KUALA LUMPUR, May 11 — Five Universiti Malaya (UM) students who were penalised last year for their involvement in a talk on campus featuring Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim filed for a judicial review today against their punishments.
Student activist Fahmi Zainol, who was suspended along with fellow activist Safwan Shamsuddin for organising the talk, confirmed with Malay Mail Online that the five filed their cases in Shah Alam today.
“Five of the eight UM students have filed their case in the Shah Alam High Court after signing our affidavit in front of Commissioner of Oaths, Woon Mee Chin,” he said in a text message.
He explained that of the original eight students who were hauled up for a disciplinary hearing with the university’s disciplinary committee, two escaped punishment after their charges were dropped.
Apart from Fahmi, the four who filed for the review today were Safwan, who is also Pro-Mahasiswa chairman, Haw Yu Hong, Adam Fistival Wilfred and UM’s Muslim Students Association president Khairol Najib Hashim.
Student Nur Syamimi Munirah, who was also punished along with the five, abstained from challenging the university’s decision, Fahmi confirmed.
UM had on December 9 last year, suspended Fahmi and Safwan and slapped fines on Haw, Adam Fistival, Khairul Anwar and Nur Syamimi for inviting Anwar, a UM alumnus, to speak in campus in October without the university administration’s approval.
Fahmi received the harshest sentence with a two-semester suspension and a RM600 fine, while Safwan was suspended for a month and fined RM300.
The university only issued a “strong caution” against Khairol Najib.
In the December decision, another student, Abraham Au had the charges against him dropped.
Khairul Anwar, on the other hand, had his charges dropped this year following an appeal with the university against the decision.
Lawyer New Sin Yew is representing the five UM8 members in the civil suit.
In their affidavit, the five named UM’s disciplinary committee, UM’s disciplinary appeals committee, UM’s board of directors, the institution’s treasurer and UM as respondents, claiming that UM’s disciplinary proceedings against them were unfair, arbitrary and capricious.
