UUCA - Innocent Until Proven Guilty?

I have written earlier on the constitutionality as well as enforceability of the University and University Colleges Act amendments.

While UUCA decriminalised offences, i.e., students who breached its laws are no longer subjected to court action and be punishable by fines or jail sentences, they are still subjected to university disciplinary hearings, which may or may not be more fair.

At the same time, students who are charged with other offences in court, will also be subjected to such disciplinary actions, where the Vice-Chancellor or his/her deputy will have the right punish the student, including suspending him or her.

Innocent until proven guilty?

Tuan Yang Di-Pertua, di bawah seksyen 15D yang baru, naib-canselor berkuasa menggantung seseorang pelajar yang “dipertuduh atas kesalahan boleh daftar dan perkara yang berhubungan dengan penahanan” mengikut budi bicara naib-canselor. Pelajar tersebut juga boleh dikenakan tindakan tatatertib.

Bukankah seksyen ini bercanggah dengan prinsip di mana seseorang adalah dengan izin, “innocent until proven guilty”? Ataupun Malaysia kini mengamalkan dua sistem keadilan, satu mengikut sistem penghakiman untuk rakyat biasa, dan satu lagi untuk pelajar institusi pengajian tinggi? Bukankah masa hadapan pelajar-pelajar ini lebih penting dan tidak patut dijejaskan, dan sebaliknya dipertahankan kecuali tuduhan-tuduhan tersebut dapat dibuktikan “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Dengan secara ternyata, Akta AUKU ini prinsip “natural justice”.

In an unrelated point, but which was validly raised by Prof Zawawi during a recent forum, was that the UUCA severely limits the way in which the University could be managed in terms of the rigidity of the University structure. Specific postions such as various posts, composition of the board of directors, senate etc. are all enshrined in the UUCA. With such control, we will only find uniformity in mediocrity.

Rigidity in University Structure

Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi berhasrat untuk membina institusi yang bertaraf dunia. Akan tetapi pada masa yang sama, Akta AUKU membentukkan struktur organisasi institusi dengan keras dan tanpa kelonggaran untuk diubahsuai mengikut prinsip pengurusan yang berbeza. Bukan sahaja naib-canselor dan timbalan-timbalannya perlu dilantik oleh Menteri, pembukaan kampus baru, perlantikan ketua kampus cawang, bursar, pendaftar dan juga seorang “penasihat undang-undang” pun perlu dikuasai oleh Menteri. Malah, jawatan “Ketua Pustakawan” pun tertakluk kepada Akta ini.

Akta AUKU ini terlalu tegang dan tidak memberikan ruang perkembangan fleksibel yang mencukupi untuk universiti tempatan untuk menetapkan ciri-ciri pengurusan tersendiri untuk mencapai matlamat kecemerlangan.

Sebaliknya, penguasaan Kementerian ke atas universiti dan kolej universiti dalam faktor-faktor yang telah dihujahkan hanya akan menghadkan dan menyeragamkan pencapaian mereka pada tahap “mediocre”.

UUCA - Unenforceable

The second point with regards to my speech on the amendments to the University and University Colleges Act has to do with their enforceability. There's really no point putting up laws which are impossible to enforce or are meaningless in nature. Unless of course, the laws are meant to be used selectively to prosecute only those who goes againts the wishes of the vested interest parties.

Tuan Yang Di-Pertua, apabila undang-undang diluluskan, ianya mestilah berfungsi penguatkuasaan, ataupun dengan izin, “enforceable”. Apabila sesebuah undang-undang dicairkan “watered down” sehingga tidak berfungsi penguatkuasaan, ianya menjadi satu undang-undang yang tidak berguna dan tidak bermakna, “useless and meaningless”. Akta pindaan yang tengah kita berbahas ini mempunyai beberapa seksyen sebegitu.

(a)Search Committee

Saya amat mengalu-alukan penubuhan sebuah jawatankuasa pemilihan dan penilaian untuk memilih seseorang naib-canselor, akan tetapi provisi di bawah pindaan Akta ini amat mengecewakan.

