong to declare a state of Emergency. According to Article 150 of the Federal Constitution, a Proclamation of Emergency may be issued by the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong if he is satisfied that ‘a grave emergency exists whereby the security, or the economic life, or public order in the Federation or any part thereof is threatened’. At this moment in time, the country is nowhere near such situation.

Media Statement by Concerned Malaysian Academics on the Proposed Emergency Rule (25^th October 2020)

FOCUS ON THE RAKYAT, STOP POLITICKING

Negotiation the Way Forward, No Emergency Please!

The country is admittedly facing an economic crisis, as well as a public health crisis related to Covid-19 infection especially in Sabah, both of which are really worrisome. The government through the Ministry of Health nonetheless has sufficient legal and medical options to flatten the curve and bring the spread of the virus under control, as was done during the second wave. We are concerned that the move to declare an Emergency under Article 150 is motivated by the unsettling political situation within the PN government itself and the fear that their 2021 Budget may be defeated in the scheduled parliamentary session in early November. If this is so, we would urge the PN government and all other members of parliament to let cool heads prevail and act responsibly as elected representatives of the rakyat. We urge them to demonstrate their commitment to preserve the democratic way of life, the fruits of a peaceful democratic transition, the rule of law and parliamentary democracy, the achievements of which have enhanced Malaysia’s reputation internationally. In the spirit of safeguarding national and people’s interest, they should show statesmanship by sitting down and negotiating a consensual budget to get it passed.

It needs no reminder that Emergency rule amounts to a monopoly of power by the Executive without the necessary checks and balances by the Judiciary and the Legislature. This only serves to compromise good governance and undermine the rule of law and accountability. This suspension of and disregard for democratic institutions, if not taken seriously, would lead us down the slippery slope of authoritarian government and dictatorial rule, a familiar development in the last century. This in turn will harm our international standing, financial reputation, investment climate, and governmental credibility, the price of which all of us, the Rakyat, and the country will have to pay.

In view of this, we call for calmness, wisdom and statesmanship: Focus on the Rakyat, Stop Politicking, Sit Down and Negotiate, No Emergency Please!

KENYATAAN MEDIA OLEH KUMPULAN AKADEMIK PRIHATIN MENGENAI CADANGAN PEMERINTAHAN DARURAT – 25 Oktober 2020

TUMPUKAN KEPADA KEPENTINGAN RAKYAT, HENTIKAN POLITIKING:

SELESAIKAN MASALAH DENGAN BERUNDING, TIDAK PERLU PEMERINTAHAN DARURAT!

Kami, yang bertandatangan di bawah ini, memerhatikan dengan penuh prihatin dan khuatir yang amat sangat tentang perkembangan politik terkini mengenai laporan bahawa Kabinet menasihati Duli Yang Maha Mulia Seri Paduka Baginda Yang di-Pertuan Agong untuk mengisytiharkan pemerintahan Darurat. Menurut Fasal 150 Perlembagaan Persekutuan, Pengisytiharan Darurat dapat dikeluarkan oleh SPB Yang Di-pertuan Agong jika Baginda berpuas hati bahawa ‘satu keadaan darurat yang teruk berlaku di mana keselamatan, atau kehidupan ekonomi, atau ketenteraman awam di Persekutuan atau mana-mana sebahagian daripadanya terancam ‘. Pada masa kini, jelas sekali negara tidak berada dalam keadaan seperti itu.

Adalah jelas bahawa negara kita sedang menghadapi krisis ekonomi serta krisis kesihatan awam yang berkaitan dengan pandemik Covid-19 terutamanya di Sabah, dan kedua-dua krisis ini benar-benar membimbangkan. Meskipun demikian, Kerajaan Malaysia melalui Kementerian Kesihatan memiliki sejumlah pilihan undang-undang dan juga pilihan langkah perubatan yang mencukupi demi meratakan lengkung jangkitan Covid-19, seperti yang dilakukan pada gelombang kedua. Kami khuatir tindakan mengisytiharkan pemerintahan Darurat berdasarkan Fasal 150 didorong oleh situasi politik yang tidak menentu dalam pemerintahan PN itu sendiri dan kebimbangan bahawa Rang Undang-undang Belanjawan 2021 mereka akan dikalahkan dalam sidang Parlimen yang dijadualkan berlangsung pada awal November. Sekiranya demikian, kami menggesa pemerintah PN dan semua anggota Parlimen lain supaya berfikir dengan tenang dan bertindak dengan penuh tanggungjawab sebagai Wakil Rakyat. Kami berpendapat mereka harus menunjukkan komitmen yang tidak berbelah bagi untuk memelihara cara hidup demokratik yang merupakan hasil peralihan demokrasi secara damai, di samping menjunjung kedaulatan undang-undang dan demokrasi berparlimen, yang pencapaiannya telah meningkatkan reputasi Malaysia di peringkat antarabangsa. Dalam semangat demi melindungi kepentingan negara dan rakyat, mereka seharusnya menunjukkan sifat kenegarawanan dengan duduk bersama merundingkan belanjawan yang dipersetujui untuk diluluskan oleh Parlimen.

Kita semua tentu sedar bahawa pemerintahan Darurat memberikan monopoli kuasa kepada Badan Eksekutif tanpa proses semak-dan-imbang yang perlu oleh Badan Kehakiman dan Badan Perundangan. Keadaan sedemikian hanya akan menjejaskan tadbir urus yang baik dan melemahkan pemerintahan menurut undang-undang dan akauntabiliti. Sekiranya kita tidak mengambil berat perkara penggantungan dan pengabaian institusi demokrasi ini, akibatnya nanti akan menjerumuskan negara kita ke jalan kemunduran, iaitu pemerintahan autoriter dan diktator, suatu perkembangan yang biasa berlaku pada abad yang lalu. Hal ini hanya akan merosakkan kedudukan antarabangsa, reputasi kewangan, iklim pelaburan, dan kredibiliti pemerintahan negara kita. Inilah harga mahal yang kita semua — Rakyat dan Negara – akan terpaksa membayarnya nanti.

Sehubungan dengan itu, kami menyeru supaya semua pihak berfikiran waras dan tenang, bersifat hikmah dan menunjukkan prinsip kenegarawanan: Tumpukan kepada kepentingan Rakyat, Hentikan Politiking, Selesaikan masalah secara jujur dengan berunding, Sekali-kali jangan isytiharkan pemerintahan Darurat!

