Abolishing the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) 1971 is easy to announce. The harder question is what comes after it.
The intention to widen democratic space for students is understandable, but the UUCA is not merely a law about student politics. Previous amendments have already opened greater room for students to participate in political activities, while student politics represents only one part of the Act.
Much of the UUCA deals with the establishment, administration, and governance of public universities, including their constitutions, boards, finances, property, disciplinary structures, and legal status. Any discussion about abolishing the UUCA therefore has to go beyond the question of student activism.
The more important question is what will replace it. If provisions are outdated, amend them. If some still restrict legitimate student participation, reform them.
If university autonomy remains weak, strengthen it. If academic freedom is insufficiently protected, provide clearer legal safeguards. If governance structures give too much control to the ministry, redesign them.
A replacement framework is already being developed, which is precisely why attention should now move from the announcement of abolition to the substance of what comes next.
The new framework should be drafted, scrutinised, and ready to take effect before the UUCA disappears. Universities cannot operate on political intention alone. They require clear legal authority, governance structures, and accountability mechanisms.
Any replacement must also answer practical questions.
Who appoints university leaders? What powers belong to university boards and senates? How independent will universities be from the ministry?
Who is responsible for financial oversight? How will disciplinary matters be handled? What happens to existing university constitutions and statutory responsibilities during the transition?
These are not details to be settled after repeal. They are part of the reform itself.
Reform requires more than repeal
There is also a difference between reforming a system and simply abolishing it. Removing a law is easy to announce, but building a stronger framework requires much more work.
The UUCA has already been amended many times, including changes that widened student political participation and altered student governance and disciplinary processes. If those changes remain insufficient, continue reforming the areas that need reform.
There is no reason students who are old enough to vote, campaign, and participate in national politics should suddenly be treated as politically immature when they enter a university campus. Student freedom should be expanded, but freedom does not require the absence of governance.
Universities handle public funds, research grants, appointments, procurement, property, and qualifications that shape the future of thousands of Malaysians. They require autonomy, but they also require accountability.
The replacement should do what the UUCA has failed to do properly: give universities more room to govern themselves, protect academic freedom, widen student participation, and still keep strong financial and administrative accountability.
If weaknesses already exist under UUCA, the replacement should correct them rather than create new uncertainties.
What comes next matters more
The debate should therefore not be reduced to whether the UUCA should stay or go. If a stronger framework is already being prepared, put it on the table early.
Let Parliament examine it. Let universities, academics, students, and legal experts scrutinise it. Settle the transitional arrangements and make clear how universities will function once the UUCA is repealed.
Reform should correct what is wrong without creating new weaknesses in the process.
If the UUCA has reached the end of its usefulness, replace it. But the success of reform will not be measured by how quickly the Act disappears. It will be measured by whether the system that replaces it gives students greater freedom, universities greater autonomy, and the public stronger accountability.
The real question is not whether the UUCA survives, but whether what comes after it is genuinely better. - Mkini
MAHATHIR MOHD RAIS is a former Federal Territories Bersatu and Perikatan Nasional secretary. He is now a PKR member.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.