Untuk menaiktarafkan mutu institusi pengajian tinggi di Malaysia, peranan seseorang naib-canselor adalah penting sekali. Hanya dengan naib-canselor yang mempunyai pencapaian akademik yang cemerlang dan juga pengurusan yang cekap, sebuah universiti dapat dipimpin ke arah cemerlang.

Kita tidak memerlukan seorang naib-canselor yang berkriteria “ahli UMNO seumur hidup” dan penerbitan akademiknya terhad kepada “Gaya Hidup Remaja Masa Kini” dalam majalah yang diterbit universitinya sendiri. Ataupun seorang naib-canselor yang sumbangannya memberikan taklimat "Gerakan Anti Kerajaan Pelajar-Pelajar di Kampus - Pengalaman UiTM" kepada ketua bahagian UMNO seMalaysia.

Dalam setiap universiti terkemuka di dunia, jawatankuasa ini adalah di lantik oleh Lembaga universiti dan permohonan diterima daripada sesiapa yang berminat. Segala usaha ditumpukan untuk menarik calon yang terunggul sekali dari segi akademik dan pengurusan untuk memimpin universiti tersebut. Jawatankuasa juga perlu memilih calon mengikut kriteria-kriteria yang tertentu seperti jumlah penerbitan dalam jurnal terkemuka antarabangsa dan lain-lain.

Akan tetapi pindaan Akta ini, jawatankuasa khas ini hanya mempunyai hak “menasihati” Menteri mengenai perlantikan. Apatah lagi, Menteri hanya diperlukan melantik jawatankuasa ini dari “semasa ke semasa” dan ianya bukan satu jawatankuasa tetap.

Apakah gunanya satu pindaan yang langsung tidak berfungsi dan tidak berlainan dengan keadaan sekarang? Menteri pun boleh melantik satu jawatankuasa
tanpa pindaan jika dikehendaki, dan kuasa jawatankuasa ini hanya terhad kepada “nasihat” sahaja iaitu Menteri tidak perlu menerima keputusan jawatankuasa.

Pada masa yang sama, isu pengahlian, skop dan juga ruang lingkup “terms of reference” jawatankuasa ini juga langsung tidak dikemukakan. Apakah gunanya satu jawatankuasa di mana bidang tugasnya tidak spesifik dan kriteria pengahlian yang tinggi dan telus?

Pindaan ini langsung tidak berfungsi penguatkuasaan dari segi undang-undang dan ianya hanya satu kegiatan perhubungan awam ataupun dengan izin, public relations exercise sahaja yang tidak bermakna.

(b)Definition of students

Takrif 'pelajar' yang dipinda untuk termasuk pelajar lepas ijazah “post grad”, lepas kedoktoran “postdoctoral”, pelajar sambilan, jarak jauh, penukaran dan tidak berijazah adalah langsung tidak praktikal.

Undang-undang yang tidak dapat diperkuatkuasakan adalah undang-undang yang tidak berguna, kecuali kerajaan berniat untuk menggunakan undang-undang ini untuk menjalankan “dakwaan terpilih” ataupun “selective prosecution”.

Adakah kementerian akan memerlukan ke semua borang permohonan masuk universiti mengisytiharkan bahawa mereka adalah ahli parti UMNO, MCA ataupun PAS?

Takrif 'pelajar' ini menghinakan rakyat Malaysia dewasa yang berfikiran matang di mana hak perlembagaan mereka digantung. Ianya juga merupakan satu faktor negatif untuk menarik lebih ramai rakyat untuk melanjutkan pendidikan mereka di institusi pengajian tinggi Malaysia.

Once again, feel free to help me edit my language errors. ;-)

UUCA - Constitutionality

The Act to amend the University and University Collges Act 1971 will be tabled either at the end of this week or early next week for debate in Parliament. I will leading the team from DAP to debate on this act. Each of us will probably get approximately 20 minutes to debate the issue, maybe less depending on total time allocated to debate the bill.

Our key objective is to have the bill postponed or referred to a special select committee for consideration and fine-tuning before it gets passed in parliament. While the best outcome will be the abolishment of the bill in its existing form altogether, that's probably too much to ask in a parliament which the opposition do not have anywhere near majority control.