List of Signatories / Senarai Penandatangan

Prof Emeritus Dato’ Dr Abdul Rahman Embong, retired academic
Prof Emeritus Dato Dr Wazir Jahan Karim, Anthropologist and Conservationist
Prof Dr Syed Farid Alatas, National University of Singapore
Prof Emeritus Dr Tham Siew Yean, retired academic
Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Muhammad Hj Salleh, retired academic
Prof Zaharom Nain, University of Nottingham Malaysia
Prof Dato’ Dr. Mohammad Agus Yusoff, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Prof Dr Maude E Phipps, Monash University Malaysia
Prof Dr Edmund Terence Gomez, Universiti Malaya
Prof Dr Sharmani Patricia Gabriel, Universiti Malaya
Prof Dr Teh Yik Koon, Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia
Prof Dr Mohamed Aslam Haneef, International Islamic University of Malaysia
Prof Dr Nor Faridah Abdul Manaf, International Islamic University Of Malaysia
Prof Dr Chin Yee Whah, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Dr Ong Puay Liu, retired professor of anthropology
Mr. Abdul Halim Ali, retired professor of sociology
Dato’ Dr Ahmad Mahdzan Ayob, retired professor, former university deputy vice-chancellor
Dr Francis Loh Kok Wah, retired professor of politics
Dr Subramaniam Pillay, retired academic and co- founder of Aliran
Dr Madeline Berma, retired academic; Fellow, Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Norani Othman, retired professor of sociology
Assoc Prof Dr Helen Ting, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Dr Hew Wai Weng, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Assoc Prof Dr.Lew Bon Hoi, New Era University College
Dr Lai Suat Yan, Universiti Malaya
Dr Khoo Ying Hooi, Universiti Malaya
Assoc Prof Dr Yeoh Seng Guan, Monash University Malaysia
Assoc Prof Dr Kuik Cheng Chwee, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Dr Mohd Faizal Musa, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Dr Greg Lopez, Murdoch University
Dr Charis Quay Huei Li, Université Paris-Saclay
Dr Rusaslina Idrus, Universiti Malaya
Dr Phua Kai Lit, retired associate professor
Assoc Prof Dr Sumit Mandal, University of Nottingham Malaysia
Dr Por Heong Hong, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Dr Lim Teck Ghee, retired academic
Assoc Prof Dr Khoo Gaik Cheng, University of Nottingham Malaysia
Dr Mazlan bin Che Soh, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM)
Dr Chong Wu Ling, Universiti Malaya
Dr Muhamad Azwan Abd Rahman, Universiti Utara Malaysia
Mr Bealeatham Kalimuthu, retired academic
Dr Teo Lee Ken, independent researcher
Mr Muhammad Ariff Asyrul Adnan, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM)
Mr Rosli H. Mahat, retired associate professor of physics
Dr Omar Shawkataly, retired academic
Dr. Ngo Sheau Shi, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Dr Yuwana Podin, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
Dr Tunku Mohar Tunku Mohd Mokhtar, International Islamic University of Malaysia
Mr Azmyl Yusof, Sunway University
Dr Andrew Aeria, retired academic
Ms Tricia Yeoh, PhD candidate, University of Nottingham Malaysia
Dr. Azmil Tayeb, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Dr Koh Sin Yee, Monash University Malaysia
Dr Brendan J. Gomez, independent scholar
Dr Show Ying Xin, Australian National University
Dr Ramze Endut, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Dr V. Selvaratnam, retired academic
Mr Haris Zuan Jaharudin, academic & PhD candidate, Cranfield University
Ms. Fatimah Mohd Tajuddin, academic & PhD candidate
Mr. Mohd Sazni Salehuddin, academic
Ms Syahida Johan, academic
Mr. Ooi Kok Hin, MA candidate, independent researcher
Mr. Zikri Rahman, MA candidate, National Chiao Tung University
Mr. Helmy Muhammad, PhD candidate
Ms. Aisyah Tajuddin, academic
Ms. Nabilah Huda, academic
Mr. Fairuzzaman Shaharuddin, PhD candidate
Dr Wan Manan Wan Muda, retired academic
Dr Azizan Bahari, retired academic, writer
Dr Wan Puspa Melati Wan Abdul Halim, academic
Ms. Marilyn Ong Siew Ai, retired academic
Dr Athi Sivan T. Mariappan, independent researcher
Dr Chan lean Heng, retired academic
Dr Wilson Tay Tze Vern, Taylor’s University Malaysia
Ms Fang Yi Xue, academic (INTI International University) & PhD Candidate
Dr Lee Hwok Aun, ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute
Dr. Sharifah Munirah Alatas, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Dr Chai Ming Hock, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Mr Ab Bassit Husain,academic, Universiti Kuala Lumpur
Mr Akmal Hisham Abdul Rahim, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM)
Mr Aznijar Mohd Yazid, Universiti Malaya
Dr. Simon Soon, Universiti Malaya
Dr Chang Teck Peng, Tunku Abdul Rahman University College
Dr Wong Kok Keong, Berjaya University College
Dr Welyne Jeffrey Jehom, Universiti Malaya
Dr Ngeow Chow Bing, Universiti Malaya
Dr Muhamad Nadzri Mohamed Noor, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Dr Peter Chang, Universiti Malaya
Assoc Prof Dr Sivachandralingam Sundara Raja, Universiti Malaya
Assoc Prof Dr Chang Yun Fah, Taylor’s University Malaysia
Mr U K Menon, CEO, Espact Education
Prof. Emeritus Dr Johan Saravanamuttu, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Dr Cecilia Ng, retired academic
Dr Fiona Lee, University of Sydney
Dr Tan Beng Hui, independent researcher
Dr Tan Sooi Beng, retired professor
Andrew Khoo, former Commonwealth Professional Fellow
Dr Agnes Yeow, Universiti Malaya
Assistant Prof Dr Leong Kar Yen, Tamkang University Taiwan
Dr Ngu Ik Tien, Universiti Malaya

– END / TAMAT –

Power Relations and Public Activism: A Conversation with Norani Othman

One more if I may add. Given that we may have an election, snap or whatever, it’s also important for young scholars to start looking at our electoral system. I started that project in 2006. Book on electoral system and democracy in Malaysia. People should begin from there and make that relevant because it is very crucial. We had certain euphoria after the last election but then now the whole prospect.

NM: Good evening everyone. This is the Naratif Malaysia podcast series and video again. Today we will be having another session with scholars and writers who are active in the field of social sciences in Malaysia. With me today is prof Dr Norani Othman. She has previously worked at IKMAS UKM. She has written on extensive fields from politics, to economy, to religion which of course a focus on certain field but a broad range. We have prof with us here to share some of her views and ideas on the development and landscape of social sciences in Malaysia. Thank you for joining us.

As a start, I would like to ask you. You have a long and extensive experience and affiliation with many different groups and institutions. In your opinion, how do you see the social sciences now compare to the last few years or a decade ago? Can you share with us a broad development of how social sciences has come and reach today in Malaysia?

NO: I suppose you are referring social science in the university. I’m not particularly aware because I’ve left the university about 5 years. But I’m more familiar with universities overseas because I still maintain contact through some research or publication projects with people overseas. But I think in terms of the development in the country, social science is far more relevant now, particularly now, compared to before. But the role of current generation of social scientists whether sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, I am not too sure. Partly because with the advent and rise of the new social media, things are done in short time and the discourse or discussion seems to be very short and for me, almost superficial or trying to get onto the main bites. It’s very fast. And that I think will further undermine the role of social science in public debate and discourse. Unless the academics particularly take on the responsibility and the role of “public intellectual” of bringing some of their ideas, criticisms, and debates on the larger playing field–onto society. That, or secondly to take a bit more interest or give some input or play a certain kind of role in the world of social activism. I gave an example just now in my presentation. In the field of environment, I notice a number of very respectable researchers and scholars of environmental science playing that role of public space, taking up debates, advocacy.

NM: You have focused on certain particular themes throughout your research you’ve done like sociology of religion, politics and religion, or politics and Islam, as well as gender studies. How would you situate your work and ideas within the larger frame of social sciences in Malaysia? Or even at the international level.

NO: I don’t like to pigeonhole myself into one category or area. I began my career as an academic, as lecturer, in the field of family because my first thesis for my MPhil was on the socialisation of Malay youth in middle class families in PJ. But during that research, some questions that came up was the push or pressure by the parental generation for the children to be more religious or introducing informal religious education. They’re concerned about Islam. This was in in mid and late 1970s. And then as I teach and try to do whatever small researches at that time as a young lecturer on the field of family, I was concerned about gender relations within a marriage. Because when you talk of institution of family, it’s not just parents and children or the problem of the youth generation, but also marriage. So that sort of pushed me to broaden my reading, bibliographic – I call it my library research, and write small articles about gender roles. At the same time, by 1986, I joined this women’s professional group called the Selangor Association of Women’s Lawyers. Started by two Malay women. One of them, a lawyer, was the president of the association and the other one is my good friend, Zainah Anwar, who was at that time working at ISEAS as a research analyst. As we participate in that discussion, we have what we call our Monday meeting–every Monday, from 5-7–there was also the suggestion by the more religious people in terms of rituals saying we should end by having the maghrib prayer together rather than just focus on the intellectual discussion. Then as we talked about the problems of the family law… You must remember, we have a very good Islamic family law in 1974. It was looked as a model by various middle eastern countries as well as Indonesia because it recognises the rights of women. But in the political context of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, with the push from the main political party at that time ie PAS.. The Islamic family law is a state matter. So there are 14 states and 14 different set of laws including the written law. Generally, they have some basic common structure. But Kelantan and Terengganu for example would deviate a bit and impose certain other requirements of the duties of the wife or the wife need to seek permission from the husband if they want to go outside or continue their employment…

NM: It’s because of the interpretations are different?

