After reading about UiTM students protesting against the Selangor MB's proposal to open up 10% of the places at UiTM to non-Malays, I decided to do a bit of 'investigative reporting' on UiTM. Initially I wanted to write about the philosophy of UiTM and how it might or might not be compatible with allowing non-Malays into UiTM. I'll write about this in part II of this spotlight but for Part I, I want to point our readers to the qualifications of the current VC of UiTM, Dato' Seri Prof Dr Ibrahim Abu Shah.
The esteemed VC lashed out at Khalid Ibrahim saying that "UiTM was the last educational bastion for the Malays and other Bumiputeras to help change their lot, hence no quarters should interfere with its founding objectives and administration."
So I thought that it was fair game for us to take a closer look at the qualifications of the VC. It is not the first time that the VC has appeared on this blog. Tony has highlighted him before here, here and here.
His VC webpage can be accessed here and he has been the VC of UiTM since 2001. He is an UiTM 'lifer', if you will. He graduated with a Diploma in Public Administration from ITM in 1971 (before ITM achieved its current university status). He then worked as an Executive Officer in the Malaysian Treasury from 1971 to 1972. He then left to further his studies in the US and obtained his BA in Economics from Ohio University in 1974 and an MA in Sociology from the same university in 1975 (must have been a good student to finish a BA and MA in 3 years!).
He then came back and was the deputy dean of students affairs at ITM Shah Alam, the site of its current flagship campus from 1976 to 1982. He then transitioned to a senior lecturer from 1981 to 1991. During this time, he took leave and obtained his PhD from the University of Maryland in Government and Politics. (For those of you who don't know, Maryland is a pretty good state university and I know that their polisci department is pretty good as well)
The title of his dissertation was:
"The use of higher education as an intervention strategy in the economic development of a plural society : a case study of Mara Institute of Technology in the economic policy of Malaysia"
In fact, this piece of work is the only academic reference I could find for the esteemed VC when I did a google scholar search under his name.
Upon his return from the US, newly minted PhD in hand, he was made the Provost of ITM Sarawak. During this time, I'm guessing that ITM expanded throughout the country in an aggressive manner. He was made the Deputy VC (Academics) in 1998 and because VC in 2001.
So, let's summarize his work and life experience thus far. He got his diploma from ITM and apart from one year at the Malaysian treasury and his time in the US, he has worked in an ITM all of his adult life.
His homepage gives a list of his publications including the must read "Gaya Hidup Remaja Masa Kini. (1997) Shah Alam: Biroteks, Institut Teknologi MARA" and "Pendidikan Bermutu Masyarakat Sejahtera. (1990) Kuching: Education Department, Sarawak". None of his publications are with a recognized refereed journal or publisher. Most, if not all of his publications, are with local publishers including UiTM, his own institution. Almost all of his publications have to do with his favorite subject, you guessed it - ITM.
Having established his academic credentials, which are of course worthy of a Professorship, let's examine some of his other, "credentials". This is what is listed under 'political contributions'.
1. UMNO Member (1968 - present)
2. Youth Leader, UMNO Kg. Pulai (1981- 1983)
3. Committee Member, UMNO Youths Jasin, Melaka (1982 - 1983)
4. Chairman (Founder) UMNO Club, Carbondale USA (1983)
5. President, UMNO USA Club (1985 - 1987)
So apart from being an ITM 'lifer', he is apparently an UMNO 'lifer' as well including being the founder of the UMNO Club in the US, probably in the first year of his PhD in Maryland.
Under 'outside contributions', he is listed as being an "Exco of Alumni UMNO Club (oversea) (1995 – present)". Ironically he is also a member of the "Committee of Advisor National Unity (Panel) February 2007 – December 2008" and an occasional speaker at BTN forums. Boy, what would I give to be a fly in the wall in one of his BTN lectures.
Under 'forums and talks', the following is listed:
"Talk to all Malaysians UMNO division heads about "Gerakan Anti Kerajaan Pelajar-Pelajar di Kampus-Pengalaman UiTM" – 15 November 2001"
If having an in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of UiTM and being a loyal UMNO supporter are qualifications for the position of the VC of UiTM, the esteemed VC is probably the most qualified person in the universe. But if academic experience and an open outlook are the criteria, then... you guys finish the sentence.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Monday, August 11, 2008
Closing in on those with fake degrees
Read this piece in the Straits Times concerning the crackdown on fake degrees not only on the part of foreigners in Singapore but also among Singaporeans as well. One of the companies which does investigations into fake degrees, IntegraScreen, has an office in Penang. With the penchant for shortcuts to get degrees, I think they should be doing pretty well.
