Positive changes to the UUCA

Read this on the Star today. Tok Pa announced that there will be significant changes in the UUCA or the Universities and University Colleges Act soon and these changes will be reflected in the amendments to the UUCA Act 1971 which will be tabled in parliament soon. I think this is positive news, especially for those who have been advocating for significant change in this area. But do these changes go far enough? I think we'll have to wait and see until the actual amendments are tabled.

Some of the changes reported in the Star include:

1) Lecturers do not need to ask for permission to speak on academic matters
(Not really know what this means except perhaps to say that a lecturer can express his or her views about certain academic policies in class?)

2) Removing provisions for the automatic suspension and dismissal of students convicted of criminal offenses and substituting them with the university’s discretion to proceed with disciplinary measures.

3) Decriminalize student disciplinary laws (which means offenses already classified as criminal under other legislation will no longer be classified as such under the Act)

(I think 2 and 3 are similar and I guess that if a student is charged / arrested under the ISA or the Seditions Acts, it means that he or she will not be automatically suspended by the university?)

4) Provide for fairer student disciplinary procedures

5) Provide for staff and student representation on the university’s governing bodies.

6) There are also proposals seeking to enhance the roles of the board of directors, senate and vice-chancellor and to provide for more accountability.

(6 is consistent with the the National Higher Education Action Plan blogger about here)

Other more controversial issues which have not been reported include:

1) The ability of students in universities both public and private to engage in political affairs including joining political parties, a right which should be afforded to all active citizens who are above the age of 21 and are eligible to vote

2) The fairness of campus elections including allegations that 'pro-government' factions or groups have received the support or aid of university administrators

So far, I've been slightly agnostic in regards to the impact of 'student activism' on the quality of a university. I don't think student activism is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to be a world class university (or even an 'Asian class' university). LSE was a hotbed of social / leftist activism in the 50s and 60s but is now one of the most 'capitalistic' of British universities with lots of business tie-ups, a higher number of foreign students to increase the revenue and so on. It was a well known university when it was a hotbed of activism and it has gone from strength to strength under a more 'capitalistic' model. Berkeley was the center of the 'flower-power' movement in the US in the 60s and is still one of the more 'radical' campuses in the US (thought nothing like what it was in the 60s) along with Columbia but Harvard and MIT were by comparison, much more 'conservative'.

NUS in Singapore is clearly taking the more 'conservative' approach of making NUS a world class university by providing lots of monetary incentives to attract good people and promote good research but keeping a close tab on political activities of both students and lecturers. (For those who want an insight to the workings of the Spore government against lecturers, just google 'Christopher Lingle' and you'll see what I mean)

While I don't think student activism is highly correlated with the quality of a university, I'm convinced that having academic and student freedom to organized and freely express their thoughts is a necessary condition towards establishing a world class university. NUS will encounter resistance when it tries to break into the ranks of recruiting world class academics some of whom might not like working in a country where political freedoms and freedoms of expression are restricted. Different universities in the US and the UK have taken different routes towards making themselves world class but all of them have one thing in common - that there is academic freedom for students and lecturers to express their thoughts and views and to organize if and when necessary. Hence, the UUCA needs to be reformed such that it can be part of an overall package of initiatives to improve the level of academic freedom in our public universities. I can imagine that in a situation of greater academic freedom, UM, given its location in KL / PJ, will have greater student activism compared to let's say UUM in Sintok. But both universities will have the opportunity to create an environment which is conducive to academic freedom for both students and academics.

I think some of the moves made by Tok Pa in terms of reforming the UUCA should be applauded. But given some of the restrictions he faces (both internal, within the university system and external, within the constraints of the BN, especially UMNO), I won't be surprised if the amendments to the UUCA won't go far enough, at least for now, to create an environment where students and lecturers can freely express their views and opinions.