NO: Interpretation, and it’s also the push came with Islamisation. Remember Dr Mahathir thinks he can outdo PAS by implementing Islamisation. To his credit, he had the view. When I interviewed him, he had the view that to introduce a modern version of Islam. But then the people that he entrusted to set up say institutions like IKIM or the various Islamic affairs, what we call various wings, new departments to do with administration of Islamic policy and laws. They recruited people who are not modernist. It tends to have been dominated by what I call a more traditionalist kind of view. So given that, a few of us especially we who are non-lawyers feel that we have to go beyond the law. Because there’s no point to just criticising the letter of the law or particularly Islamic family law in every state. So we have to go to the sources. Then we started to invite some scholars, whoever who was passing by at that time. One of the main scholars was Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd from Egypt, my good friend Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im from Sudan.. Abdullahi just came out with a book, Islamic Reformation. So we hold the breakaway from the association of women lawyers as the non-lawyers around 6-7 of us, we organised colloquium called Muslim law in the modern nation state. So that was the first publication of Sisters in Islam. I was the editor then. So that was the beginning, the stepping stone, of paying particular attention to the text and the interpretation of text. We set up study group and we look at various figures internationally who have come out with more interesting ideas that are relevant to modern life, and at the same time, as a sociologist teaching sociology of family, I was encouraging Malay and non-Malay students to do as their honour’s year thesis, to look at husband and wife roles under the rubric of sociology of family–also relations with religion and socialisation of children. So that’s how my interests sort of broaden and deepen.

NM: Would you say that… It seems and sounds like your foray into that field of studies, sociology of religion and Islam, also comes from a certain push from the outside, in the activism field…

NO: Yes. As we discussed just now in the workshop, there is a role for social scientists if you want to be relevant, to be in the public sphere. You don’t need to call yourself a public intellectual but playing the role when you are the source or you instigate new debates or put in new ideas. You can be a catalyst for certain interesting debates.

NM: Of course, there is a very close relation between social sciences and activism and public participation.

NO: Yes. For me, given my own situation and the socio-political development of Malaysia, the increasing rate of the so called Islamisation policies of Dr Mahathir, and him bringing in Anwar Ibrahim, and the introduction of new institutions that took on the role of deciding what kind of Islam.

NM: Some have called this bureaucratisation.

NO: Yes, some researchers and academics have written articles about the bureaucratisation. For me, it’s more than bureaucratisation. That’s only one dimension of it. That’s the Weberian dimension of it.

NM: In that sense, there’s always this assumption and impression we get that the field of social sciences and the practitioners from a certain time like 1990s or 1980s, as you mentioned the circle that you have moved to it is quite distinct and jarring with what’s happening. Do you see a certain disjuncture between the social sciences and what you say or do in public in terms of intervention and advocacy?

NO: I think there is less role for advocacy amongst practicing social scientists including academics from universities. I think partly you have to look at it in the context of the development of public universities and various competition with new universities. And the bureaucratisation and management of universities in the past two or three decades–emphasis on KPI, publication, the kind of careerist approach. As we discussed in the workshop just now, there is less of that critical approach of questioning the relevance and what kind of role social scientists as researchers, teachers, and academics should play in a developing country such as Malaysia. Of course, being a sociologist, I’m not content just by looking at religion and gender relation. I was also dragged to look at the political system. So I was very much drawn to the work other anthropologists and political scientists looking at the role of party politics in Malaysia particularly PAS and UMNO and the whole discourse of Islamisation. That’s when it pushed me to look at fundamentalism. One of the big projects I embarked on from 1995-1996 was challenging fundamentalism. In fact, that was when I first got to be quite well known amongst the bureaucrats in the university because the international workshop that I organised in 1995/96 called Challenging Fundamentalism, there was a push via a certain religious department in the state of Selangor to ban the conference. Mainly because Abdullahi was one of the speaker and the late Prof. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd. Prof. Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd was a very well known, established, and respected scholar from Cairo, the Islamic university. But because of his critical stance and views, he sorts of suffered discrimination. So he was branded by our religious institutions here particularly the bureaucrats saying that we cannot have them. But I’m not one who gave up. So what I did was I said to the director of IKMAS to let go and I’ll do it as a free individual. I applied for leave for 10 days. And much to my surprise, all my general staffs said they will also apply 3 days leave. They kept working and organise as private individuals because it is important. I was very touched. These are the clerks, chiefs, the administrative officers.

NM: That kind of dedication and commitment or certain independence.

NO: Yes. I hope we still can find it in this age. So we held it in one of the private hotels. I got some funding from outside and managed to bring them in. They cannot speak at the conference because the ulama intervened by going to the Sultan of Selangor, whom the head of Islamic matters. The sultan bertitah that we can still have our conference but these two persons cannot speak. So they just spoke from the floor as participants, raising questions. But I kept telling them that they can spend at least 10 minute explaining their questions and giving opinions. What I’m trying to emphasise here is that you have to be creative in coping with this strong move to silence you.

NM: Now that you mentioned your projects and the kind of… As you said, trying to negotiate certain constraints in the 1990s… It’s very difficult especially within this context. Perhaps you could share with us. In this more contemporary, maybe in the last 5 years or a decade, and then going forward, what do you see as the critical points or the fault lines in society that should be given focus by social scientists, activists, or people who are just interested understanding society.

NO: I think if you go by the recent historical development of politicisation of religion or Islam, and by my own experience, there has been a consistent effort and move by the religious bureaucrats and institutions to silence you. So like declaring my international conference… Which is intimidating. I can understand why younger generation of scholars are not encouraged. You have to be a bit of a maverick and trouble to go against that. I’m sure it was not easy. I was lucky because I got various support–from various women’s groups like WAO, the organisation that tries to address the problem of violence against women even though they are predominantly led and many actors in there are non-Muslim, they have their concern as Malaysian citizens. They don’t see the split between Malay/non-Malay or Islam/non-Islam. It’s to look at the development in the nation state and to look at this role of religion. Because they said, ultimately, they will affect non-Muslim as well, indirectly. Of course, it can affect directly because in a multi-ethnic society, the inter-marriages. And you know the Lina Joy case. People wants to have their freedom to decide their own life trajectory. They don’t want to be forced.

NM: The idea of choice, economy within the religious, political contexts are crucial concern.

NO: Yes, and freedom within the democratic framework. So that’s why it pushes a number of us in the field, academics and activists, to look at the notion of freedom—freedom of religion, freedom from religion, and then freedom entails rights to be recognised. So that puts another emphasis on gender rights again and the rights of citizens regardless of religious etc. As a Malaysian.

NM: I was thinking you’ve worn many hats, you’ve gone through many geographical boundaries, and you’ve done a lot of work with many groups at the domestic, national, and international levels. Could you share some of your experience and how do you see the importance of—I’m sure you believe and affirm local, national, and international collaboration and networking to…

NO: I think, again, I was lucky because during that time from mid-1990s until 2010, various groups of academics, activists, organisations, and funding bodies like the Canergy Foundation, Ford Foundation, German foundations such as Friedrich Nauman Foundation… Well, in Germany itself it’s all align to political parties. But they are more and more concern about the question of religion particularly Islam, of politicisation of Islam, because at the same time the global development was the migration movement–from Algeria, northern part of Africa–where you have more and more Muslim migrants in France, Germany, with the Turkish communities in UK, and in USA. At the same time in USA, the rise of the middle class Muslim of the second generation who are born in US and so they had the advantage of secular and democratic kind of perspective from their education but at the same time they had the personal interest of their own Islamic identity and conviction. Why should we be ruled by what those ulama in say Saudi Arabia or Egypt says. What Al-Azhar does may be relevant to Egypt. Or half of it may not even be relevant to Egypt. So you have all these convergence of global developments to do with Islamisation in various Muslim countries as well as the rise of globalised fundamentalist Islam.

NM: So it’s always within that current of movement. But not only…

NO: And then of course the tower. It gives a very bad impression on Islam.

NM: In that sense, your participation is a reflection but also an affirmation of need to have look at things at the global level and not just locally anymore.

NO: Yes, because of that time very few people talking, as a Muslim [00:24:52.08], from a so called new [00:24:54.02], claim to be an Islamist perspective. So I get invitation a lot overseas and I was able through this project whether publication or joint research or conference publication from workshop to involve various Muslim communities in western countries.

NM: How have you seen this development? Have they progressed positively? Are you optimistic with these developments?

NO: Well, part of the economic development has sort of delayed or slowed down. That kind of participation interest because various European governments are more concerned with issues at hands in dealing with political Islamists in their countries or states. So they are not paying much attention to us particularly the periphery in Southeast Asia. They may have some attention to Egypt and some middle eastern countries like Sudan but not us in the Southeast Asia. So I think it’s quite difficult for the younger generation of scholars to get financial support from these foundations—to hold a conference that address the issue within the nation state of Malaysia but then also the region. It’s a bigger challenge. So I understand the lack of such activities to be done. And of course the dominance of the political Islamist in the country itself. As you know, SIS—I shouldn’t be mentioning it—but we have an ongoing court case.

