Real and serious public academic discourse in Malaysia is almost zero, with some exceptions like in the malaysiakini. As a result, those in academe sometimes start believing that such a discourse can only be conducted within \’the hallowed halls of their purview\’ and that non- academics should stay out of the fray of their \’knowledge-power corridors\’. That is a false hypothesis, to my mind.

Moreover, yet other \’ulama of religion\’ and yet other self-appointed ones of logic, thought and reason also believe that they can be the only custodians of true faith, but only defined in terms of blind faith and never with the use of reason; or even any kind of reasonable faith.

Therefore, if we all follow Institute of Islamic Understanding Malaysia (Ikim) director-general Dr Syed Ali Tawfik Al-Attas\’s argument in the malaysiakini interviews , only the qualified (ilm) can discuss and discourse, never the non-initiated.

\"\"

To my \’uninitiated mind and heart\’, universities were once hallowed halls of both faith and reason wherein a total and complete \’Universe of Knowledge\’ defined the nature of a university. But alas, today, there are more \’diversities\’ and \’multi-versities\’ than universities! For those interested to follow this particular argument, please refer to the book The Idea of a University by the late Catholic scholar Dr John Neuman.

To me, university professors, even if within a \’diversity\’ or \’multiversity\’ rather than a university are part and parcel of the modern universe of reason of logical thought systems and therefore, must be able to discuss and discourse all matters without fear or favour. And sometimes, if necessary, agreeing to disagree agreeably may be even valid.

They must also be prepared to profess, teach and practice all their universes of faith and reason. Otherwise they are not real teachers. All teachers must profess the truth of their reason and belief systems to become real teachers or \’gurus\’ of the Eastern mould.

Umno-controlled paper

Therefore, to Professor Patricia Martinez, I would ask whether we can agree to disagree on her hypotheses of the Merdeka Centre study findings, and her critique of the first part of this article.

Yes, I did not know the details of her real research questions nor the real findings and outcomes, but is that not always the nature of empirical scientific studies? External observers can and will only question the nature of the research and the generalisations based on the sample study and findings.

It always befalls upon the researcher to counter and defend any claims or generalisations made, based on the sample study. Therefore, Martinez\’s statistical sampling method and structure of stratification for the study are all very pertinent questions and concerns though I did not question them.

What I critiqued were her conclusions, based on her hypothesis-building. And my critique is especially valid when the nation is aware that the Umno-controlled newspaper which first published Martinez\’s findings only selectively reports only what they believe in.

\"\"

I should know for I wrote a column in The New Straits Times for about 18 months before I know something about their editorial policies – it sometimes stinks!

Of course, the misleading headline by the NST for Martinez\’s article did not do justice either. But that is always the problem with media in this country; that sub-editors wield too much editorial authority, though they are now finding out they can lose their jobs when they make serious mistakes.

That aside, my alternate hypothesis was not based on Martinez\’s empirical evidence but rather based on a genuinely alternative hypothesis. I believe it is also based on a more comprehensive worldview analysis regarding the nature of both culture and belief systems.

Martinez hypothesis and her subsequent generalisation was what I was more concerned about, especially within the NST context of a \’keris-waving Umno Youth\’ and even more equally elemental theories about life and living of the \’over-enthusiastic Umno-Youthful leadership\’.

Zero-sum game

To add further insult to injury, my very good friend Professor Shamsul Amri is also using these type of analyses – ones using the either/or model framework – via his recent Dewan Masyarakat article which was quoted at annual MCA Youth assembly meeting last weekend.

I have not read the article, but his generalisation appears to be simplistic. Either the Malays (politically) or the Chinese (economically) \’win\’ in Malaysia. That is an archaic zero-sum game, a model of a past era. Today, all socio-economies are open ones and subject to the vagaries of external pressures for change.

My much deeper concern is that Malaysia\’s miracle of the \’Growth with Equity Model\’ (or GEM which is the framework assumption for the NEP) is going to be the real loser if we do not watch out for the India and China factor. When China and India really start moving, we\’d better be more concerned about losing more of our \’Pantai Holdings\’ not merely to the small island states but rather to the bigger giants who are also our long-lost cousins!

\"\"

The Third Industrialisation Masterplan\’s ( IMP3) 6.5% average growth may not be really sustainable if we do not get our internal act together. What do I mean? The current and only advantage Malaysia has over these two giants are our currently better infra- and info-structure. The Ministry of International Trade and Industry\’s faith in \’billions of ringgit of annual foreign direct investments\’ cannot be justified by the quantity of investments as in the past rather than the quality of investments.

Our greatest weakness, however, is the quality of our human capital; and their corresponding lack of excellence in work culture, attitudes and competencies. We have somehow not yet learned despite the millions spent on the Look East Policy. Even English is no more our advantage; and in science and maths, we are simply poor followers.

Real realities

Within such a context, what good is a \’juara kampung\’ type Umno Youth with its keris sloganeering? Why think only in terms of either the Malays or Chinese and not as Malaysians of the Bangsa Malaysia mould of 2020?

Why not have that Bangsa Malaysia vision, the realisation of the dream of our Bapa Malaysia nearly 50 years ago?

\"\"

Why not that unique nation-state of history, geography and diversity; of a historic and unique multi-culturality which has proven a developmental success in the world and which we now advertise as \’Malaysia Truly Asia?\’ Why limit such claims to only advertisements and mislead foreign tourists if we do not ourselves believe in it?

Or is that truth also only skin-deep? We must wake up to the real realities of our nation. It is about Malay culture and attitudes and not Islamic culture and attitudes; which Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has already written and cried about.

I believe that we must be careful in building our own theories. We must build better theories to explain the magic of multicultural Malaysia and my proposition that we use the worldview analysis methodology is not too outrageous.

In trying to conclude, let me share with you, dear reader, what my dissertation defence advisor told me at my doctoral hypothesis defense: \’A thesis defence is never a defence until you get defensive!\’ God Bless.