By now I believe that all of us are aware of a lecturer from International Islamic University of Malaysia who’s getting roasted left and right, front and centre, for saying that the Ancient Romans learned shipbuilding from the Ancient Malays. Despite being condemned, the lecturer, Solehah Yaacob, is not the least bit concerned. Today, she doubled down on her claim and insisted that it is the rest of the world that is wrong for doubting her beliefs, but she is perfectly right, factual and true in coming up with her opinion.
Personally, I think that Solehah deserves every bit of the backlash — but not for the reason most people think.
In terms of content, I don’t actually see anything wrong with what Solehah said. Sure, her claim sounds outrageous, maybe even foolish, but since when is it a crime to believe something that you can’t prove is true? If it were, then all religions would have long been banned.
I personally like listening to outlandish ideas - to me, listening to outlandish ideas is equal to eating Korean cuisine- - it is not something that I do every day, but just like the stomach demands some variety, so does the mind - sometimes you just need to have things that you are not used to having, be it a food for the stomach or a food for thought, in order to not get bored with your self.
As a matter of principle, I admire anyone who thinks for themselves. Even when they’re wrong, there’s something refreshing about hearing a thought that’s genuinely original. In the same way that it is refreshing to listen to the same 7 notes in music played in a different ways, it is also pleasant and refreshing to hear how the same reality is experienced in an infinite amount of ways by all the other human beings that is also sharing the world with you.
But here’s the thing: thinking freely is admirable only when you represent yourself.
It’s like charity — I think being charitable is noble, but only if you give your own money. Donating other people’s money, however, isn’t generosity. It’s actually theft disguised as virtue.
In the same way, i think thinking in line with your own experiences and observations, even if no one understands you, or even if everybody thinks you’re wrong, is great, but only if you are representing yourself.
If you are representing an institution however, I think you should have some sense of responsibility, and restrain yourself from speaking too freely, on the authority and platform that the institution you are serving is providing you. People like lecturers, judges, police officers and civil servants are not free to express whatever they want, because they represent an institution, and as officials of institutions, they must subordinate their thinking and beliefs with values and principles that their institution upholds.
That’s precisely why I never joined any institution. I don’t want to subordinate my freedom of thought or expression to anything other than my own reason, observation and experience. But if someone chooses to join one, they’ve made a trade. They’ve exchanged a measure of freedom for institutional authority — and they must respect that exchange.
My issue with Solehah is not about the content of her idea, but the fact that she is betraying her responsibility and authority as an official of an institution.
She is, in other words, acting like neither an individual and authority, by acting as both. On one hand, she expects the freedom to think and belief freely as an individual, but on the other hand. she is also insisting that she be allowed to speak as an authority figure who represents an institution, without committing to the values and principles that the institution upholds.
If she wants to be either one, I think it is fine, but it is the fact that she is being neither and both at the same time, that I find to be egregious and distasteful.
When you use the name of an institution — something built by others, funded by others, and trusted by the public — something that other officials in the institution also depend on to serve in their role as an authority - to promote your personal beliefs and fantasies, to the point that you debase the authority of the institution and everyone who serves it, you are not just being irresponsible. You are, in a way, committing a kind of intellectual blasphemy, by taking something sacred and misusing it for yourself.
Blasphemy to me, is not really about insulting God — it’s about borrowing the authority of a sacred institution like an university, which has a sacred duty to serve humanity and civilisation, and betray the sacred trust that is given to you, to speak in a manner that debases the institution as well as its goals.
In the old days, the punishment for blasphemy is actually death – but in modern times, I think it is enough that Solehah either be urged to resign or fired from her position.
Afterall, If the institution is truly committed to its values and principles, why is it letting someone who clearly is unwilling or unable to uphold its values and principles to represent it?
And if Solehah really cannot or is unwilling commit to the values that a university upholds, why remain with the university? Why not just resign her position – and become something like a social media influencer – who is free to belief and think in whichever way that they deem fit.
TheRealNehruism (nehru.sathiamoorthy@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
