This article was first published in Aliran on 28 August 2026 here https://m.aliran.com/thinking-allowed-online/mohe-relaxes-discipline-but-the-laws-of-control-remain-intact
The Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE)
announced today (28 August 2026) that it has begun implementing immediate
measures to strengthen students’ freedom of speech and freedom of association,
in line with the statement made by the Prime Minister, during the Forum
Ilmuwan Malaysia MADANI (FIM) Series 13 on the abolition of the Universities
and University Colleges Act 1971 [Act 30] (AUKU).
The statement is a
welcome acknowledgement of the Prime Minister’s direction that Malaysian
universities must move towards a position where student rights, academic
freedom, and institutional autonomy are treated as constitutional norms rather
than administrative privileges.
The announcement of an
immediate suspension of disciplinary proceedings related to student speech and
peaceful assembly is significant: it recognises that the existing enforcement culture
has long been inconsistent with democratic principles.
However, the statement
contains a fundamental contradiction that must be addressed if reform or even
the interim measures are to be credible.
MOHE declares that it
is “committed to ensuring that improvements to student rights are
implemented without waiting for the full legislative process to conclude.”
It lists the freedoms of association, organising activities, expression,
communication, publication as rights that can be acted upon immediately.
Yet the same statement
concludes by asserting that these freedoms “must be exercised responsibly
and in accordance with the law.”
This is precisely the
problem.
The phrase “in
accordance with the law” refers to the very legal and regulatory framework — including
Act 605, university statutes, and disciplinary rules — that has historically
restricted student freedoms. And critically, AUKU is not the only legislation
that controls student expression and association. Students and academics remain
subject to nearly 20 other laws, including:
- The Sedition Act 1948
- The Printing Presses and Publications Act
1984
- The Communications and Multimedia Act 1948
- Various public order, assembly, and
security laws and regulations
Unless there is a
blanket immunity for students and academics in the exercise of academic
freedom, the repeal of AUKU will only address a small portion of the
restrictive legal environment. The machinery of control remains intact. A
moratorium on disciplinary proceedings, even if this can legally be
implemented, does not dismantle the underlying framework that enables
overreach; it merely pauses one part of it. The offender may still be charged
in a court of law.
Thus, MOHE
simultaneously expands rights and reinscribes the conditions that limit those
rights. This internal contradiction weakens the force of the announcement and explains
why students, academics, and civil society have consistently argued that
abolishing AUKU alone is insufficient. Without structural reform of the broader
legal ecosystem, “responsible freedom” risks becoming a euphemism for continued
administrative discretion.
The Prime Minister has
articulated a rights‑driven vision for higher education. To implement that
vision, MOHE must move beyond symbolic gestures and confront the deeper
governance and legal structures that have constrained academic freedom for
decades. Anything less will reproduce the same culture of control under a
different name.

