Home 
News Legal/General News Strong indication UUCA’s time for an overhaul has come
News Legal/General News Strong indication UUCA’s time for an overhaul has come 
| Strong indication UUCA’s time for an overhaul has come |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, 09 November 2011 10:31am | |
 ©The Star (Used by permission)THE landmark decision by the Court of Appeal that Section 15(5)(a) of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA) is unconstitutional and violates freedom of expression has provided the opportunity for our lawmakers to do the right and necessary thing. It comes soon after the Government's commitment to repeal and reform some of the most unpopular laws in our statute books, including the Internal Security Act, as outlined in the Prime Minister's Malaysia Day message in September. The “nudge” from the court is certainly in tune with the transformation agenda of the government of the day. And the voices that we hear, from all sides of the political divide, are a strong indication that the UUCA's time for an overhaul has come. While the Government can still decide to bring the matter to the Federal Court for final adjudication, it should bear in mind that the verdict could go against it at the apex court, which would be a double-whammy. As Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah puts it: “If the Government does not make an appeal it will be our moral victory. “We recognise the views of young people as we acknowledge Section 15 of the UUCA is no longer relevant.” The issue here is freedom of expression. And, as Justice Mohd Hishamudin Mohd Yunus in his judgment puts it: “Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity.” Some of our politicians who continue to live in the dark ages may disagree and feel that restrictions upon our young undergraduates are necessary. But student activism, here or anywhere else in the world, must be put in the right perspective, not only in terms of the numbers involved, but also in the causes they are prepared to stand up for. Our country will do well when we listen to their voices. Since the Act came into being, our students have basically been told that they are at the universities solely to get their degrees. It is strange that they are not allowed to generate critical thinking through political expression and activism when leading universities around the world leave all channels of ideas open to students in order to cultivate their intellectual independence. Ironically, even students doing political science have to toe the line. The law in practice at the campus level has reached ridiculous levels that even putting up a poster requires the signature of the authorities. Our lawmakers must be sensitive to the signals that the appellate court has sent out. Even the dissenting judge in the 2-1 judgment made it clear that “by way of obiter, Parliament may wish to consider an amendment to s.15(5) in particular and the whole Act in general so as to bring about a repeal or review thereof. “This measure can only be brought about by legislative acts. The making or unmaking of the law is a matter within the exclusive domain of Parliament, while the Courts are entrusted with the responsibility for interpretation of the law.” The ball is now squarely in the court of Parliament. Our MPs should ask themselves why they can be an MP or a state assemblyman at the age of 21, meaning they are fully involved in the political process, when that same right is not allowed once you are in campus. We can get married at 21 without parental consent For minors who want to get married, they can still do so with parental consent if the male is 18 and the female is 16. And imagine the responsibilities of parenting, which may even be tougher than politics. One can get a motorcycle riding licence at the age of 16 and a car driving licence at 17. Imagine too the responsibilities involved in being allowed on the road at such a young age. At the end of the day, the restriction placed on citizens in universities does not make much sense. Although many have campaigned against such provisions since the Act came into being in 1971, this has been hampered by the lack of political will. Now the time has come, and we should do the only necessary thing. The court of public opinion would have it no other way. Set as favourite Share Email This Comments (0)
 Write comment
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Circular No 109/2012: Be a Part of the Bar Council Constitutional Law Committee
