Appointment to Universiti Malaya Board Sparks Controversy

 Appointment to Universiti Malaya Board Sparks Controversy

The appointment of a former student of the university to the board of Universiti Malaya sparked a broad range of responses on social media, online news sites, and chat groups of academics. Putting aside the vitriol, the racist remarks, and the personal attacks on the young man, one of the causes of the annoyance was that the appointment was political and that the appointee was too young for that position. Interestingly, the criticisms were targeted mostly at the appointee, not so much the Minister who was responsible for the appointment. University board appointments are matters of public interest and public scrutiny of the appointments will uphold good governance of universities and greater care taken in selecting the right people for the position. In this short blog, we talk about the role of the university board, the profile/composition of the board, the type of skills they must possess, and how they are appointed. We also show a chart showing the current composition of the board of the universities established under the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (the Act)

The University Board

Under the Act, the university board is the highest governing body at the university, overseeing all aspects of the university from finances to student disciplinary rules and even over some academic matters such as the appointment of staff. The extensive powers vested in the university are exercisable only by the board although there are limitations to how the power is exercised. First, the board must recognize the senate’s exclusive jurisdiction over academic matters and must avoid intruding into those powers. If there is a conflict between the board and the senate, there are provisions in the Act for the dispute to be referred to the Minister. Next, the board must recognize the principles of collegial governance that are integral to the Act. Unlike the boards of commercial corporations which have control over the entire company, the university board’s powers over the different constituents of the university such as faculties, institutes, centres, and even officers such as deans and heads of centres are limited by the powers and functions designated to those constituents. It will be misleading to describe the university’s governance structure as bicameral without at the same time mentioning the distribution of powers over the other constituents. In the nomenclature of the Act, the board is only one of many authorities established by the Act.

The Functions of the Board

Notwithstanding the limitations referred to, the functions ascribed to the board are extensive. The Act requires it to provide strategic planning-oversight of the educational character and mission of the University; it must promote efficient and effective management and provide an overall review of university operations; it is required to develop links with the community, corporate sector, and industry and finally foster global linkages and internationalization in higher education and research. As if these were not complex enough, in 1996, additional powers were vested in the board of a commercial nature. The 1996 reform of higher education laws gave the university extensive commercial powers that entitle the board to invest in shares, form partnerships, joint ventures and set up subsidiary corporations with commercial objectives. These powers are as extensive as those exercisable by any corporate business organization. Considering the board’s wide powers and the statutory expectations cast on it, it is obvious that great care must be shown in making appointments to the board and that the appointees are able to execute the statutory expectations. For this, the composition of the board must reflect the different functions ascribed to it. This is where the Act fails. In amending the Act to give the university those commercial powers, no attempt was made to change the statutory composition of the board to support the wider powers conferred on the university.

Membership of the University Board

The membership of the board as mandated by the Act is as follows.

i          A Chairman;

ii         The Vice-Chancellor;

iii       Two officers of the public service;

iv       One person to represent the community at the place where the University is located;

v         One professor of the University elected by the Senate from amongst the members mentioned in paragraph 17(d); and

vi       Five persons comprising three persons from the private sector, one person from the alumni of the University and one other person from within or without the University who, in the opinion of the Minister, have the knowledge and experience which would be of assistance to the Board.

vii     The Deputy Vice-Chancellors, Registrar, Bursar, and Legal Adviser shall be ex-officio members of the Board but shall not be entitled to vote at the meetings of the Board.

With respect, the prescribed profiles do not match the legislative powers and functions of the board.

Appointments to the university board

The powers of appointment to the board of directors are vested in the minister. Obviously, to comply with the statutory prescriptions, any appointment made by the minister must ensure that the appointee fits into the shape of the composition laid down by the Act. It is open to an argument that if a board is not constituted as legally prescribed, any power it exercises or decisions it makes may also be flawed and be challenged in a court.

Further, the minister is also bound by s. 4A of the Act to appoint a committee to advise in the appointment of a qualified and suitable person to the board. It may be worth reproducing the section in full to emphasize its provision.

4A.  For the purpose of selecting a qualified and suitable person for the post of Vice-Chancellor or for any other post to which the Minister has the power to appoint under this Act, the Minister shall, from time to time, appoint a committee to advise him on such appointment.

A recent decision of the High Court has held that the minister’s actions under the section are open to judicial review.

Current Appointments

In conclusion, what is clearly needed is greater transparency and observation of the law in making such appointments. Otherwise, public confidence will be lost in how our universities are managed. The attached chart tells a woeful tale of how appointments have been made without any considerations given to ethnic or gender diversity in the appointment of directors.