NM: As a wrap, for all these things happening at the global and national levels, where do you see the direction or what would be your references or sources for young scholars and activists in moving forward from now in facing this? As you mentioned earlier, where social media and technology where things are so fast, and things are becoming so connected but at the same time fragmented.

NO: I am not pessimistic about the younger generation because they are in the new digital era. They can do many things through social media. And I tried in my limited ways. First I hate being on Facebook and Instagram. I find Whatsapp is already enough intervening my life. They have all these social medias and I do follow to some extent. Some of the discussions and debates being carried out are all very short burst. But if only… There’s a potential role. For me, when I think about it, the younger generation of academics and scholars, if you are really serious to have a public intellectual space, maybe this is the area you should look at. What are the possible roles, a positive one, in encouraging democratisation of space, of greater participation by younger people in speaking out about their own religious identity, politics, about government using racism and Islam to divide people? But of course I know the challenge is that the country has not let up in terms of its ISA and various forms of… And it’s making a comeback ever since the take over… Since Sheraton. One more if I may add. Given that we may have an election, snap or whatever, it’s also important for young scholars to start looking at our electoral system. I started that project in 2006. Book on electoral system and democracy in Malaysia. People should begin from there and make that relevant because it is very crucial. We had certain euphoria after the last election but then now the whole prospect…

NM: But it’s always about starting again I suppose.

NO: Yes, the challenge is about starting again. I don’t mind playing a role… Not the trouble maker this time… But leading from behind curtain or helping younger scholars and researchers who want to have that public space of thinking through the projects… I don’t know whether I still have a bit of a clout internationally to get funding…

NM: So these things always come out… Research, collaboration, partnerships, etc. Making that space for everyone.

NO: Yes. But even on your own. If you manage… Your university have a collaboration with another university whether inside Malaysia or more so outside Malaysia, try to use that project to inject a bit more critical approach and looking at it in the globalised context of the interdependency of political development of one country and how it affect others, particularly the Muslim countries.

[Pendaftaran] Syarahan Naratif Malaysia oleh Azhar Ibrahim

Ini merupakan siri Syarahan Naratif Malaysia bilangan ketiga pada tahun 2020. Syarahan kali ini menampilkan Dr. Azhar Ibrahim, dari NUS. Beliau akan membincangkan persoalan yang semakin penting dalam masyarakat negara membangun: “Cara Cendekiawan Melawan.” Program ini terbuka untuk kumpulan NM dan lingkungannya sahaja.

Ini merupakan siri Syarahan Naratif Malaysia bilangan ketiga pada tahun 2020, selepas Dr. Chandra Muzaffar dan Dr. Jomo K. Sundaram. Syarahan kali ini menampilkan Dr. Azhar Ibrahim, dari NUS. Beliau akan membincangkan persoalan yang semakin penting dalam masyarakat negara membangun: “Cara Cendekiawan Melawan.” Program ini terbuka untuk kumpulan NM dan lingkungannya sahaja. Walau bagaimanapun pendaftaran awam dibuka di bawah, tetapi ruang yang disediakan bergantung kepada tempat terhad yang berbaki.

From Research to Action: A Conversation with Cecilia Ng

Being aware or proud of one’s identity, religion, culture is not necessarily a bad thing but when it is being politicised… So it is the politicisation of ethnicity and religion which can be dangerous and in fact is dangerous because it is used as an instrument to divide and rule Malaysian society. And it is happening and used by different power grouping. So this is I think has been happening in this country.

NM: Good morning everyone. We’re back again with podcast series and video session for Naratif Malaysia. This podcast series is a program that Naratif Malaysia organise including interview sessions with many scholars and writers who are active in the field of social sciences and its practices in Malaysia. With us here today is Dr Cecilia Ng who is a very active and who has been involved very long in the field and research of social sciences particularly research on women, gender, women social movements, nationalist movement in Malaysia. Dr Cecilia has previously held faculty position/institutional position with UPM and also USM which she has spent considerable time with Centre of Research on Women and Gender also known as Kanita. She has also been actively involved in public policy, public advocacy, policy making with state level government Penang and also Selangor state government doing research on policy and advocacy relating to matters on women and gender. So we are glad and grateful to have Dr Cecilia Ng with us. Thank you very much for being with us.

Maybe just to move on a very broad and general start. Looking at what’s happening and I supposed you’ve been following news on the global arena also but maybe particularly in Malaysia, how have you seen development of identity politics and identity movements occurring? How do you see this development? Do you see it as critical issues and themes that society as whole are confronting right now?

CN: Definitely identity politics, particularly in relation to ethnicity and religion, we all know are critical markers in terms of the development in the country. But sometimes I don’t know whether we should say development or maldevelopment because it is… Being aware or proud of one’s identity, religion, culture is not necessarily a bad thing but when it is being politicised… So it is the politicisation of ethnicity and religion which can be dangerous and in fact is dangerous because it is used as an instrument to divide and rule Malaysian society. And it is happening and used by different power grouping. So this is I think has been happening in this country. And it will continue to be so, unfortunately. Identity politics is not new. I mean, we all have multiple and intersecting identities. So it depends on how one internalises and uses them for good things or bad things. For example, the #blacklivesmatter. It the sense, it is a liberating experience I think for the blacks at that time, and it is still ongoing. Because it talks about the injustices of black people particularly the marginalised. So you can see all kinds of people–white, middle class, –coming to support that. And so for example John Lewis, the black congressman who just passed away… It’s good trouble. So that can be positive. And the negative thing is what’s happening in Malaysia as we all know.

We look at another type of identity which is gender politics/identity. It is important because it involves half of the population of Malaysia.

NM: Which many people don’t realise or want to take notice…

CN: Being binary here: men and women. But unfortunately hasn’t been a really a key movement marker/mover in Malaysian context. And this we wrote about–Dr Maznah, Dr Tan Beng HuIand, and I in a book on feminism. We all wrote different chapters. We talk about the women’s groups in Malaysia and how that is mainly urban based, middle class, English educated. It hasn’t really mobilised the grassroots and it also has had its kind of difficulties in dealing with the state–in changing public policy. Because this is a deeply masculinised state. The state is deeply masculinised, so it’s hard to negotiate.

NM: Since you mention the book, I think it’s an excellent work. I think anyone even for students, researchers, or even new ongoing research that’s a very good book that you’ve published. It gives a very good overview and also detail of the issue that we confront and we need to pick up. Could we ask you, in relation to your work–you’ve done lots of work and research and writing and publication on this crucial theme like you say this identity or the issues of women and gender–so how do you… In the development of the social sciences, of which we are interested in, over the years how do you position your works and writings within 1) the field of the social sciences; 2) more specifically, perhaps maybe you could share with us a bit also on how do you see your works in position with the field or domain that we call policymaking. So maybe one is in relation to the broader field of social sciences first.

CN: I mean I’ve done various types of research but maybe I will mention two research studies in relation to social sciences and development of the country. The first one was my PhD thesis long time ago which was looking at how gender relations were being organised in rural society. So it was called “The Organisation Of Gender Relations In Rural Communities”. I stayed in two villages. It was kind of participant observation. One of the sites of research was in the rice bowl in Kerian Perak. I wanted to look at how the social and gender division of labour was being organised or reorganised in relation to paddy farming communities. So I also tried to look at Syed Husin Ali seminal book on peasantry ie Social Stratification in Bagan, and to look at how rural men and women being organised, what was their positions. So this was trying to look at the interrelationship… I looked it from colonial historical perspective. I went to colonial era, looked at the peasantry, and looked at modernisation because it was a time of green revolution, and poverty, gender, and class. So I tried to look at this from the different perspectives in social sciences. Of course, ethnicity was not a key marker because it was basically a Malay peasant community, homogenous–though it’s not homogenous.

NM: But then there is a more… We have that category…

CN: Yes, different levels but of course it was not a homogenous Malay community. So that was one research. The other one was looking at the technology and impact on women’s work and labour. In a sense it started when I looked at how mechanisation changed the division of labour in the paddy farming communities. And then from there I looked at the computerisation on office workers particularly on women office workers. How it affected work. I mean, due to automation, computerisation, work was being displaced, new kind of works was coming out.

