A shared experience of opposing a prime ministerial dictatorship will be the binding factor that will propel the new ruling coalition to make Malaysia a new democracy, says its deputy defence minister.

Left: Malaysia’s Deputy Defence Minister Liew Chin Tong, and right, Penang Institute’s Executive Director, Ooi Kee Beng, discussed the country’s politics at the FCC. Photo: Sarah Graham/FCC

Speaking at the September 26 club lunch, Liew Chin Tong admitted that the new Pakatan Harapan government, which took power earlier this year, was elected largely because voters wanted to oust Prime Minister Najib Razak, whose Barisan Nasional party had been in power since the end of British colonial rule in 1957. Senior members of Razak’s government – himself included – had become embroiled in a huge corruption scandal, and the party had recently unveiled new taxes on goods and services to add to the country’s already high cost living. On September 19, Najib was arrested and charged over almost US$700 million alleged to have been transferred to his personal account.

Now Malaysia is led by a reformist alliance – a move 60 years in the making – and at its helm is 93-year-old Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, himself a former leader of Barisan Nasional who defected to the opposition in disgust at the emerging 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB) corruption scandal. The party’s leader and probable next prime minister is Anwar Ibrahim, who until this year’s election was in prison on charges of abuse of power, but it set to take over from his former enemy Mahathir after the pair made a succession agreement.

Liew said that at all levels, the ruling coalition was trying to reform Malaysia’s institutions and build a strong economy, higher employment, a more cohesive country, and a stronger sense of national identity.

“In terms of national identity I see an opportunity in the context of 2020 (Vision 2020, the ideal introduced by Mahathir in 1991). 2020 talks about economy growth, advanced economy, but at the same time it also talks about ethnic relations. Instead of seeing Malaysians as Chinese or Indians, whether there’s an opportunity to see ourselves as a Malaysian Asian,” he said.

Liew conceded that, despite Mahathir’s past reputation as a racist with authoritarian attitudes, he would probably be remembered as the “democrat” when his successor takes over in two years.

Penang Institute’s Executive Director, Ooi Kee Beng, appearing alongside Liew at the event, added: “The greatest advantage I see with Mahathir is that he’s 93-years-old. How much damage can he do?”

Watch the video for more on the history of Malaysian politics

Universities must remain autonomous if they are to enjoy unfettered freedom to teach and research, says a leading academic.

Dr Tim Pringle revealed the challenges facing academics around the world. Photo: Sarah Graham/FCC

Dr Tim Pringle was talking about threats to academic freedom, not just from authoritarian states as has recently made news headlines, but in seemingly liberal countries where democracy reigns.

“Authoritarianism isn’t limited in my view to authoritarian states,” he said, adding that there has been a return of authoritarian practices in notionally liberal and democratic states that he linked to the rise of populism.

Pringle gave examples of the United Kingdom, where 55% of academics believed their university autonomy had declined in recent years.

One of the problems was the definition of academic freedom, Pringle, said, which many had struggled to pin down: “In my sector, despite all the huffing and puffing, we’ve done a pretty poor job of defining this concept,” he said.

Indeed, a survey found that one third of UK academics felt they did not have a good working knowledge of what academic freedom meant.

Pringle explained that academic freedom is firstly the freedom to teach: course content, how you teach, who teaches, who shall be taught, methods of assessment. Secondly, it is the freedom to research: what you research, what methods do you use, what is the purpose of your research, what means did you use to disseminate it.

Pringle, a senior lecturer in Labour, Social Movements and Development at SOAS, University of London, identified several reasons why autonomy at learning institutions was being eroded.

“I would argue in my sector some of it comes through the application of market fundamentalism, short-term profits and accumulation, and commodification of public services including higher education. This had led to a rise in managerial dominance in institutions… which is required to impose these notions.“

He warned this was “creating a supermarket product to be picked by students.”

Obsession with university rankings – of academic freedom and autonomy as measurement criteria. so actually it’s in the interests of uni institutions protect their own autonomy.

Pringle, editor of The China Quarterly, which at the end of last year found itself at the centre of a censorship battle after 300 of its articles were withdrawn – but later reinstated – by Cambridge University Press, said carrying out research in China was “getting a lot harder”.

The presence of The Party at every level, from monitoring and rendering of university research to teaching activities, have been much more effective, he said. Appointments are vetted very carefully, he said, not just for a job interview but politically. Universities go through what they’ve said and researched in the past, Pringle said. He added this was not just limited to China – sometimes the limits to classroom discussion travelled further than China.

When asked about the impact to The China Quarterly following last year’s censorship row, Pringle said: “I imagine there will be some pushback – I would imagine there will be a drop in institutional subscriptions. There are indications that there might be already.” He added that in terms of mainland submissions, they’ve increased.

“I’m not saying I’m not worried,” he said, “It’s something I think about all the time.”

Watch the video.