Remove ‘insidious’ law governing varsities, says group after UKM controversy

 

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia had clarified that it did not bar its staff from making public statements, whether verbally or in writing, even on social media. (UKM pic)

PETALING JAYA: 

A group representing Malaysian academics has called on the higher education minister to exempt public universities from a law governing statutory bodies following the recent controversy sparked by a Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) circular.

The Malaysian Academic Movement (Gerak) said public universities should not come under the Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act, or Act 605, which it described as an 

insidious

 law.

In a statement, Gerak said based on higher education minister Zambry Abdul Kadir’s remarks, it was obvious he did not want academic freedom to be muzzled any longer.

Earlier today, Zambry said freedom of expression for university academics would remain protected as long as it was rooted in their respective disciplines and research.

He also said that universities should not restrict academics from sharing their views and ideas, including under Act 605.

Gerak said if Zambry was indeed concerned about university autonomy and academic freedom, he should be 

actively working towards the removal of the repugnant restrictions of the Act.

There is a need to focus on the elephant in the room and that elephant is clearly Act 605.

Last Thursday, FMT reported that UKM had issued a circular barring its staff from making public statements, especially those that disparage the government or highlight weaknesses in its policies and decisions.

The circular was based on a reminder by the chief secretary to the government that public servants were not allowed to make any public statement unless specifically authorised to do so.

UKM later clarified that it did not bar its staff from making public statements, whether verbally or in writing, even on social media.

Separately, Gerak bemoaned the fact that other academic organisations 

had not even raised a squeak of protest

 against Act 605.

“The irony is that, when it is imposed, as in UKM’s case, we get objections and protests by academics and others, seemingly without them being aware of the existence of Act 605.

And even if they are aware of the Act, they are unwilling to oppose it openly, publicly. - FMT