NM: Your work has been always focusing on critical transitions within certain… so movement as you said technology, automation… You have been focused not only on that different intersections but critical periods in time where we see a transition in different developments whether in the technological field also within the social and cultural field.

CN: Yes, absolutely right. Because 1990s was the period of… Well the government at that time, and Mahathir was trying to globalise….. Industrialisation was in 80s.. Then the shift towards the knowledge economy, what you call the K-economy. So that was when,… Then I looked at mechanisation, automation, computerisation…. And in the 1990s, I was fortunate to be seconded to the United Nations University, Institute for New Technology and Industry in Netherlands. There we looked at the impact of new technologies on women’s work in Asia. So that was like policy action research because at the end of the 2 year study, we brought together policymakers, activists, academics, trade union people to come for a discussion, to look at our findings, debate on them, and also to formulate policies for their own countries in Asia. So from there, it was kind of seamless when my next work was teleworking. Teleworking is basically is a mode of working from distance from the main headquarters. So it could be home base, somewhere in the backwaters, or it could be ecommerce. Example, people used to be a surgeon in America was doing some surgery and he talks into the scripts and immediately that scripts is sent to India. And then in India, the typists just typed up everything. And then next morning when he wakes up, it is there already. So I look at call centres also because at one time Malaysia was a place where you have call centres. So some of the global corporations would have their call centres. When you call somebody, you don’t know where the person is from. It could be anywhere. Sometimes when I call my credit card, I asked where are you. So this was teleworking. And in fact it was funded by UNDP in collaboration with MIMOS Berhad. We came out with policy recommendations. And in fact telework, if you look at the 8th Malaysia plan, it was actually a policy in it, 2001-2005. But it couldn’t take place. It wasn’t implemented at all because employers wanted this eyeball to eyeball contact, face to face. They don’t trust their employees. But now a lot of people are teleworking–moving into that, working from home, digital tech, online learning. I mean it’s so ironic that it takes a pandemic, unfortunately, to implement this kind of policy. For example my niece who works in Sydney, she couldn’t go back to Sydney for four months. And she was working from Sungai Petani–conference calls etc. Because she’s doing a lot of data work, risk management… So she could do that through teleworking. But not if you sell cast… I suppose you can’t lah. So there’s certain jobs that can and cannot be

NM: Also then there’s transition between certain jobs that they are trying now to move into that.

CN: So now we have to see what’s the impact in terms of these new tech on peoples work and life.

NM: In relation to you’re the research, you’ve picked on critical phases in transitions and development of tech. And how would you see then your involvement in policymaking… the nittier gritty of it… because you’ve been involved I’m sure, because policymaking is something that comes with its own personality and issues. How have you seen this pan out over the years at the state or national level.

CN: Definitely. I mean, I’m not… We shouldn’t just be pure academics – in the ivory towers. I think we should be involved in the communities, with the people, collectivism or I would call it praxis in a sense.

NM: You’ve mentioned something like policy action…

CN: But if I can go a little bit earlier when during my… I’m not so much activist now on the ground. But in the 1980s, we formed the joint action group on violence against women, as a result of a very successful two-day exhibition cum workshop on violence against women. So this is the first time in Malaysian history that women and men got together to look at issues of violence against women – domestic violence, sexual harassment, rape, etc. And Jack took rape as a main campaign issue – antirape. In 1987, we had a demonstration because there was a young girl, Ang May Hong… she was brutally raped and murdered. So we demonstrated near her shop, we couldn’t do that in front of her shop because the police were all around. So we went around the country, created awareness, exhibition, etc. And I think in 1989, the government passed reform on laws regarding rape. It’s in the penal code. But not were reformed but at least there was some success in relation to rape. Then next, the second issue on VAW was on sexual harassment. Sexual harassment has been around for some time. But because of the case in Penang, Copthorne, just across from here where many of the office workers particularly the managers were being harassed by the employer. So the Women’s Crisis Centre at that time, now Women’s Centre For Change, took up this case. The women’s groups then thought important to come out with a bill against sexual harassment. So I did the research looking at the effectiveness of the code of practice on sexual harassment. And this was used as the background to crafting the bill on sexual harassment. We presented the bill to the deputy human resource minister in 2001. 20 years later, women’s groups are still waiting for the bill. One might say that thanks to Pakatan Harapan government, which is no more, the bill was supposed to be tabled this year. It was in the process of discussion. But unfortunately, now I think it has been shelved. We don’t know what’s happening and we have no access to it. So in the sense it takes a long time to lobby the state. Sometimes they just don’t care. Sometimes they pass it to another ministry… Then the secretary general changes, the minister changes. So that was in terms of sexual harassment.

Moving closer, past one or two decades, I was looking at gender, democracy, and politics. One important research which was state-driven was looking at women’s decision making in the public and private sphere. Women’s leadership and decision making particularly in relation to how the minimum 30% target could be realised. And this was actually enshrined in the 6th Malaysia plan (1991-1995).

NM: So it was very much even before that it’s already… In the 1990s…

CN: Yes. Because that was for women etc. Teleworking, I think I made a mistake already. But nevermind…

NM: But that was the broad range of the phases?

CN: Yes, of the phases of that time. So with a group of consultants, we went into six sectors and then came out with quite a comprehensive plan of action. But unfortunately, this plan of action I think was just left in the shelf. Some of the key recommendations, which I think is key, is like he legislation of gender quota. Of course there are debates of this legislation. There’s pros and cons. But for me, it is a temporary special measure. If you look at CEDAW, it’s temporary special measure because if you don’t have that legislation, it’s shown all over the world that you will never get enough women in parliament, critical positions… Unless you have some policy, legislations… Unless you have somebody there who can drive… Of course you just don’t get any women. Women of substance.

NM: So finding that balance of having that necessary both present and also that…

CN: It’s the descriptive representation and substantive representation. Descriptive you can send your wife or some key politicians there, some relatives… But substantive is that you know the issues and you will mobilise. Not necessarily always on gender issues but on other issues from a gender perspective. So this was at the federal level. Moving to the subnational level, I was involved with the setting up of the Penang Women’s Development Corporation, PWDC, in Penang, I think in 2011. But I came in after the Pakatan Rakyat took over Penang in 2008. So it took some time. I was in the committee, supporting the state exco for women, and it was… The exco wanted to push for a state machinery to handle gender issues, to ask for more resources, and that was when … There are some of us, I proposed gender responsive budgeting, GRB. So looking at how to mainstream gender into the budget so that gender equality is taken into consideration, it’s also about fiscal democratisation. So we looked… In the beginning it was gender responsive budgeting and then later we added in the participatory component. So gender responsive and participatory budgeting. And the PM was from Santo Antônio da Alegria in Brazil where it was very much people’s power that actually got the local council to have the people involve in budget planning, budget implementation, and budget evaluation. So that was good because the two local councils adopted GRB as pilot project. The state government about RM600k a year was being allocated to PWDC. We have staffs, and we work in the low-cost apartments, PPR. In the beginning it was difficult because you know bureaucrats they’ve been there for 60 years. They just moving papers, they don’t want to go to the ground. So only when these staffs showed that there was positive development within the PPR, the residents were more active, they came out… So as a result, even the state government now I think has taken on the GRB.

NM: So as we want the real impactful… That’s when one the of convergence between research and action and policy comes into where they intersect and makes an impact on peoples live on the ground. In addition to that, how do you see other policies and projects? Are these ongoing? Are there differences at national and state level in terms of their implementation or interest in such policy?

