The government shouldn’t treat university students like schoolchildren and expect them to behave like adults; at the same time, the repeal of Auku must be paired with training in clear thinking, rhetoric, and ethical reasoning.

Ministries can move fast if they want to. This was evident when the higher education ministry ordered an immediate halt to disciplinary proceedings against public university students over freedom of speech and public assembly issues on Aug 28.

The order came just two days after Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim asked to be given time to amend or repeal the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (Auku), arguing that comprehensive reform was needed to restore genuine student freedom.

Anwar told a student questioner at the Malaysia Madani Intellectual Forum Series 13 on the Nation’s Future Education and Auku at the Dewan Tunku Canselor, Universiti Malaya (UM): “I have fought this Act for a long time. Now we want to amend it comprehensively, so please give a little room.”

The student had asked for a guarantee that any new law replacing Auku would not simply be Auku in disguise. A fair question.

I wonder if Anwar, as he stood there, recalled that on Nov 10, 2014, those running UM had locked down the campus and refused to allow him to speak at this very same hall and that he was forced to stand under a streetlight on the campus grounds to address the gathered students.

I wonder if Anwar remembered that he was able to speak only because a bunch of students had defied the ban and forced open the university’s main gate at its Kuala Lumpur/Bangsar entrance and marched onto the campus, allowing him to step onto the grounds of his alma mater that night.

The university authorities called it trespassing and went after the students who had participated; but the students called it reclaiming their freedom.

Critics have long seen Auku as a relic of control, a tool to muzzle protests and political organising.

Auku stands as a monument to a specific philosophy of governance: that stability is best maintained by restricting the expression of dissent.

As prime minister, Anwar amended Auku in March 2024 to increase student autonomy. But it did not go far enough, and claims of interference from students, staff and critics have continued.

I noted a slight change in Anwar’s words: An Aug 15 report said he had announced that Auku would be abolished outright but on Aug 26 he said it would either be amended or repealed.

We will have to wait and see whether the scepticism of that forum participant on Aug 26 was justified.

But if Auku is repealed, it will mark a turning point for Malaysia’s higher education. It will likely resurrect education’s original purpose: to liberate the mind so that the nation can flourish through the inventive genius of its people.

Reasonable people know that a mind fettered by fear cannot seek the truth, and a people trained only in obedience cannot build a just society. In the realm of ideas, silence is the enemy of progress. True innovation arises from the friction of diverse viewpoints, courage to challenge norms, and freedom to experiment.

How often have we heard that education should kindle a flame, not fill a vessel? When university students are forbidden to speak, organise, or question the status quo, their spirit is dimmed. They become vessels of information rather than inventors of solutions.

Anwar himself offers a living testament. I would think that a major reason Anwar is comfortable with the cadences of Shakespeare, the practicality and ethical fire of Thiruvalluvar, the philosophical depth of Confucius, and the historical sweep of Ibn Khaldun, is that he was encouraged to think and explore ideas during his student years.

If students are trained only to conform – as they are in secondary and tertiary education today – the nation will stagnate; if they are taught to think clearly, question deeply, and act responsibly, they will drive progress.

But such freedom should not only be given to students; academic staff should also be freed of shackles. Fearful or conformist academic staff will not drive progress, will not inspire students to think. It will only help produce the so called “kangkong professor”.

Academic staff who speak up, professors and lecturers who challenge government policies and decisions, should not be targeted for punishment or be seen as trouble-makers. They must be assured that their tenures, salaries and career progression will not be affected if they were to express views that run counter to that of the government or the university’s governing body.

Indubitably, unfettered freedom risks instability. If students want greater freedom, they must act responsibly; they must understand that running to protest over anything and everything they dislike, or damaging property, is not acting responsibly.

Auku’s abolition must therefore be paired with training in clear thinking, rhetoric, intellectual integrity, ethical reasoning and a sense of responsibility.

Students must learn to weigh arguments, distinguish truth from falsehood, and recognise that freedom carries a duty to the common good. They must learn to rise above emotions tied to race and religion in seeking the truth and a common human destiny.

The true purpose of education is to teach people how to think clearly, to distinguish true from the false, and to understand the intertextuality of ideas.

Universities – and even secondary schools – should become sanctuaries of free inquiry, not prisons of the state; they should not be fortresses of the past but laboratories of the future.

I am reminded of the words of the late Dr Tan Chee Koon, who was known as Mr Opposition and continues to be highly regarded even today.

In March 1984, the government was proposing to place restrictions on the behavior of students studying overseas on scholarships because some of them were attacking the government vehemently and had even allegedly called for its overthrow and termed it “kafir”.

Some officials had likened criticism of the government to biting the hand that fed them.

Describing the idea that students should be grateful to the government as “feudal and outdated,” Tan said: “It is the duty of the Barisan Nasional government or of any other government to provide for the needs of our students or of any of its citizens.”

Students who were fortunate enough to be selected for a course overseas, he said, should thank God and Malaysian tax payers for providing the funds to send them abroad.

Tan added: “The government should not treat them like schoolchildren and expect them to behave like adults.”

What he said in 1984 still rings true today. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.