OCTOBER 18 — I refer to National Human Rights Society’s (Hakam) article titled “University Senate cannot revoke degree of protesting student“.
With utmost respect, Hakam’s statement is misconceived in law.
A brief history of Universiti Malaya (UM) can be seen in Chang-Da Wan’s The History of University Autonomy in Malaysia, which was written for Policy IDEAS No. 40.
The author, who holds a DPhil. from the University of Oxford and currently the Deputy Director at the National Higher Education Research Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) wrote as follow:
“In 1947 the Carr-Saunders Commission had recommended that the King Edward VII College of Medicine be merged with Raffles College which resulted in the establishment of the University of Malaya in Singapore in 1949. A second campus was set up later on in Kuala Lumpur. These two campuses eventually separated in 1962 into the University of Singapore in Singapore and the University of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur respectively. When it was first established in Singapore the University of Malaya (UM) was self-governed and had its own Constitution. First with the University of Malaya Ordinance 1949 and subsequently the University of Malaya Act 1961.”
The University of Malaya Act 1961 (UMA), which was revised in 2007, is indeed the Act that establishes UM. And it is also this Act that provides for the Constitution of UM, as amended from time to time [section 2 and Schedule to UMA].
With the coming into force of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA) on April, 30 1971, UM was deemed to be a university established under UUCA [section 25 of UUCA].
I therefore agree with Hakam that UM is governed by UUCA.
However, the Constitution of UM is not as prescribed by UUCA but by UMA [sections 2 and 3 of UMA]. This may explain why UM’s Constitution of 1961 was replaced in 1972 vide PU(A) 104/1972 following the deeming provision of section 25 of UUCA.
UM’s Constitution of 1972 has since been replaced. The Constitution of UM is now as prescribed by another amending statute, namely PU(A) 107/1997.
Contrary to Hakam’s statement on section 8 of UUCA, the provision does not provide “for adoption of a prescribed Constitution, which reigns supreme.”
Section 8 states that the Constitution of a University shall contain provisions for all the matters set out in the First Schedule. Simply put, the Constitution of a University shall substantially be in the form as set out in the First Schedule.
Therefore, if at any time the Constitution does not contain provisions set out in the First Schedule, the University’s Board shall take such steps as may be necessary for giving effect to the provisions or for removing the inconsistent provisions in the Constitution.
Can the Constitution of a University contain more than the matters set out in the First Schedule of UUCA?
The short answer can be seen in UM’s Constitution of 1997, specifically in Clause 56(2) where “scandalous conduct” is defined as including wilfully giving any information or document which is false or misleading in any material particular to the University for the purpose of obtaining such degree, diploma, certificate or other academic distinction [emphasis added].
Thus, “scandalous conduct” under the Constitution of UM is wider than Clause 53(2) of the First Schedule of UUCA which was referred to by Hakam.
It remains to be seen whether the conduct of the graduate who staged a protest during UM’s convocation ceremony on Monday is scandalous.
Having said this, I would think that Universities are not only bound by their respective Constitutions and the relevant law, but also by the rules of natural justice.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