CN: GRB if you look at it per se, has been part of the federal government, I would say, objective I think since 20–… I can’t remember when… A long time ago. Together with UNDP, they came out with a manual, workshops, and it was supposed to be part of the outcome-based budgeting. OBB at that time… OBB was like one of the mantras. So I even went to the human resource ministry Putrajaya, saw the person in charge. He was very positive about gender. But he said you should talk to the ministry of women about it. So again, it is passing the buck. But unfortunately, I think the OBB unit there has been dissolve and the person there I think have gone somewhere else. So off and on there will be talk about gender budgeting by parliamentarians but it actually hasn’t gone anywhere. Imean same with the gender quota let say in terms of decision making. Dr Maznah, Dr Tan Beng Hui. We did the research in the recent GE14 to look at women’s representation and candidacy. And at the end of the day, there’s not much difference in terms of women in parliament. Although you would say PH did a bit better compared to BN for the last 60 years. And now I think it’s come down again because of the recent changes. That’s another story. Then from Penang, I was also involved with the Selangor government mainly through Institut Wanita Berdaya, IWB. So it was set up by YB Zuraidah, Haniza at that time. So we came out, we developed Selangor development policy. And there was a plan of action in the different issues again. So now one of the key issues in term of development was looking at gender mainstreaming in the state sectors. So now there are teams of consultant led by Dr Prema Devaraj who are looking at how to mainstream gender into the Selangor government, looking at different sectors. But then with the pandemic, it’s very difficult also to have face to face trainings. So I think they are doing some online trainings etc. And again, it’s also hard to get the pengarah, head of department, to be involved. They’re busy, they cannot come for meeting. I mean we have a beautiful structure–how it’s implemented, time frame, short middle, long term, etc… But at least Penang and Selangor is much more open. And in Melaka I think YB Jeanie when she was state exco for women she was also keen for Melaka to have some kind of gender policy. But now…

NM: On these issues and themes, could I ask you. How do you see on the back of these things, are the same issues repeating themselves or are they still the main issues? Do you see any new issues or are we still facing with all these things that we have moving on? How do you see this? Both in research and also on policymaking. Are we still facing these issues again and again or do you see new things coming up?

CN: Is it old wine in new wine skin, or is it better wine. I think some of the main/key issues are still there. You still have to look at. It’s called old issues, but maybe from a different perspective or in context of the shift in the trends in the country, issues of poverty, urban rural poverty, East Malaysia, distribution of income and wealth… They’re still there, still important. Inequality is increasing, decreasing… Inter and intra ethnic… Although we don’t have to talk about that… But you know… These are important markers. Trade and investment, agreement, how to assess impact on workers in the country… it’s still important. Of course, gender… Looking at gender, identity issues are still important. For example, gender-based violence is being mainstream now, now the government has taken over and also looking at violence against women… We have men against violence… groups etc. looking at recent pandemic, WAO has said that the number of reports has tripled. Increased… There’s a report… I have it in june. There are now that since May there were 800 reports of domestic violence. And another 800 of queries on help line. It’s tripled. So working from home… If women stay at home, the abuses are there. So it’s not a safe haven. So public policy have to address these so called unintended consequences.

New issues in a sense… of course. Climate change, which is not new but still new relatively. And in fact social sciences have to be more interdisciplinary, when you look at climate change issues. SDG, the sustainable development goals… There are 100 of goals… Many more of the objectives and goals. Impact of Covid19 definitely… Public health issues, mental health issues… Migrants issues… Sexual reproductive rights… I mean these are issues that are important. So like a report that was talking about high companies digitization of the infrastructure. It’s not easy to have the infrastructure towards a real digital economy, or what we call the industrial 4.0… We don’t know what we’re talking about. So these are issues that always still important and what we call emerging issues. Gerontology issues, aging population… How we provide for the elderly in terms of public policy.

NM: In moving forward, then I suppose one of the things that become very prominent then and everyone is talking about it is the younger generation. So you’ve done so much, engage so much with so many people in different time, on different issues,. How do you see young people positioning themselves, or getting involved in these critical issues. What do you think is in store for them? I suppose this question come out again. No really fixed issue but the issues that intersect with one another. Are they ready for this. What are the things they should engage and address? What are the challenges. How do you see this going forward for this generation? In the social sciences, in policymaking. But also maybe specifically the research you’ve been doing all these while also. Women, gender… How do you see this going forward for them? How would you imagine it to be?

CN: There is saying the young doesn’t take over, the old want to retire already. We need these intergenerational conversations, a lot of intergenerational conversations, because… Some of the women’s groups are saying that young people don’t stick to a job anymore. They float here and there, they come for one or two years, then they go somewhere else. But it is how they want to see their lives as a young people I suppose. Whereas for us, we are insecure. We don’t earn income… And we work hard because our parents didn’t have the means to support us. Whereas maybe younger people now, maybe middle, upper middle class, parents spoil them like crazy, in that sense, I think one important thing is looking at social media and how the young are affecting social media and being affected by social media. So how they portray themselves in social media. I mean you have people putting themselves on Facebook… Not that I don’t have Facebook… I’m here I’m there this how I dress. So I don’t know. Is it performativity, is it the need to have attention, recognition, identity issue… There’s something that you need to have conversation on how to address this so that it can be a positive identity for that. In terms of social sciences… Well I think you have the PSSM, young scholars definitely should join PSSM… In terms of research, looking at research think tank, Penang Institute, Khazanah Research Institute, PE Research, even IWB… It calls itself a think tank for policy issue. They offer research fund. PWDC they don’t do much research but it’s more of implementing the policy on the ground. ARI, Asian Research Institute in Singapore. I think they’ve done some fantastic job. There’re good people there and they’ve done some good research, so I think young scholars have to look and mind these different research institutes. Not only nationally but also international group. I think you all are quite good at that. The other one is the collaboration between senior and younger researchers for example. How senior researchers, scholars, can guide the younger ones. If I talk about Kanita for example, we have research Kanita director, Prof Noraida Endut. I’ve asked them to send me some of their research interests. So youngest scholar have just come back from their phds. Theyre carrying on with their research, let say Dr Zairin, on gender and politics, women decision making. She’s venturing deeper into the area of gender and politics. Dr Teng on migrant workers. She’s going more into policy issues, sexual reproductive health… Sexual harassment. Looking at due diligence. Public policy. And Prof Noraida and the younger researchers are also collaborating on looking at–a longitudinal studies on covid19. Its impact on work, decent work, looking at family friendly policies. So I think this kind of collaboration… I’m sure probably in IKMAS also there would be intergenerational projects, transdisciplinary, interdisciplinary, etc. For young scholars who want to get involve at the ground level, I think the women’s groups are more than happy to have them to do research on the particularly areas. Also advocacy… I think like SIS, AWAM, WAO, WCC, EMPOWER, TENAGANITA, etc… I think there are opportunities…. To seek out the opportunities… You know… Ihad to go knocked on doors, call this person and that person. In terms of public policy, it can be daunting, it can be sometimes quite disappointing but you have to go to the ministries because they do research they have tons of research. So you have to see a particular member of parliament, state representatives… And see how we can collaborate with the state exco or other agencies or ministries in terms of research. So it is to negotiate, engage, and knock on doors even though it might be tiring to do so. You just have to forge ahead… Just have a thick skin… If you get burned out, which some of us are, take some time off to rejuvenate your body, soul, and mind. It’s very important.

Doing Cutting Edge Social Sciences: A Conversation with Francis Loh

The lesson is not the theory that’s important but it’s actually getting the empirical research done correctly. And that stands for all time. So you look at the back of their book, like Ben Anderson’s on Bermuda revolution, it’s all data about who he interviewed and who they all are. So you want to debate him, you debate who he interviewed. There’s something there. You don’t debate about a theoretical perspective. For me, that’s actually futile.

NM: Good afternoon. We’re back again for the podcast and video series with Naratif Malaysia where in this program we talk to experienced and active scholars within the field of social sciences, policy making, and activism more specifically. Today we’re grateful to have with us here Prof Francis Loh who has been one of the most active scholars and writers, researchers as well as the advocacy of merging and trying to translate social sciences researches into activism and policymaking. A brief introduction of Prof Francis. He has held many positions in many countries such as Australia in Monash at Melbourne University, in Japan, and also in Penang particularly Universiti Sains Malaysia where I believe he has spent the bulk of his teaching and research here. He’s recently is working on a very important project on research on democracy, federalism and decentralisation and themes in regards to governance and politics in the context of Myanmar. Thank you very much for joining us today.

Maybe we could begin. Let’s just talk about what is happening in Malaysia now. Everyone is wondering is Malaysia imploding or going to sink under some critical issues, political issues that we’re confronting. How do you see or make sense of what is happening today?