I'll be posting my work-in-progress speeches up here first, part by part. Yes, it's in Bahasa Malaysia (Malay). There are really a lot of points to add, but it's useful to be concise as there just wouldn't be sufficient time to say everything we'd like to say. I'd also not be covering every issue as some of the points will be raised by my other colleagues in Parliament.

The first point (out of about 6) I'd like to make in the speech is the fact that many parts of the Act actually possess clauses which are actually unconstitutional i.e., they conflict with our Federal Constitution. (Oh, and corrections to grammar and language are welcome)

Pertama sekali, banyak antara seksyen-seksyen dalam Akta AUKU adalah dengan secara langsung, bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Malaysia. Jika pindaan ini diluluskan dalam Dewan ini, ia akan merupakan satu tanda hitam “black mark” dan menjadi satu bahan jenaka “laughing stock” seluruh dunia.

Perlembagaan kita melalui Artikel 10 (1a) dan (1b) mempertahankan hak kebebasan “speech and expression” dan juga hak berhimpun secara aman tanpa senjata untuk rakyat Malaysia kecuali dalam isu spesifik seperti bahasa kebangsaan dan kedaulatan raja-raja Melayu.

Akan tetapi, mengikut Seksyen 15(6), seorang pelajar hanya boleh “membuat penyataan mengenai sesuatu perkara akademik yang berhubungan dengan perkara yang pelajar itu terlibat dalam pengajian.” Malah, kebenaran tersebut hanya sah untuk penyataan “pada sesuatu seminar atau simposium seumpamanya yang tidak dianjurkan atau ditaja oleh mana-mana parti politik, sama ada di dalam atau di luar Malaysia”, dan juga “mana-mana pertubuhan, badan atau kumpulan orang yang ditetapkan oleh Menteri”.

Artikel 8 juga menjamin bahawa dengan izin, “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law”. Hak sebuah badan pendidikan, akademik dan juga pelajar tidak dikecualikan daripada artikel tersebut.

Oleh itu, mengapa pelajar kita menghadapi hak yang terhad berbanding dengan rakyat yang bukan pelajar, khususnya dari segi speech dan perhimpunan? Dan mengapa pelajar Malaysia dalam negeri dipinggirkan berbanding dengan pelajar Malaysia di luar negeri, yang mempunyai hak yang penuh, termasuk mencampuri kelab politik UMNO, MCA dan lain-lain?

Apa gunanya Dewan ini meluluskan satu Akta yang nyata sekali bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Malaysia yang patut dipertahankan oleh setiap ahli parlimen? Adakah ahli parlimen Barisan Nasional sanggup menutup satu mata dan meluluskan satu Akta Undang-Undang yang salah dari segi perlembagaan?

NST piece on the UUCA amendments

Good NST piece on the UUCA amendments. One of the posts from this blog was quoted.

OPINION: 'Superficial' changes to UUCA Bill criticised
YONG HUEY JIUN

The highly anticipated Universities and University Colleges Act (Amendment) Bill has generated much interest among academics and varsity students alike since it was tabled in Parliament on July 16. YONG HUEY JIUN examines the core issues
STUDENT bodies eagerly await a key parliamentary debate this month on their rights, hoping for greater freedom of expression and association.

At the heart of the controversy is Section 15 of the Universities and University Colleges Act, which deems that any student joining any off-campus societies -- including political parties -- commits a criminal offence that carries a jail term. Although the new bill would decriminalise this, the student could still face disciplinary action from the university.

The Universities and University Colleges Act (Amendment) Bill, set for second reading in the next session of Parliament, would allow students to join any lawful society, organisation or group, except for "any organisation the minister has specified in writing to vice-chancellors as unsuitable to the interests and well-being of the students or university".

At issue is the latter phrase, which confers the minister full powers in decision-making.
"The ultimate power still lies with the minister," says Shazni Munir Mohd Ithnin, a member of the University Students' Movement to Abolish UUCA (GMMA). "Nothing much has changed."

