The New Straits Times on Friday (15 February 2002) bemoaned, in a pointless article it is famed for, that the Malaysian public intellectual did not understand Plato, Ibn Khaldun, Antonio Gramisci, Rembrandt, Warhol(!). The writer wants Malaysian intellectuals to be slotted into Isaiah Berlin's categorisation of them into "hedgehogs", "those who knew many things" (as the article describes); and "foxes", "those who knew one thing". She confuses experts with intellectuals; she forgets one does not need to be an expert to be an intellectual; indeed, rarely does one make the shift. Unexplained is why public intellectuals should be one or the other of this categories.

She then runs into flak when she names who she regards as Malaysia's public intellectuals -- Ungku Aziz; his cousin, Prof. Syed Naquib al-Attas (but not his other cousin, Prof. Syed Hussein Al-Attas); Dr Chandra Muzaffar who, in her view, lost his position as public intellectual when he was in politics; Dato' Hassan Ahmad; Dato' Seri Mahathir Mohamed (who unlike Dr Chandra can be both; and others.

In other words, she maintains that public intellectuals should not be in politics unless one is Prime Minister, must be versed in the classics, fit into an imaginary ring from which they should not stray. These are the foxes, although, but for Dr Chandra, all are "cari makan" intellectuals; Dato' Johan Jaffar would not be in the list a few years ago because he was close to that street fighter anti-intellectual in government eyes, one Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim. He is all right now. AFter all, he is an NST columnist.

She misses out two foremost public intellectuals -- Prof. K.S. Jomo and Prof. Syed Husin Ali. Both paid heavily for their views, one spent years in detention under the Internal Security Act, but they cannot be public intellectuals in Bolehland: both believe in throwing the chips where they should. Often, their public stand annoys the government and their status is confirmed when they cannot write for the New Straits Times.

Public intellectuals cannot exist in a vaccuum. When the government insists it would do the people's thinking, and any who disagrees must support the opposition or worse, only those who think seriously about issues of the day would stick their necks out. That those who do can be counted on the fingers of one hand in a nation of 21 million is a frightening indictment of the society we live in.

Otherwise, newspaper columns would have a range of views acrodd the political spectrum, and the letters to the editor would supplement that with a less rigorous but nevertheless trenchant view. Newspaper editors in Malaysia allow their columnists and letter-writers only the right to say "Aku Setuju" (I Agree) to government policy as creatively as possible.

When people are afraid to voice their opinions for fear of losing their livelihood and are cowed to express what the government does not want to hear, and are hectored by semi-literate ministers whose stay in office depends on how sharply they put down those of their flock with a contrary view, and the "Aku Janji" compact all in the universities must sign, the stifling atmosphere requires a daring intellectual to stand up and fight. He must be prepared to be sidelined, detained, jobless. I can give you chapter and verse where this has happened.

Prof. Firdhaus Abdullah is right when he says we must consistently question, examine, re-examine our perceptions and realities. Does he do it? No. Why? He is a good man. I know him well. But he is not about to put his career at risk to comment on issues of the day. Why should he? Too many depend on him. He would certainly not have been deputy vice chancellor at the University of Malaya if he had.

The universities are extensions of high schools, learning by rote more important than thinking for one's self. The books in the libraries that could widen one's perspective and knowledge ignored as books required to pass the examination or recommended by the lecturers are heavily thumbed, underlined and, often, important sections and pages sliced out with a blade. To then put a pseudo intellectual cover for an indefensible position begs the question why it has suddenly become an issue.

When the graduate gets out into the wide world, his employer would send him packing if he does something stupid as being vocal about what he disagrees with, or is decidedly anti-government. Could anyone say something nice about not Dato' Seri Anwar but of someone the powers that be do not like, say Osama bin Laden now, and see it published in mainstream newspapers? Would an editor publish a column or letter which questions government policy or demand the release of Dato' Seri Anwar? Or wonder aloud why cabinet ministers become rich beyond greed after a few years in office?

In other words, for a public intellectual to exist, there must be an absence of fear. That is not so in Malaysia. When someone wants to tell me something mildly critical of the government, one looks furtively all around, lowers his voice to say something stupid like this or that cabinet minister has taken another wife or took bribes. When a group of people meet regularly for lunch, the Special Branch wants to know what it is all about? The late lamented Tun Suffian had the brilliant idea of getting a few people to meet for lunch every now and then to discuss issues of the day. We met twice, many who agreed to come dropped out, and at one lunch when only the two of us turned up, we decided to call it off. When that is the culture the government encourages, how could any one in his senses speak his mind?

The few that do know what is ranged against them, and do it anyway. There are at best a handful but they would not make the New Straits Times list. These people are automatically dubbed opposition supporters, have an axe to grind, are anti-national and worse. When this is the climate, and those who could help dare not for losing high profile, well-paid jobs, could there be a profusion of public intellectuals? Let us take one example: The New Straits Times.

Since every newspaper of note in the West have trenchant commentators on their pages, the NST decided to revamp its pages with columnists. But the names it thrust on the public, capable of much better, quickly fell into the groove of "hear no evil, see no evil, say no evil" and found comfort in new creative ways to say "Aku Setuju". Look at the PAS organ, "Harakah". Its English section is an intellectual's delight. And that threatens its existence. There is now a rumour it would be banned.

So this inane debate on whether we are hedgehogs or foxes misses the point. We do not have a culture now -- we had it once, but that was stifled along the way -- of challenging and commenting on the issues of the day. If the government would not crackdown hard, then the business man would if only to shut you up. Would there be a public horror at this? Certainly not! Who told the fellow to go and annoy people with his trenchant comments?

It was not like this. By the time I was 17 and sitting for my Cambridge School Certificate, I had read Shakespeare, Bertrand Russel, Evelyn Waugh, Winston Churchill and the great writers of the English language. The books I got from the school library, and we were encouraged by our class teachers. One insisted on a one-page summary of every book we read on pain of a sharp pinch on the thighs. We were encouraged to question, examine and re-examine what we read or heard, and even challenge our teachers. And you were singled out for special attention if you made a habit of it -- not for caning but to be told to continue. That has stood me in good stead for all my life. Is it any wonder one class mate is so well regarded in his field that many predict a Nobel Prize for him?

I am in my 60s, my time is past. I see a little of that intellectual curiosity in my sons, in their early 30s, but not amongst those just a decade a younger than they. Critical thinking today is taught as a subject in universities and colleges, not developed where it should, in the mind. Is it not then superfluous to ask if our public intellectuals are hedgehogs or foxes when ever so often they are monkeys, drawing attention to themselves when "Aku Setuju" is reflected in every sentence they write? With "Aku Janji", we can only expect more of such rubbish.

MGG Pillai
pillai@mgg.pc.my