Hundreds with fake degrees nabbed 10 min
Both Singaporeans and foreigners found out while applying for government passes
By Sandra Davie, Senior Writer
OVER 400 foreigners were caught last year for lying to the Manpower Ministry in their work pass applications, a fourfold increase from the 97 cases in 2005.
MOM did not give a breakdown but the majority are believed to have used fake or forged qualifications in applying for employment passes which are for highly qualified people, or S-Passes for semi-skilled workers.
Immigration and Checkpoints Authority figures also point to a rising trend of workers using qualifications from degree mills, which are bogus universities that sell degrees for little or no study.
In the last two years, ICA caught 660 people, both foreigners and locals, lying in applications for immigration passes.
It could not give a breakdown but said many lied about their qualifications while trying to secure a dependent's pass, student visa or permanent resident pass.
Some of the locals caught had lied in the applications to be sponsors for foreigners seeking various immigration passes.
Both MOM and ICA said making false statements in the applications for work or immigration passes is a serious offence which carries heavy penalties, including fines and jail. Foreigners caught are also likely to be repatriated.
The ICA and MOM figures are just the tip of the iceberg, say job recruiters like People Worldwide Consulting and resume-screening companies such as IntegraScreen and First Advantage.
While most of those found out so far are foreigners, experts warn that more Singaporeans are also beefing up their resumes with fake or forged degrees.
One indication: The names of 36 people from Singapore showed up on a list of 9,612 people exposed in the United States recently for having bought fake diplomas and degrees.
First Advantage, a US-based company which checks claims made by job applicants, estimates that 12 per cent to 16 per cent of job seekers here are not entirely truthful in their CVs. Often, they inflate their academic achievements, current pay or responsibilities.
IntegraScreen, which does screening work for the immigration authorities in several countries in Asia and the Middle East, said about 5 per cent of the resumes they screen are found to be fake.
Its managing director, Mr John Baxter, said: 'The use of diploma mills is exploding as the Internet makes buying bogus degrees easier than ever before. More workers are buying these degrees because they're looking for an edge in the competitive job market in Singapore.'
Almost any degree, from aviation to zoology, can be purchased. All it takes is a credit card number and computer access.
Most degree mills charge between US$50 and US$5,000 (S$69 to S$6,900) for degrees at all levels. Often, buyers only have to fill up a form stating their work and life experiences and pay up.
Within a week, they are sent a professional-looking degree scroll and transcripts of fictional grades to show potential employers.
For an additional US$60, some degree mills offer laminated student identity cards, even though they have no physical campus.
Some even provide an after-sales service, with phone operators who will verify graduations and send transcripts to prospective employers who check.
Some go to the extent of offering fake degrees that look similar to those from such established universities as Harvard, Arizona State University or the University of Minnesota. Using high-tech equipment, the diplomas include watermarks and holographs.
The number of degree mills is not known, but Integra has compiled a list of over 500, with 90 per cent based in the US.
Mr John Bear, co-author of a book on degree mills, estimates that annual sales in fake degrees exceed US$500 million.
In Singapore, job recruiters say there are three groups of people who resort to using bogus degrees.
The first includes those who pay up to US$500 for undergraduate degrees and transcripts. These are non-graduates who use the fake qualifications to score a job, promotion or pay rise.
The second are consultants, trainers and private school lecturers who may have a first degree and some expertise in a particular area, but feel having a master's or PhD bolsters their credentials.
They are willing to pay between US$1,599 and US$10,000 for their bogus degrees.
The third group is made up of successful businessmen who fork out up to S$20,000 for honorary PhDs. They take care to indicate that these are honorary degrees, but like to be called 'Doctor'.
Mr David Leong, who heads PeopleWorldwide Consulting, said most people who buy their degrees are not victims, but intend to hoodwink employers or business clients.
'People who go online and order themselves a master's degree or PhD within a week know full well what they are doing,' he said.
Hundreds with fake degrees nabbed 10 min
Both Singaporeans and foreigners found out while applying for government passes
By Sandra Davie, Senior Writer
OVER 400 foreigners were caught last year for lying to the Manpower Ministry in their work pass applications, a fourfold increase from the 97 cases in 2005.
MOM did not give a breakdown but the majority are believed to have used fake or forged qualifications in applying for employment passes which are for highly qualified people, or S-Passes for semi-skilled workers.
Immigration and Checkpoints Authority figures also point to a rising trend of workers using qualifications from degree mills, which are bogus universities that sell degrees for little or no study.
In the last two years, ICA caught 660 people, both foreigners and locals, lying in applications for immigration passes.
It could not give a breakdown but said many lied about their qualifications while trying to secure a dependent's pass, student visa or permanent resident pass.
