KUALA LUMPUR: Giving students and academics greater freedom to think, debate, teach and conduct research should be at the heart of Malaysia’s higher education reforms.
This direction, according to Academy of Sciences Malaysia Fellow Datuk Dr Omar Shawkataly, should be the basis for education reforms following Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s announcement to abolish the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971.
Omar said the purpose of the reform should be to create universities where students and academics have the space to develop their thinking.
“University is not a place where students go to seek knowledge, because if they want knowledge, they don’t need to go to universities. They can read textbooks, journals, and nowadays they have the internet.
“But of course, on the internet, you get more information rather than knowledge.
“Universities are a place where we train our students to think, so when they graduate, they can put together the facts, patterns and principles they see around them and come up with a conclusion that is doable, logical, and doesn’t contradict the laws of science or the laws of nature. That is education.”
Omar said this was why universities needed to give students sufficient freedom to develop their own views, discuss and debate, and agree or disagree.
He said students should also be allowed to organise themselves.
Omar said universities should avoid excessive control over students and allow them to make decisions for themselves.
He recalled his own experience allowing student organisations to organise events and invite speakers from different political backgrounds.
“I allow my students, student associations, student bodies to organise their own events, and they can invite whomever they like, whether pro-government or opposition,” said Omar.
“All we asked for was that they inform the university when senior government figures were invited so that university representatives could receive them appropriately.”
Omar said this was part of allowing students to experience the responsibilities that come with freedom.
He said the same principle should apply to academic staff, arguing that academics should have the freedom to teach and conduct research in their areas of expertise.
When it was first introduced in 1971, the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 was a law meant to govern the establishment, governance and administration of public universities and university colleges in Malaysia.
However, following a rise in student activism in the country during the 1970s, especially in 1974, the Act was amended, restricting student activism. It also expanded the government’s oversight of public universities.
Omar also referred to restrictions under the Act which affected the ability of academic staff to speak publicly.
Omar said academic freedom was necessary for universities to develop a genuine academic environment.
He also raised concerns about the pressure faced by academic staff, including issues surrounding key performance indicators and promotion.
Omar said staff welfare and promotion systems needed to be examined as part of the wider reform.
He warned that excessive control could ultimately undermine the purpose of a university.
“If we don’t give them space, they cannot think. They will not develop to be good scholars, good workers, or even good citizens of the country,” said Omar.
Omar said students and academic staff should be regarded as the two most important components of a university.
He said both groups needed freedom to fulfil their roles.
“These two components must have certain freedom: the freedom of teaching, the freedom of researching, and also for the students, the freedom of learning and the learning environment.”
For students, he said this meant allowing them to develop through discussion and disagreement rather than trying to control their thinking.
Omar added that universities should ultimately prepare students not just for employment, but also to contribute to society.
“At the end of the day, we want them to be good citizens, to serve the nation in whatever way they can.”
He also questioned whether excessive control of academic staff was compatible with the purpose of higher education.
“Do we want our academic staff to be robots?”