Critics condemn the bill as "superficial". Some call for the act not just to be amended but repealed entirely.

"The act, if at all relevant, needs to be completely overhauled," argues Tony Pua, DAP's Petaling Jaya Utara MP.

The amendments do not go far enough, says Human Rights Commission of Malaysia's Datuk N. Siva Subramaniam, who stresses students' right to political participation.

Shazni agrees: "If other 21-year-olds can join political parties, why is it that we can't just because we are in university?"

The act in its present form emerged from anti-government student protests in 1974, when the UUCA was amended to include more restrictive clauses to curb student activism. But student activism can be a powerful force for positive change, contends commentator and educationist Ong Kian Ming.

"While I don't think student activism is highly correlated with the quality of a university," he says, "I'm convinced that having academic and student freedom to organise and freely express their thoughts is a necessary condition towards establishing a world-class university.

"Different universities in the United States and Britain have taken different routes towards making themselves world-class, but all of them have one thing in common -- academic freedom for students and lecturers to express their thoughts and views and to organise if and when necessary."

Although almost half of the 10.9 million registered voters are under 40, past studies show a low level of political awareness and involvement among youth.

The Malaysian Youth Index surveyed 4,000 Malaysians between the ages of 14 and 40 in 2006, and found that only 45 per cent of them voted in the 2004 general election and only 19 per cent were involved in a political party.

Academics, politicians and student leaders attribute the lack of interest to the UUCA. If students are not allowed to join organisations while they are in college, they say, they are unlikely to be active after graduation.

That's why National Student Consultative Council president Afandy Sutrisno Tanjung supports the amendment, calling it "a great first step". However, he worries that universities, with their own sets of campus regulations, may contain conflicting rules that could undermine reform.

"We certainly hope the deletion of the presumptive Section 15C will apply to university regulations as well," says the varsity student.

One thing's for sure: loosening control is going to take time. Some tread the line more cautiously than others, recognising that with greater freedom comes greater responsibility.

Professor Datuk Dr Sharifah Hapsah Syed Hasan Shahabudin, vice-chancellor of Universiti Kebangsaan Malay-sia, supports academic freedom and autonomy with "reasonable measures of accountability and responsibility".

Her carefully measured words reflect the views of those who are chary of granting untrammelled political freedom to students and want to see a gradual liberalisation instead.

Academics, however, laud the initiative to grant greater autonomy to university boards. The new amendment will see the appointment of vice-chancellors through a select committee on the recommendations of the boards.

Proponents and critics alike agree, of course, that the act's overarching goal is to enhance competitiveness among universities and turn them into centres of human capital development.

UUC more permissive : An alternative view

A different take on the changes to the UUCA by Prof Faruqi. He argues that there have been significant changes made to the UUCA.

Trusting students with freedoms
REFLECTING ON THE LAW
By SHAD SALEEM FARUQI

The spirit of the law is one of evolutionary change towards more open, free and democratic campuses.

AFTER a gestation period of nearly two years, the long-awaited amendments to The Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 are finally before Parliament.

Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin deserves congratulations, in that immediately after assuming the mantle of leadership at the ministry, he set ambitious time-schedules, tackled some lingering, tough issues with aplomb and, with a very short notice, succeeded in placing the Bill before the Cabinet and Parliament.

As with all laws, the amendments are full of negotiated compromises. There is a mixture of idealism and pragmatism. Though there is some understandable caution, a lot of risks are being taken to trust the young with rights and freedoms hitherto unknown.

The spirit of the law is one of evolutionary change towards more open, free and democratic campuses. Of course, the critics will find many flaws. But there is something worthwhile for everyone in the proposals.

Consultative processes: The Amendment puts in place a number of democratic consultative processes as a pre-condition to the making of decisions on key university appointments.

The minister, in appointing the chairman and members of the board of directors, the Vice-Chancellor, Deputy Vice-Chancellors and directors of campuses, will now have to consult with a committee.

The Vice-Chancellor in appointing deans and heads will be obliged to hear out the faculty members. In addition, he will have to inform the board of his choices. All this should promote more transparency and more quality appointments.

