KUALA LUMPUR: The higher education overhaul must give academics greater freedom to speak and protect them from undue interference, said scholars ahead of the planned repeal of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (AUKU).
Universiti Utara Malaysia deputy vice-chancellor Professor Dr Azizudin Md Sani said the move presented an opportunity to strengthen academic freedom and clarify lecturers’ roles in contributing to public discourse.
Azizudin, a political analyst, said academics should be able to discuss current affairs, including sensitive subjects, without restrictions, provided their views were grounded in expertise.
“As a political scientist, commenting on current affairs is within my field. If I do not speak, who else will?”
He said requirements for academics to seek permission before commenting publicly could discourage them from sharing their knowledge.
“Before giving views, lecturers have to ask the vice-chancellor . This has made many academics unwilling or afraid to speak.”
Azizudin said greater academic freedom should be reflected in the laws and regulations governing universities.
“This of course, must be in line with Article 10 of the Federal Constitution on freedom of speech with responsibility.”
He said harmonising higher education laws would also help establish a coherent framework recognising academics’ responsibilities beyond teaching, including research, writing and public engagement.
The reforms, he added, should address the roles of students, academics and university administrators, rather than focusing on any single group.
Universiti Malaya Associate Professor Dr Khoo Ying Hooi said repealing AUKU alone would not guarantee academic freedom unless accompanied by wider legal and institutional safeguards.
She said academics faced restrictions not only through legislation, but also internal university regulations governing teaching, research and public expression.
Khoo cited the Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 (Act 605) as another law requiring attention, particularly because of its implications for academic staff.
Drawing on her experience of being investigated by police over her writing in 2015, she said universities must have mechanisms to protect academics facing external scrutiny.
“I think the protection mechanism is one of the areas that is missing totally.”
Khoo said academics and students facing investigations often relied on support from outside their universities.
She said universities should be prepared to defend academic freedom without waiting for political figures or external parties to intervene.
Khoo also called for clear national principles of academic freedom applicable to both public and private universities.
“It doesn’t matter if it’s a public or private university, but at least there’s a benchmark on how we define academic freedom.”
She said such principles must accommodate difficult and uncomfortable discussions, rather than allowing sensitive subjects to become grounds for restricting academic debate.
Khoo also called for greater transparency in the legislative reform process, including the involvement of academics and other stakeholders in shaping the proposed framework.
She said university autonomy should extend beyond financial independence to include institutions’ ability to govern themselves without undue interference. However, she stressed that universities’ authority to establish internal rules must remain subject to overarching principles safeguarding academic freedom.