OCTOBER 18 — It is an undisputed fact that education is the keystone to an opportunity to employment which would then, with all things being equal, provide for a reasonable livelihood for a person.
The term “livelihood” as been incorporated into the term ‘life’ guaranteed under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution.
Article 5 (1) of the Federal Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.
In 1996, the Court of Appeal in the case of Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan (1996) 1 MLJ 261after making reference to the Indian Supreme Court cases of Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corp AIR 1986 SWC 180 and Delhi Transport Corp v DTC Mazdoor Congress & Ors (1991) Supp 2 SCC 600, essentially and collectively came out with the following principles:
1. The expression ‘life’ appearing in Article 5(1) does not refer to the mere existence.
2. It incorporates all those facets that are an integral part of life itself and those matters which go to form the quality of life.
3. An equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood.
4. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation.
5. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live.
6. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life.
7. Deprive a person of a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life.
8. The right to livelihood therefore cannot hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority.
Having appreciated the above, let us now come back to an issue which has been causing some concern lately.
Universiti Malaya is an education institute. Holding back a student’s degree after that student has completed a degree programme, is probably the biggest mistake any education institute can do.
Therefore, if a university, whose main nature of existence is for education withholds a student’s degree for reasons unrelated to his degree programme, then it has essentially deprived that student of his opportunity for employment which would then deprive him of a livelihood, and therefore depriving him of life which is guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.
* Puthan Perumal is an Advocate & Solicitor of the High Court of Malaya.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