Some of the locals caught had lied in the applications to be sponsors for foreigners seeking various immigration passes.
Both MOM and ICA said making false statements in the applications for work or immigration passes is a serious offence which carries heavy penalties, including fines and jail. Foreigners caught are also likely to be repatriated.
The ICA and MOM figures are just the tip of the iceberg, say job recruiters like People Worldwide Consulting and resume-screening companies such as IntegraScreen and First Advantage.
While most of those found out so far are foreigners, experts warn that more Singaporeans are also beefing up their resumes with fake or forged degrees.
One indication: The names of 36 people from Singapore showed up on a list of 9,612 people exposed in the United States recently for having bought fake diplomas and degrees.
First Advantage, a US-based company which checks claims made by job applicants, estimates that 12 per cent to 16 per cent of job seekers here are not entirely truthful in their CVs. Often, they inflate their academic achievements, current pay or responsibilities.
IntegraScreen, which does screening work for the immigration authorities in several countries in Asia and the Middle East, said about 5 per cent of the resumes they screen are found to be fake.
Its managing director, Mr John Baxter, said: 'The use of diploma mills is exploding as the Internet makes buying bogus degrees easier than ever before. More workers are buying these degrees because they're looking for an edge in the competitive job market in Singapore.'
Almost any degree, from aviation to zoology, can be purchased. All it takes is a credit card number and computer access.
Most degree mills charge between US$50 and US$5,000 (S$69 to S$6,900) for degrees at all levels. Often, buyers only have to fill up a form stating their work and life experiences and pay up.
Within a week, they are sent a professional-looking degree scroll and transcripts of fictional grades to show potential employers.
For an additional US$60, some degree mills offer laminated student identity cards, even though they have no physical campus.
Some even provide an after-sales service, with phone operators who will verify graduations and send transcripts to prospective employers who check.
Some go to the extent of offering fake degrees that look similar to those from such established universities as Harvard, Arizona State University or the University of Minnesota. Using high-tech equipment, the diplomas include watermarks and holographs.
The number of degree mills is not known, but Integra has compiled a list of over 500, with 90 per cent based in the US.
Mr John Bear, co-author of a book on degree mills, estimates that annual sales in fake degrees exceed US$500 million.
In Singapore, job recruiters say there are three groups of people who resort to using bogus degrees.
The first includes those who pay up to US$500 for undergraduate degrees and transcripts. These are non-graduates who use the fake qualifications to score a job, promotion or pay rise.
The second are consultants, trainers and private school lecturers who may have a first degree and some expertise in a particular area, but feel having a master's or PhD bolsters their credentials.
They are willing to pay between US$1,599 and US$10,000 for their bogus degrees.
The third group is made up of successful businessmen who fork out up to S$20,000 for honorary PhDs. They take care to indicate that these are honorary degrees, but like to be called 'Doctor'.
Mr David Leong, who heads PeopleWorldwide Consulting, said most people who buy their degrees are not victims, but intend to hoodwink employers or business clients.
'People who go online and order themselves a master's degree or PhD within a week know full well what they are doing,' he said.
Update on Manipal
An update on an earlier story concerning medical degrees from Manipal.
It's good that MMC has issued a clarification on this issue. The worst position to be in is that of the Malaysian students who are currently studying there and in the Melaka Manipal Medical College and also those who are planning to go there in the near future. Perhaps the Melaka Manipal Medical College should consider 'twinning' with another institution in the near future.
Melaka Manipal students not affected: Dr Ismail
PETALING JAYA: Students at the Melaka Manipal Medical College will not be affected by a recent ruling by the Medical Council of India (MCI) to derecognise medical and surgery degrees offered by Kasturba Medical Colleges (KMC) in Manipal and Mangalore.
Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) president Tan Sri Dr Ismail Merican said this was because the college was registered and licensed with the Higher Education Ministry to conduct the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) programme in collaboration with the Manipal Academy of Higher Education.
The MBBS degree from the college has been recognised by the council since July 9, 2003 where its graduates have been able to practise as medical practitioners.
He also pointed out that the college's licensing terms was with the Manipal University and not KMC.
"The awarder of the degree is the Manipal University and not the KMC. The role of Manipal University towards the college is to render technical and resource support," he said in a statement Monday.
"Hence, its facilities and support in Manipal are entirely independent of KMC governance."
He added the college never sought recognition from the MCI and were never under their purview.
As for the two KMCs in India, Dr Ismail said MMC had been informed by the pro-chancellor of Manipal University that MCI was only a recommendatory body and the power to recognise or de-recognise was with India's Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
He added the university had taken the appropriate action and the matter was with the ministry to decide.