Good governance: University autonomy is improved by transferring some ministerial powers to the university’s board of directors. For example, student discipline appeals, at present heard by the minister, shall now be heard by a committee of the university’s board.

The Amendment demarcates clearly the powers and functions of the board, the senate and the Vice-Chancellor. But if any jurisdictional dispute still arises there is in place a non-judicial dispute resolution mechanism.

Hitherto, the university senate’s powers were subordinate to that of the board. The Amendment changes this. The role of the university senate as the primary academic body of the university is strengthened.

On academic matters, the board can transmit its opinions to the senate. But the senate will have the final say.

Staff welfare: Employees with grievances can file appeals with the board on matters of appointment, renewal and promotion.

The minister is now authorised, on the application of a requesting organisation, to allow a consenting university employee to be seconded or transferred to another institution if that would serve the national interest in education and research.

This should facilitate greater sharing of expertise.

Democratic representation: At present, the Vice-Chancellor appoints 20 professors to the senate. The Amendment empowers professors and associate professors to elect 20 of their colleagues to the university’s senate.

In addition, it charts a new course by permitting a senior academician to sit on the board of directors. The university’s senate is empowered to nominate one of its elected senators to the board of directors to represent the academic perspective and to provide a link between the senate and the board.

There will now be an employee welfare committee of the board and employee association representatives shall be members of this committee. Likewise, student representatives shall have membership on the board’s student welfare committee.

Student rights: In a break with the past the new law reflects confidence in our students’ growing maturity to handle freedoms. Educationists have always known that young people can become whatever we expect them to become. The height of their achievement is often determined by the trust reposed in them.

The Act recognises students’ constitutional right to speech and association. In their individual as well as collective capacities, students will now be free to join youth and social organisations and non-governmental organisations. Unlike as at present, they will require nobody’s prior permission to make these affiliations.

However, on the authority of the Federal Constitution’s Article 10(3), which permits restrictions on freedom of association in the field of education, students are still forbidden from membership of political parties, unlawful organisation and any group that the minister has declared to be unsuitable for student affiliation.

However, serving politicians and working adults who enrol at universities to further their education may seek exemption from the Vice-Chancellor to be allowed to continue their political affiliation.

These provisions will, undoubtedly, be criticised. But what must be noted is that a sea change has indeed taken place.

Previously students could not join any outside organisation unless they made a formal application, which could be approved or refused at discretion.

Now, freedom is inherent. No prior permission is needed. Everything is permitted unless it is prohibited.

Previously, everything was prohibited unless it was expressly permitted!

The Amendment enlarges the space for free speech for academic research and comment. It permits student interaction with outside organisations, politicians and political parties on academic occasions.

The right to participate in student democracy and to dabble in student politics as a training ground for future participation in national politics is preserved.

The Amendment protects student organisations by surrounding the power of the Vice-Chancellor to suspend or dissolve a student organisation with procedural safeguards and permitting an appeal to the minister.

The new law de-criminalises the Act by replacing all criminal sanctions with disciplinary penalties.

It removes provisions for automatic suspension or expulsion of a student who is charged with a criminal offence or who is convicted, or who is detained or restricted under preventive detention and restricted residence laws.

The university is given discretion to handle these cases as it sees fit, depending on whether the offence is a registrable criminal offence or a minor offence unrelated to academic character.

The Amendment removes provisions that provide for presumption of guilt, criminal liability even without conviction and collective criminal liability of office bearers of student organisations.

It safeguards the fundamental right to education by providing that a student who is acquitted of a charge in a court of law has a right to return to the university.

If he was excluded from a public university he has a right to enrol in a private institution or, with the permission of the minister, in any other public university.

Extensive changes have been made to provide for fairer student disciplinary procedures. The grounds on which the university may revoke a student’s degree or diploma have been reduced and this exceptional power has been surrounded with procedural safeguards.

The electorate for student elections has been expanded by enfranchising post-graduate students.

Hopefully there is something in the amendment for every sector of the university community.

