Recent criticism of Malaysia’s education system has taken an increasingly dismissive tone, with some labelling it as lacking substance and its teachers and students as mediocre, particularly in national schools.
This has extended to higher education institutions, where professors are derided as “kangkung” professors, implying they are appointed through patronage or fall short of academic standards.
Such claims overlook the rigorous process required to attain a professorship. Candidates undergo extensive evaluation by local and international peers, based on teaching, research, publications, contributions to knowledge, and community engagement.
Recognition at conferences, seminars, and academic forums further underscores their credibility.
The current polemic stems from an exchange involving Datuk Seri Rafizi Ramli and Professor Tajuddin Ramli, an architect who frequently writes on politics, culture, and social issues.
Critics have questioned whether a professor of architecture is qualified to comment on political matters outside his discipline. This raises a fundamental question: should academic expertise be confined strictly to one field?
Many academics possess broad intellectual interests shaped by reading, research, and observation beyond their primary discipline. They are trained to analyse, interpret, and evaluate information using structured methods applicable across fields.
These analytical tools – gathering data, forming arguments, and testing ideas – extend beyond science or technical domains and are equally relevant to social, cultural, and political issues, particularly those involving human behaviour.
Politics itself is not an esoteric field. It revolves around human actions, motivations, and decisions, and can be examined through observation and analysis rather than narrow disciplinary boundaries.
Academics, regardless of their field, are well-equipped to do this. Their training enables them to assess issues critically and present reasoned arguments supported by evidence.
It is therefore not unusual for professors to write beyond their immediate areas of expertise. This has long been part of intellectual discourse in both Malay and English media, where academics contribute views on a wide range of subjects.
For instance, scholars in education have written on religious matters, while scientists have contributed to discussions on social and political issues. Such cross-disciplinary engagement enriches public debate rather than diminishes it.
A professor of architecture – or any discipline – who writes on politics does so using the same academic rigour applied in their field, structuring arguments, evaluating evidence, and presenting coherent analysis.
To dismiss such contributions is to misunderstand the nature of academic inquiry itself.
Labelling professors, particularly Malay academics, as “kangkung” professors simply because they engage with issues from different perspectives is not only unfair but dismissive of the intellectual discipline they bring to public discourse.
Academic debate thrives on the exchange of ideas, the challenging of norms, and the exploration of perspectives beyond conventional boundaries.
Reducing this to insults risks discouraging thoughtful engagement and undermining the role of academia in shaping informed public discussion.
The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the writer and do not represent that of Twentytwo13.
