Auku: Kebebasan bersuara boleh diperbaiki, autonomi perlu difikirkan

In a significant move, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim announced during the 2026 PKR National Congress that the University and College Unions Act 1971 (Auku) will be repealed, described as a notable moment. For those who have long championed reform in higher education, it is seen as fulfilling a long-awaited promise. The desire to improve upon this is worthy of support, and the writer among those advocating for the amendment.

This approach is indeed correct. However, support for reform should not prevent us from asking more nuanced questions about whether the reasons cited are proportionate to the actions taken. Because in the ongoing discourse, two distinct issues are often conflated: the freedom of student and academic speech on one hand, and the autonomy of university institutions on the other.

Both are important, but confusing them is a mistake that could lead to making important decisions based on minor reasons. The question of freedom is largely resolved, but concern about the freedom of student speech is a reality, and justified. However, it must be acknowledged honestly that it is only a partial resolution. Amendments in 2012 opened the door for political involvement outside the campus.

The subsequent amendment of 2014 allowed political activities on campus. The next amendment, in 2024, transferred student disciplinary power from the vice chancellor to a committee, and permitted student bodies to manage their own funds and hold meetings. This means that if the remaining dissatisfaction of students revolves around freedom of speech and unity, it can and should be resolved through further, more decisive amendments.

This is the right approach. However, support for reform should not hinder us from questioning more subtle issues such as whether the cited reasons are proportionate to the actions taken. Because in this discourse, two separate issues are often mixed: the freedom of student and academic speech on one hand, and the autonomy of university institutions on the other.

Both are crucial, yet confusing them is a mistake that could lead to making important decisions based on minor reasons. The issue of freedom is largely solved, but concern about the freedom of student speech is a reality and justified. However, it must be acknowledged honestly that it is only a partial resolution. The amendment in 2012 opened the door for political involvement outside the campus.

The subsequent amendment in 2014 allowed political activities on campus. The latest amendment in 2024 transferred student disciplinary power from the vice chancellor to a committee, and permitted student bodies to manage their own funds and hold meetings. This means that if the remaining dissatisfaction of students revolves around freedom of speech and unity, it can and should be resolved through further, more decisive amendments.

This is the correct approach. However, support for reform should not prevent us from questioning more nuanced questions about whether the reasons cited are proportionate to the actions taken. Because in this discourse, two separate issues are often mixed: the freedom of student and academic speech on one hand, and the autonomy of university institutions on the other.

Both are important, but confusing them is a mistake that could lead to making important decisions based on minor reasons. The question of freedom is largely resolved, but concern about the freedom of student speech is a reality and justified. However, it must be acknowledged honestly that it is only a partial resolution. The amendment in 2012 opened the door for political involvement outside the campus.

The subsequent amendment in 2014 allowed political activities on campus. The latest amendment in 2024 transferred student disciplinary power from the vice chancellor to a committee, and permitted student bodies to manage their own funds and hold meetings. This means that if the remaining dissatisfaction of students revolves around freedom of speech and unity, it can and should be resolved through further, more decisive amendments.

This is the right approach. However, support for reform should not hinder us from questioning more nuanced questions about whether the reasons cited are proportionate to the actions taken. Because in this discourse, two separate issues are often mixed: the freedom of student and academic speech on one hand, and the autonomy of university institutions on the other.

Both are crucial, yet confusing them is a mistake that could lead to making important decisions based on minor reasons. The issue of freedom is largely solved, but concern about the freedom of student speech is a reality and justified. However, it must be acknowledged honestly that it is only a partial resolution. The amendment in 2012 opened the door for political involvement outside the campus.

The subsequent amendment in 2014 allowed political activities on campus. The latest amendment in 2024 transferred student disciplinary power from the vice chancellor to a committee, and permitted student bodies to manage their own funds and hold meetings. This means that if the remaining dissatisfaction of students revolves around freedom of speech and unity, it can and should be resolved through further, more decisive amendments.

This is the correct approach. However, support for reform should not prevent us from questioning more subtle issues such as whether the cited reasons are proportionate to the actions taken. Because in this discourse, two separate issues are often mixed: the freedom of student and academic speech on one hand, and the autonomy of university institutions on the other.

Both are important, but confusing them is a mistake that could lead to making important decisions based on minor reasons.