FL: I think something definitely is happening. For me, we are at the juncture again. At this juncture, the whole political system seems to be in transition. And you see this in terms of BN-UMNO which held power for 30-40 years is actually non-existent. Even UMNO itself cannot rule by itself like it used to be able to do. But they brought it a lot of BN coalition and all that. It cannot do that anymore. So it seems like the future requires that we go into coalition politics forever. A lot of the parties that emerging are very new things, and they are very much attached to particular individuals. So for me this is a very important transition. From Perikatan alliance to Barisan Nasional and then this one. I fear that it will also mean that government could be very short live and we might be actually going to the polls all of the time provided they continue to allow us to vote. They might decline no need to vote anymore. So that could actually happen. I think for me, one of the significant changes that’s happening is we have lost a lot of institutions over time. One of the strong institutions that we have left is political parties. Our judiciary was gone, our legislature for a long time are rubber stamp, universities have been really declining. But political parties are very vigorous and they had invigorated themselves by going into politics, media, universities, etc. But they themselves now are under assault. So you ask yourself, given this circumstances, what is holding Malaysia together. Is it maybe a constitution of 1957, and because we have been so imbued with legalism as a people, so that’s perhaps is what holding us because we don’t have any respect for the police, we don’t have that great respect for judiciary, etc. So it’s all really beginning to wither away. And I’m very scared because I think the economy is also under assault, partly as a result of our kleptocracy reputation, but also because the global situation is under a flux. So you might not actually have a lot of investors coming in etc. In the sense this was Najib’s dilemma. He had to do business with china. Because nobody else was coming. And this of course allowed the Chinese to make certain agreement.

So this is the economy, and this Covid19 thing, we’re handling it much better but there could be another round of spike. So all these coincidences of pandemic, economy…

NM: Moving on to a more academic and theoretical question, how do you see social sciences as a field itself in Malaysia trying or being able to at least if not answer or resolve, but help us to understand and make sense of these things. How do you see it?

FL: For me, you don’t get social scientists zeroing in on these big issues. Have you do a survey of a lot of our academic journals in recent time? You’ll see that actually it’s full of multi-authored articles? They’re doing quantitative analysis by and large. Whereas actually the situation requires deep analysis. And you need to have a few volumes that actually investigate these kinds of big changes over time. Perhaps it needs to be done by a team. But it just needs to be done, but it’s not been done. And you cannot do this via quantitative analysis. For me that is one of the sad aspects. Related to that, you need people be looking at this whole mess of kleptocracy. I mean, what is the drive… What allows for kleptocracy to emerge and thrive in Malaysia? This is not a natural thing because we didn’t have this problem in the past. What are the circumstances which allowed for this?

NM: You mentioned that we didn’t have this kleptocracy… So in terms of this, could be say, institutional deficiency or how is it different from the past when it comes to kleptocracy? What is the significance of kleptocracy? Could you share with us?

FL: I think if you go back in time, the British time… Actually, the British was a very old-fashioned type of administrative people. They left us a very strong set of institutions. And they took a lot of trouble to transit out and bring in the Malayanisation of the bureaucracy, the police, civil service, etc. Even legislative participation was done slowly–local government level, parliamentary level, state level, etc. So they did this. I think in Tunku’s time… After independence and all that, during this period he actually respected the need for these kinds of institutions. He was a British trained, legal person, etc. So that was with us for at least 10 years until 1969. Thereafter, for me, the 1970s was a period of transition. Chaotic. Absolutely chaotic. Starting with the 1969 election… The Chinese then decided–are we in or out with the government. Then finally they decided on BN. The students weren’t sure of what they wanted to do. There were student uprisings, the dakwah movement began to emerge. So this whole decade was a period of turbulence. Mahathir entered the scene–he changed everything. In the beginning, he asserted his authority–very authoritarian. Which climaxed in 1987, the Ops Lalang. But his style was by fiat. In the process, people who studied the Mahathir’s period, I don’t see enough analysis talking about how he destroyed the institutions. He then centralised power. He was very charismatic and capable; he kept the people in check. And that’s what held the country together. He was very lucky in the sense that his regime coincided with the East Asian where the economy was doing well as well. So Malaysia was part of the glorious period in East Asia. After the plaza courts in 1994, again all these FDIs started flowing into the country–from Taiwan, Japan, Korea, etc. He gave us a big phillip, economic wise[00:10:46.20]. And that period was when the economy was really just growing and growing until double digits per annum. Mahathir relaxed. He actually withdrew some of his authoritarianism. He privatised everything, then the economic bubbled up a bit, he allowed you 20 television stations… So it’s liberal in that sense, there was a choice. There was a lot of trouble about universities, then he allowed them to start private universities. In the sense, that period was so tense–10 years before–because people were competing to get into universities. He comes along and says, okay start your university. MCA got one license, MIC also got one. So the BN non-Malay parties all buy in. This period for me, I have described it as a period of developmentalism. We bought into the developmentalist… And he delivered. He was lucky because he rode on this regional economic development wave.

NM: Maybe we could zoom in on your own involvement more specifically your work and role and writings in the field and development of social sciences in Malaysia as well. One of the things that stand out and becomes very prominent is your role in instituting and being involved with Aliran. Reflecting back and looking at as you mentioned, those and in fact until now, there’s a continuity and discontinuity, how do you see your role in this trajectory of building Aliran maybe?

FL: I would like to just clarify. I played an important role in Aliran I think, but I was never the figure in charge. That honour goes to Ramakrishna. He held the fort for 18 years as president. I was his secretary for all this period of time and I took the excuse that I was in the university so I shouldn’t be leading. Rama was very annoyed with me about this, but nonetheless he continued on. Then it was only the last 5 or 6 years that I took over as president. So he held the fort. But I think that the role that I played was… In a sense I thought I was a middle man between this group called Aliran and the academicians, scholars, activists in USM. So who wrote for Aliran in that period of time? Johan Saravanamutu, Maznah Mohamad, Khoo Boo Teik, Khoo Kay Jin, Tan Liok Ee… They all from that place. I would chase these friends of mine. And they bought into the argument that we… I didn’t need to persuade them. They themselves were very… They understood politics. We talked about–we used the term–local knowledge. In the sense for me this is the special thing about scholar-activist. It’s not that you know the language better or you’re more informed about the religion, etc. Than the foreign scholars… We claim this advantage over foreign scholars because we have local knowledge. But actually, I pinned it down to a greater sensitivity to the politics of the day. And we addressed this the way that foreign scholars which sometimes didn’t sensitised or purposely avoid because it would jeopardise their positions. But we jumped in. That’s for me is the local advantage that we have. And I think it makes us cutting-edge because we then address critical issues of the day, we can identify what are the critical issues, and then we related to the other narrative and discourse which they want to do in America or England or Japan–the social sciences discourse. It’s a more political narrative and we tune it to it. We take these two and glue it together. I think this makes me and my friends special because we do this.

NM: And that has somehow been institutionalised if I may say. [00:16:02.29] going back to Aliran, at least as a platform for this to come up and to reflect…

FL: If you’re talking about NGOs, you don’t talk institutionalise. We networking. There is jalinkan hubungan itu. That’s actually what we succeeded in doing. And these were the people I could make sure that every year they will give us one or two articles. And I want to emphasise that we were a bunch of scholar-activists. We were very scholarly, we did the research, but we understood that this is not writing for academic journals. Speaking for myself, I see a symbiotic relationship between my popular writings for Aliran monthly or website and with academic work I do. Academic work I will put footnote, etc. But this one I don’t. I must learn how not to do it. You must be able to make your argument very succinct. And my reputation in Aliran is my articles are too long. I have problem that, but I’m still learning. You know you must learn to write around 3-pages or something like that. I’m very critical from this perspective. I’m very critical of people who have no patience to read beyond one page. Unfortunately, I think this is also one of the trends that is emerging. People think they automatically understand the situation because they have actually looked at the instant [00:17:49.19]. Actually, they don’t fully understand. I’ve made a lot of excuses for us doing scholarly analyses and writing lengthy pieces. I don’t think we should run away from… Being a scholar-activist doesn’t mean you give that out.

NM: Since you’ve mentioned on the academic component. In your own work, you’ve also researched and written extensively on political science themes and analyses. Over the years, what has occupied your attention and focus within the discipline of political science itself and perhaps maybe enlarging its relation within the larger social sciences field.

