This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on April 22, 2019 - April 28, 2019

Georg Lukács (1885-1971), the Hungarian Marxist thinker, was so disappointed with certain types of scholars that he came up with the “Grand Hotel Abyss”, a fictional image that conveys the idea of irresponsible academics. Referring specifically to the Frankfurt School, a school of social theory and critical philosophy affiliated with the Institute for Social Research at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, he felt that their members thought and wrote much about the plight and suffering of people but did nothing to bring about change.

In his preface to The Theory of the Novel, he says, “A considerable part of the leading German intelligentsia, including Adorno, have taken up residence in the ‘Grand Hotel Abyss’ which I described in connection with my critique of Schopenhauer as ‘a beautiful hotel, equipped with every comfort, on the edge of an abyss, of nothingness, of absurdity. And the daily contemplation of the abyss between excellent meals or artistic entertainments, can only heighten the enjoyment of the subtle comforts offered.”

In other words, according to Lukács, the members of the Frankfurt School thought of the suffering of the world, but kept themselves safe and did not act.

Many have lamented this state of affairs. Critical and creative thinking has the potential to influence people and bring about changes for the better. But, as academicians Asit Biswas and Julian Kirchherr have noted, most academics are not playing a significant role in the shaping of public opinion and guiding public debates today.

On the contrary, their research and writings remain obscure, confined to academic journals that most laypeople have no access to. In an article entitled “Prof, no one is reading you”, Biswas and Kirchherr say that “[m]any of the world’s most talented thinkers may be university professors, but sadly most of them are not shaping today’s public debates or influencing policies”.

They estimate that an average journal article is “read completely by no more than 10 people”. Furthermore, “up to 1.5 million peer-reviewed articles are published annually. However, many are ignored even within scientific communities — 82% of articles published in humanities [journals] are not even cited once. This suggests that a lot of great thinking and many potentially world-altering ideas are not getting into the public domain”.

In other words, there is a dearth of academics engaging the public in a responsible manner and seeking to educate people in the public sphere, and, perhaps, even playing a role in public policy formulation and implementation.

This also describes the situation in Malaysia. What is needed in this country is the conscientious engagement with the world, not just studying the world and its problems from a distance — avoiding the abyss, as it were. For example, Malaysian academics should have much to say about the ongoing controversy surrounding the Rome Statute.

It was the Rome Statute that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). The powers of the ICC are limited to four crimes — crimes against humanity, crimes of aggression, war crimes and genocide. The ICC, referred to as the “court of last resort”, prosecutes only individuals, and not groups or countries.

Putrajaya had originally said that Malaysia would ratify the treaty. Subsequently, certain Malay groups, including opposition parties Umno and PAS, with the support of some Malay rulers, moved against the ratification. Their rationale was that ratification would erode the powers of the sultans and, therefore, the country’s sovereignty. Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad responded by saying that the government would not ratify the treaty due to confusion over the issue.

As of March 18, 122 countries are party to the Rome Statute, with the exception of the US, China, Russia and India. Mahathir was reported to have said that the confusion over the ratification was created by a particular person “who wants to be free to beat up people and things like that”.

That the Rome Statute would erode Malay rights, Muslim privilege and the powers of the Malay rulers is indeed a misrepresentation. Playing a role in the misrepresentation of the Rome Statute was a group of academics who had allegedly briefed the Conference of Rulers on the treaty.

It was reported that a group of student activists had leaked the alleged executive summary of the briefing by the academics to the Conference of Rulers, which led to Putrajaya’s decision to not ratify the treaty. In the document, the academics suggested that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong could be prosecuted by the ICC in his capacity as the supreme commander of Malaysia’s armed forces.

Others, including the government, have clarified that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong cannot be held responsible for any of the four international crimes covered by the statute — genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression — as responsibility for these crimes lies with the prime minister and the Cabinet.

Some conscientious and responsible academics have pointed out that those who took a position against the Rome Statute have an erroneous understanding of the issues. Prof Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi noted that the opposition to the Rome Statute was on the “frivolous ground that it would destroy the immunity of the rulers, the special position of the Malays and the position of Islam. These fears are absolutely unfounded and bereft of logic, and appear to be based on advice that is motivated by politics, not law; emotion, not reason. The advice misleads their majesties and paints their royal highnesses in a bad light”.

Shad Saleem correctly noted that the Rome Statute would have no impact on the Malay rulers as they do not have any role in the army, the police or the execution of foreign policy. Nevertheless, some ill-informed views on the Rome Statute continue to be circulated.

What Malaysia needs is more academics with the moral integrity to speak the truth and put across sound views, even if they run counter to the dominant perspectives or the ideas of the ruling elite.  

Syed Farid Alatas is Professor of Sociology at the National University of Singapore

Save by subscribing to us for your print and/or digital copy.

P/S: The Edge is also available on Apple's AppStore and Androids' Google Play.