Dr Shad Faruqi is Professor of Law at UiTM

How to develop our students

I agree wholeheartedly with the new Minister of Higher Education, Khaled Nordin, that "that allowing university students to join political parties will restrict their development into holistic first-class human capital". In addition, I also agree that "another reason for the continued ban was that the Government did not want public university students, who are heavily subsidised, to “play around” and waste taxpayers' money."

In addition, to fulfill the objective of developing our university students, I hope that the esteemed minister can consider the following proposals. I propose that:

(i) The esteemed Minister considers banning students from going to mamak stalls and coffee shops. These are places where nonsensical and unproductive coffee shop 'chatter' takes place much of it involving the topics of political interest of the day. Since we do not want our best and brightest to corrupt their ears and to waste their time by listening to this nonsense, we need to ban our students from going to these places.

(ii) The esteemed Minister considers banning students from watching football matches especially those involving foreign teams. Watching football matches, which lasts for approximately 1 hour 45 minutes (including the break), and more, if we take into account the prematch and postmatch shows, is an extremely unproductive use of time. Our students could use this time more productively, for example, in discussing the latest developments in biotechnology and nanotechnology and in collaborations to build Proton a new hybrid engine. In addition, we do not want our young minds to be influenced by the teams of the decadent West who are not only footballers but also flaunt their decadent lifestyles off the field. However, we should make exceptions for our students to watch matches involving Malaysian teams since this shows their solidarity with their own 'local' teams and contributes to nation building and increases their patriotism.

(iii) The esteemed Minister considers banning students from watching movies in the cinemas. Watching movies is another big waste of time, time that could be better spent on academic pursuits and developing one's own human capital. In addition, many movies produced in the West promote decadent values and values which are not consistent with our Asian culture. For example, we would not want our students to be unduly influenced by the portrayal of vigilante justice and 'cool' criminals in the latest Batman movie. However, again, exceptions should be made for movies produced locally since we are supporting local industry by watching these movies. However, local movies which promote values that are not in line with national values should be banned including movies such as Sepet (which promotes inter-racial dating) and The Big Durian (which glorifies the struggles of the communists in Malaysia).

(iv) The esteemed Minister considers blocking access to websites such do not promote the development of human capital in all public universities and if possible in all private colleges as well. Websites which provides access to disturbing information on matters of little importance such as the BBC, Malaysiakini, the New York Times, should be at the top of such a list. In doing so, the minister will prevent students from wasting countless number of hours spent surfing on these sites, time that could be better spent on coming up with inventions that will promote the growth of industry and technological advancement in the country.

(v) The esteemed Minister considers implementing a rule which requires all students in public universities to carry at least one book where ever they go on and off campus. This is so that students do not waste previous time when they are waiting for buses or sitting in their friend's cars or waiting in a queue or even sitting in the john, time that could be spent reading and developing their human capital. To further encourage this kind of behavior, the esteemed Minister require all public universities to have a monthly contest to reward a 'lucky' student who is seen to be carrying more than 5 books (either in his or her bag or in his or her hands) in public view. The 'reward' should be in the form of a 1000RM book voucher, to be spent in the university bookshop.

(vi) The esteemed Minister considers hiring unemployed graduates from public universities to carry out a massive surveillance plan that would ensure that the above mentioned rules are followed. They will be posted at strategic locations in and around the campus including mamak shops, cinemas, bus stops and shopping malls. This way, not only will it solve the problem of unemployed graduates in our country, but it will more than pay for itself through the development of human capital that will inevitably occur once the attention of our students are diverted from such unproductive activities including politics, sports, movies and so forth.

I sincerely hope that the esteemed Minister considers at least some of my recommendations made above and implement them as soon as possible.

More updates on UUCA 'revisions'

More reports from the Star on the 'revisions' to the UUCA can be found here, here and here. These amendments are pretty much useless, in my view, since the activities of university students will still be monitored closely by the university authorities and they are still not allowed to participate in political activities. Just look at the recent treatment of three UM students for distributing leaflets about Anwar. The only pseudo bright spot was Koh Tsu Koon's proposal to redefine students to exclude post docs and those doing off campus programs. But this doesn't go far enough. What we need is for the restriction against students joining political parties to be abolished.