"I believe the matter will be settled amicably," he said adding MMC would wait further outcome and developments before making decisions.
"At this juncture, I would like to advise parents and students alike, not to be unduly worried," he said.
He said MMC would update parents and students from time to time and would take steps to ensure students continue with medical education.
It's good that MMC has issued a clarification on this issue. The worst position to be in is that of the Malaysian students who are currently studying there and in the Melaka Manipal Medical College and also those who are planning to go there in the near future. Perhaps the Melaka Manipal Medical College should consider 'twinning' with another institution in the near future.
Melaka Manipal students not affected: Dr Ismail
PETALING JAYA: Students at the Melaka Manipal Medical College will not be affected by a recent ruling by the Medical Council of India (MCI) to derecognise medical and surgery degrees offered by Kasturba Medical Colleges (KMC) in Manipal and Mangalore.
Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) president Tan Sri Dr Ismail Merican said this was because the college was registered and licensed with the Higher Education Ministry to conduct the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) programme in collaboration with the Manipal Academy of Higher Education.
The MBBS degree from the college has been recognised by the council since July 9, 2003 where its graduates have been able to practise as medical practitioners.
He also pointed out that the college's licensing terms was with the Manipal University and not KMC.
"The awarder of the degree is the Manipal University and not the KMC. The role of Manipal University towards the college is to render technical and resource support," he said in a statement Monday.
"Hence, its facilities and support in Manipal are entirely independent of KMC governance."
He added the college never sought recognition from the MCI and were never under their purview.
As for the two KMCs in India, Dr Ismail said MMC had been informed by the pro-chancellor of Manipal University that MCI was only a recommendatory body and the power to recognise or de-recognise was with India's Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
He added the university had taken the appropriate action and the matter was with the ministry to decide.
"I believe the matter will be settled amicably," he said adding MMC would wait further outcome and developments before making decisions.
"At this juncture, I would like to advise parents and students alike, not to be unduly worried," he said.
He said MMC would update parents and students from time to time and would take steps to ensure students continue with medical education.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
I'm "BODOH", it seems
I sent a previous post on the UUCA as a letter to Malaysiakini. Apparently, someone took it seriously (other than no name) and called me the most "BODOH" citizen in Malaysia and said that my mother should have been banned from giving birth to me.
I don't hold anything against EC for not getting satire but instead I applaud him for feeling incensed that someone would actually think like this. I'm sure that there are those within the Ministry of Higher Education who would prefer that students don't touch anything that smells 'political' with a 10 foot pole. The point I was trying to make was that if we follow the Minister's line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, we'd be banning students from doing 1001 things and in ways which are obviously absurd. In a way, EC's reaction (as well as noname's) was perhaps the exact kind of reaction I was looking for, from those who didn't get that it was satire, that is.
On a more serious note, Prof Shad Faruqi pointed out that Article 10(3) of the Federal Constitution, allows laws to be written that prohibits students from joining political parties.
Article 10(3) reads as follows:
(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.
This means that the government has the right to pass laws which prohibit all members of trade unions, for example, from being members of political parties. In addition, the government also has the right to prevent employees of any educational institution, be it at the primary, secondary and tertiary level, from being members of political parties. Think about that.
I don't hold anything against EC for not getting satire but instead I applaud him for feeling incensed that someone would actually think like this. I'm sure that there are those within the Ministry of Higher Education who would prefer that students don't touch anything that smells 'political' with a 10 foot pole. The point I was trying to make was that if we follow the Minister's line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, we'd be banning students from doing 1001 things and in ways which are obviously absurd. In a way, EC's reaction (as well as noname's) was perhaps the exact kind of reaction I was looking for, from those who didn't get that it was satire, that is.
On a more serious note, Prof Shad Faruqi pointed out that Article 10(3) of the Federal Constitution, allows laws to be written that prohibits students from joining political parties.
Article 10(3) reads as follows:
(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.
This means that the government has the right to pass laws which prohibit all members of trade unions, for example, from being members of political parties. In addition, the government also has the right to prevent employees of any educational institution, be it at the primary, secondary and tertiary level, from being members of political parties. Think about that.
Manipal degrees no longer recognized
Looks like the Medical Council of India (MCI), the equivalent of the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC), will no longer recognize medical degrees from the Manipal University. This is bad news for Malaysians since this is a popular destination for Malaysians who want to study medicine. In addition, there is a twinning program between Manipal University and the Melaka Manipal Medical College, which might be affected. So far, MMC has written to MCI to ask for further clarification. It would not make sense for MCI and the Malaysian government to continue to recognize medical degrees from Manipal if MCI no longer recognizes them. It shouldn't affect past medical degrees from Manipal, just degrees that are obtained after this year.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)