By Wan Fadzrul Wan Bahrum, YouthSpeak Coordinator

August 13, 2008

 

A “precursor to more freedom???. That is amongst dozens of quotes taken from daily pronouncements and comments on the expected amendment of the academically nefarious Universities and University Colleges Act of 1971 (UUCA). But will the replanted pastures be as green as expected?

The UUCA, in and of itself, is not as controversial by essence; it is comparable to any regulatory legislation that asserts the institutional, administrative and operational guidelines for tertiary-level educational establishments. What is deemed contentious would be the
limits the Act imposes on student life and its apathetic effect on the coming generations of citizenry. Sections 15 and 16 of the UUCA, the gist of the debate, deals with student involvement in non-academic assemblies, student body financing and the actions to be taken if such violations – as expressed in the Act – were committed. However, taking a less biased perspective on the case, it should be noted that the UUCA must be examined in the context and spirit of its enactment.

Student movements have had a long history as catalysts for reforms and shifts from orthodoxy. With the advent of counter-cultural radicalism and the Cold War reaching its apex in the 1960s and 70s, the social environment was volatile with new ideas clashing with traditional conservatism. Malaysia did not escape this excursion in ideas; student groups such as Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM), University of Malaya Students Union (UMSU) and various leftist youth bodies amongst the educated were as much a part of the campuses as classes. It was not until the bloody events of May 13th 1969 did the youth movement become a substantial force, replacing the emasculated opposition, due to the suspension of Parliament following the declaration of an Emergency.

The primarily radical student movement reached its apex in 1974 with the Baling incident, making household names of Anwar Ibrahim, Syed Husin Ali and Adi Satria. With that, the formerly benign UUCA of 1971 was amended in 1975, pulling student movements by their roots: chiefly the campus-based organizations were targeted. What had happened were simply the consequences of the perceived socialist radicalism that was prevalent at the time. With recollections of the communist insurgency still fresh in the minds of the leadership, needless to say a “reactionary??? response was inevitable.

But with the current loosening of the noose, what will this change bring? Will student radicalism erupt again, or would the liberalised political environment allow their venting through more practical and effective channels?

In the proposed amendments to section 15 and 16 of the Act, students will be allowed to join any societies, groups or organizations – including NGOs – but the Act still holds the bar for political parties and organizations considered ‘unlawful’ (part III, section 15, subsections 1& 2) and will no longer be limited to those that were expressly identified by the vice-chancellor.

The stuents will be allowed freedom to speak on “academic matters??? without fear of repercussions (part III, section 15, subsections 3 & 4). However the definition of “academic matters??? could be arbitrarily interpreted into, for instance, statements in support or opposition of political, labour unions or illegal bodies.

Any charges under the Act will be decriminalised and henceforth taken as disciplinary offences (part III, section 15B), students who had been charged or detained under the Act would now have the option to continue their studies without the prior approval of the Minister of Higher Education (part III, section 15D). This of course would be a good news
to those who had been charged in the past including no less than the 34 cases between 2005 and 2006.

But one of the most significant changes would be on the all-powerful post of Vice-chancellor, which will no longer be a political appointee (schedule I, part II, section 9). Considering several controversies regarding previous occupiers of the post in various universities, it would indeed be a welcome change.

However, these amendments, while liberating, did not address other, far more pressing issues. No proposed changes were mentioned on schedule I, part VI, section 45 regarding the current requirements for the employment of teaching staff (read: the Akujanji contract), government ties would still exist through the universities’ board of directors (schedule I, part III, section 13) and senate membership will still be within the personal discretion of the Vice-chancellor (schedule I, part III, section 17).

As difficult as it is to accept this meagre attempt to reform our tertiary institutions, it should be noted that in previous administrations such motions would merely be a dream. These ‘baby steps’ could well lead to major leaps in paradigm shifts of accommodative pragmatism, rather than the radicalism of the past that had led to the formation of the Act itself. Nevertheless it would still be too early to tell if Malaysian youths had gained any significant amount of political maturity since. Which ever way the story turns out, it should be said that we are far from the ideal, both on the kind of administration and students we would want to inhabit our supposedly centres of learning excellence. The amendment of the UUCA may be that silver bullet, it may also be not; but what is important is that we aren’t rushing into things, even if we are heading in the right direction.

Sdr Wan Fadzrul is currently a Final Year student at the Monash University enrolled in the Bachelor of Business & Commerce (Finance, Economics) course, and shows a keen interest in Public Policies and Finance, and Developmental Economics. Fadzrul and Sdr John Lee will jointly coordinate the YouthSpeak section. Share your thoughts and ideas with him via: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.