This article first appeared in Malaysiakini on 21 Aug 2008 by Mohamed Aslam Haneef
A few years ago, when Mustapha Mohamed became minister of the newly created Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi (KPT), he decided among others, to open dialogue channels with academic staff associations of Malaysian universities.
He formally met with all representatives of associations at least two times a year and further meetings were held between the KPT, Academic Staff Associations and university administrations. These meetings were generally seen to be a very positive step towards improving various issues relating to higher education in Malaysia.
Through a ‘federation’ of academic staff associations called Gerakan Tenaga Akademik Malaysia (Gerak) established in 1993, all these associations representing the more than 23,000 academicians in Malaysian universities, were able to voice their opinions on many related issues.
In July 2006, academic staff associations were invited to dialogue sessions and workshops dealing with amendments to the UUCA. It was realised then that true and meaningful reforms and progress must be made if the noble aims stated in the National Higher Education Strategic Plan launched in 2006 by the prime minister was to have any chance of success. Detail amendments were proposed, the fundamentals of which were agreed upon by all academic staff associations.
Fast forward to 2008. Suddenly, we were informed that the amended bill was to be tabled in Parliament in the session that began on Aug 18. For the past two years whenever we asked about the amendments, we were told that it was ‘being drafted’ by the AG’s chambers. It was our understanding that before any amended bill was to be tabled, the parties that gave inputs would be consulted again.
This did not happen and has created an awkward situation where when we read through the amendments proposed, there are many issues that we would like to raise concerning governance of universities, academic integrity and some basic freedoms that need further clarification, issues that academician feel very strongly about.
Governance and academic integrity
If one looks at the changes relating to university administration and governance, there seems to be an indication that the board of directors (Lembaga Pengarah) would become the direction – setting body, while the vice-chancellor is the CEO. However, many issues relating to the selection of members of the board and the ‘Select Committee’ for the VC are still left vague.
The Gerak proposal for the board composition was to have a better representation of academicians and those who are necessarily educators and understand what education is. This does not seem to have been heeded.
Gerak had also indicated that the search committee for the VC should really function as a true selection committee and not become a mere ‘interview committee’ of short-listed candidates. Who short-listed them, what criteria were used etc. are issues that need to be clearly made known.
Judging from past experiences of select committees, candidates chosen have not necessarily ‘made a positive difference’ in pushing Malaysian universities up the ladder of excellence. In addition, there may also be a need to think of having select committees for appointments of deputy vice-chancellors as well, provided the procedure, criteria and membership issues are agreed upon.
The selection process of deans is also quite vague, where the VC is supposed to ‘consult’ with academics. What exactly this means must be clarified. The voice of academicians in various faculties should carry equal, if not more weight as deans (and even heads of departments) should be the representatives of the academic staff of a particular faculty and not the appointee of the VC, as is the case now. Greater details of these important processes must be first agreed upon if the government hopes to get the support of academic staff.
Basic freedoms of academicians and students
Another area of major concern covers academic freedom. By taking out Section 16A relating to staff discipline means that staff disciplinary matters will come under the Statutory Bodies Discipline and Surcharge Act (or infamously known as Akta 605).
This is seen to be an even more ‘draconian’ law that will surely kill all expression of ideas if left to the implementation of less than credible individuals. While public university academicians may be paid by the government, academics should not, be treated as ‘civil servants’ in the general understanding of the term.
Academicians must be allowed to speak out and be the conscience of society since this is what an academician’s job requires. The fact that this ‘public intellectual’ role seems to have declined, is witness to the declining standards of academic standards in Malaysia.
For the layman (who is brave enough to read the proposed amendments!) it may seem as if students are given greater freedom to join organisations. However, excluding ‘political parties’ and ‘illegal organisations’ needs further clarification. The discretionary power given to the VC to ‘exempt the exclusion’ is also worrying.
If VCs are chosen based on criteria that are unclear, and then given such wide discretionary powers, the worry is that it will create greater dissatisfaction among students. This will be more serious in institutions where VCs are more interested in pleasing the minister or government of the day, rather than being the leader of an academic institution.
There are already numerous laws in the country to handle disciplinary matters of students. Why the need to have additional laws for students?
While academic staff applaud the government for taking the first step in moving forward, we feel that this amendment should not be rushed through. If the government took two years to study the proposals, they should now allow for a few more months of public debate, before laws are enacted.
It is better to get as much agreement before the amendments are brought to parliament rather than trying to push amendments that many quarters have even more questions on. It is hoped that the government will not make the same mistake as it did with the Wan Zahid Committee report some years ago.
In a one-day seminar held in UKM more than two years ago, there was rare unanimity to reject almost 90% of the recommendations. The simple reason: academic staff were not really involved in the committees deliberations. At the end, we were ‘consulted’ as if to justify the document.
Academic staff should neither be rubber stamps, nor troublemakers. There is still time to get more public debate on the amendments to the UUCA.
Academic staff associations through Gerak would be very happy to be involved in any constructive programme or deliberations proposed. If we really want to make Malaysian universities world-class, we must allow greater public debate on this issue.
We must postpone deliberating and passing the amendments to the UUCA in this parliamentary session.