There is actually a law  governing academic research. It’s like a Murphy’s Law for academics and it’s called Hanggi’s Law. 

Clearly, the good Hanggi had time on his hands because his axion states “the more trivial your research, the more people will read it and agree.”  

Close but no cigar. 

An academic paper on Malay maritime history – trivial, not to mention staggeringly boring by any yardstick – by two University Putra Malaysia (UPM) researchers has not met with agreement. 

Instead, it’s being questioned with its two researchers accused of misrepresenting facts about Malay maritime history.

The allegations go to the heart of intellectual integrity in some Malaysian universities and echo repeated accusations that the  history in Malaysian textbooks is often rewritten to suit the Malay political narrative.  

Among other things, the paper seemed to suggest that the ships used by Malay sailors during the Malacca sultanate were comparable to their counterparts from China or Portugal.  

Serge Jardin, a French historian who’s co-authored several books on Malaccan history, criticised the duo for misrepresentation. He called it “a shame,” asking darkly:  “How low can academics go?” 

Among the points he noted in a Facebook post, Jardin alleged that an image used in the UPM paper to show a model of a Malay Jong (a type of sailing ship originating from Java, Indonesia) was, in fact, a Foochow Pole Junk (a type of cargo vessel) from China.

If plagiarism is a mortal sin in academe, misrepresentation isn’t far behind. But instead of saying it would “investigate and get back,” the university defended the duo.  

UPM said the article complied with its policy of being peer-reviewed but added blandly that social science and humanities studies were often “open to interpretation.”

In response, the French historian called the university’s defence “a joke.” He wasn’t laughing though.

According to the NST, Monsieur Jardin challenged the expertise of those who conducted the blind peer review for the duo’s paper, saying UPM’s defence could be easily disproved. 

“How is it possible for an expert not to see the difference between a Chinese junk and a Malay jong?” he asked, adding, “Have you ever seen a Malay boat with a pair of eyes at its bow? That belongs to the Chinese culture.” 

There were more questions. 

“How can a maritime expert confirm the galley (ghali) was used in Melaka, in the Sultanate of Melaka fleet, before the arrival of the Portuguese and the Ottomans in Southeast Asia? There is no historical source to sustain that affirmation.”

But the Frenchman’s most damaging allegation was aimed at the duo’s choice of publication.

Jardin questioned the journal, saying it was a “pay to publish” journal and that its publisher, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, was listed as “predatory” in Beall’s List.

Beall’s List, originally created by University of Colorado librarian and researcher Jeffrey Beall, is a widely used and referenced list that identifies potential predatory publishers and journals.

“UKM (Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia) has even put up a list of predatory publishers/journals, which can be found on its website,” said Jardin, adding that the journal – used by the duo – appears on the list.

“‘It is not recognised by UKM but is good enough for UPM?” he questioned. 

He isn’t the researchers’ only critic. James Chin the Head Of Asian Studies at the University of Tasmania dubbed the research “bunkum.” 

The debate is unlikely to die down. But higher education in the country needs to be reviewed. There are questions about our tertiary education. Too many PhDs, unemployed graduates… The hits just keep on coming.  

And there is, of course, a question about the quality of faculty, its research.  

Or do we need foreigners to check?

ENDS