FL: I’ve done this quite consciously which is I’ve tried to look at politics in Malaysia from the side. My first work–PhD thesis–was focused on Kinta tin mines. It’s very different view from going to Putrajaya or Kuala Lumpur. It’s actually looking from the Chinese new villages, these squatters… These were part time miners. Every time the economy collapses, they get thrown out from tin mines and become squatter farmers. But because the state doesn’t allow them to a license, they remain temporarily doing things like that. So I’ve always done this kind of research. So when I finished and climbed out of the mines, I went to Sabah. So I did work on the Kadazandusun. At that time when I went it wasn’t turbulence. Of course I got attracted by turbulence as well. I went there and I was very interested to find out the re-emergence of Kadazandusun nationalism. I didn’t know what’s the character because they’ve already had one round of nationalism under Fuad Stephens. So this one was the re-emergence of an ethno-regionalism etc. But they were very clear–they don’t want to be colonised by the Semenanjung. And they use terms like “we are one of three, not one of thirteen”. This is their terminology I pick up when I was there. I discovered that all the leaders of parties were not interested to become menteri persekutuan. They actually focused on local and state politics. And I’ve done research on this: turnout rates for state elections always higher than general elections. So I did that. Coming back here, I started looking at Indians. I did a very important essay as a [00:21:07.13] for my mentor, Benedict Anderson, on the plight of the Indians. Again, by coincidence, in Penang there was this conflict that took place in kampung… Just outside Dato Keramat. So I happened to have just finished some interviews with that people. So very easily for me to go back to the village to talk about this. I was with SERI at that time and SERI was doing a study on the plight of the Penang Indians. So we took off from that. Then I connected to what Kumar was doing in Sungai Siput, and just sort of sowed articles together. I’m finishing a piece. I have shied away from writing about Islam but I’m trying to put my different articles together in the collection, then I have to write about Islam. So I’ve been reading and I want to write this final piece. Apart from that, I have article which I delivered in Kyoto which has not been published which is on labour. And the title is actually “what has happened to labour in Malaysia?”, nobody is studying labour.

NM: It’s no longer a term that people talk about. On that, in going forward, what do you see as an observer and scholar. Do you see any recurring themes that have been unresolved and still emerge? In addition to that, are there any new critical issues that have rose to the field of research?

FL: I think one of the weaknesses in our social sciences apart from the fact that … I was telling my friend, Azmil, that there seems to be like a gap. There were people like Syed Husin, Noraini, Loh Kok Wah, Cecilia, etc. And then there’s younger generation. The middle generation has disappeared. In the sense that you were not trained by that group. So you wonder what happen to them. I think there was a period when both Malays and non-Malays were just leaving academia for all kinds of reasons. It was faster track to get out of academia in terms of pay packages, to rise up etc. Some of them ended up doing very good work outside of academia. A lot of non-Malays stopped coming too, they were top students and they knew there were problems in universities. I mean you couldn’t get promotion etc. So they left. What we need to do is actually to make sure that this continuity is recreated for the future. I think it’s a tough call and it doesn’t really need to be done via university. It can in fact be done outside of the university. In Penang, when you have academic discussions etc. You hardly go to USM to do this. You go to Penang Institute or NGOs nowadays. In KL you’re talking about Islam etc., for a long time you go to SIS, IRF, etc. You do it that way. Or for me, for a long long time, there was Aliran and there was actually PSSM. And I think the younger generation has to reinvestigate PSSM and has to rebuild that. It is so important an organisation. It links us all together. Whether you’re doing work in the university, or NGO, or individuals, PSSM is sort of like the younger people’s project. It used to be in the past, Syed Husin Ali was our leader, then after that was Rustam. He held the fort for a while. Then Ikmal Said, Ishak Shaari, then we have Rahman Embong. So you have to actually recreate that sort of academic network. That was PSSM. We used to publish a journal, called it Ilmu Masyarakat. We did it in both English and Malay. So you have to go back to that. And we held the most exciting annual talks and by annual conferences. So you need a centre. The government the centre, so the individuals must rebuild that.

NM: On that, what do you think the implication will be? If the very centres that are supposed to be so called at the forefront of research and cutting-edge analyses are not functioning or maybe dysfunctioning. And then it has been taken over by networks or groups outside of it. What do you think are the implications for this?

FL: That’s very unfortunate. But it’s not surprising. I spent 33 years in the place like USM and towards the end, I didn’t expect very much for USM to take the lead. Our motto is kami memimpin, but by that time tak memimpin apa-apa lagi lah. But what was important for me was that I had a base, and there were friends of mine inside and we were all doing things together. I think there are still opportunities within the institutions like university you tap into. They have money, outside you don’t have money. We used to do research together. Halim Said, Ikmal, myself, Richard… We went research together, and those were the loveliest research experiences. Then we came back and worked on articles. We became buddies forever. So you have to recreate the fun part of being social scientists as well.

NM: And then also scholar-activist.

FL: Yes, and we were all activists. But activism can be fun.

NM: Since we are speaking here, Penang has always–or at least people know Penang as the hub for intellectual progress, political movements. How do you see Penang’s role maybe in the past decades and right now?

FL: I think it is not so much Penang. The fact that there was a place like USM. And I think many of us who went through that USM experience actually gave colour as it were, and gave maybe the wrong impression that something is special about Penang. But I think yes, Penang… It’s a coincidence of different suggestions because Penang has had very good schools in the past. So people who went to St. Xavier, PFS, St. George’s, Al-Mashoor, etc. These people actually became outstanding individuals in their own right. So that’s one strand. But I think this thing about a more radical intellectual tradition has nothing to do with Penang as such. But I think in the context of Malaysia, what happened was that in the late 1970s, our staff association, the PKAPUSM, Persatuan Kakitangan Akademik dan Pentadbiran USM, we actually had a revolt. Because they tried to sack… They actually gave show cause letter to our president and secretary general. Their salaries were suspended. So the academic staffs then rallied behind that. Then we employed lawyers to defend them. Our lawyer was Haji Sulaiman. Then we used to come to negotiate with VC, we used to go in force, to accompany him to the entrance of VC office. And one of the demonstrations that we held to protest against this harassment of our president. Why were they in the first place cheated this way? Because we held a conference and subsequent to the conference, they gave a talk to the media and they talked about–sekarang di Malaysia ramai orang profesor kangkung. Tahap akademik dalam universiti semakin merosot. That’s what they talked about and so they were showed cause why you should not be suspended for in a sense for tarnishing university image. So we did that. And we had a demonstration which was the nicest thing. We drove in our cars around USM. The security was still have films about who was driving the cars etc. So we had that. But we were also a bunch of very vigorous academics. So the two sort of overlap over one another. And there was a sense of solidarity that pulled us together. And there was a period when you have people like Lim Teck Ghee was around before they all left. And the man who was playing our protector at the time was Kamal Salih. He was the deputy VC at that time. He and Tan Sri Musa had something going on, they didn’t agree with one another. So he provided like a sort of umbrella for us in USM, just like I think one should not forget the important role that prof Syed Husin Ali played in the 1970s that he provided an umbrella for us younger people to come out and speak out. I mean it’s very important to have that.

NM: Before we bring this conversation to end, if you were to name three books that have influenced you the most, what would they be?

FL: One of the books that I’ve always enjoyed was Wertheim’s book, East-West Parallels. So he made actually a lot of western social science intelligible for me. He’s a very small man, a prof of sociology and anthropology in Amsterdam. But i thought, for my generation, powerful man. Ben Anderson’s book. Not so much Imagined Community but actually his collection of essays-Spectre Of Comparison. So for me that’s very important too. The third book is also something that my own professor wrote, which is George Kahin, Nationalism and Revolution In Indonesia. It’s actually the thoroughness, meticulous in his footnoting and the way he conducted his research. I think in all three cases, maybe less Wertheim, but in Ben Anderson and George Kahin case, I learned the lesson that the most important at the end of the day is you must actually do ethnographic research. Because that’s first hand. Including by this, I also mean interviews. Observation and interview is very important. The second point is historical research is extremely important. Then you look at documents yourself. So that you don’t get accused of getting the subaltern speak, you know. So you actually go and see. So the interviews, ethnographic, and historical research. Their studies are full of this. And the lesson is not the theory that’s important but it’s actually getting the empirical research done correctly. And that stands for all time. So you look at the back of their book, like Ben Anderson’s on Bermuda revolution, it’s all data about who he interviewed and who they all are. So you want to debate him, you debate who he interviewed. There’s something there. You don’t debate about a theoretical perspective. For me, that’s actually futile.