Webinar: Consumer Protection and Higher Education – A Summary
by
Prof. Dr. Hj. Hazman Shah Bin Abdullah
The talk by Mr. Menon on Consumer
Protection and Higher Education should be part of the high education
management development scheme by AKEPT. It is not often that we get to listen
to a higher education law expert who has vast top-level high ed experience. For
all those who speak about a student-centered education, of students as customers
whose needs HEIs must satisfy, Menon’s talk would have made them if indeed the
students are treated fairly in the various higher education laws. Indeed, it is
his opinion as many others would share, that students’ rights as citizens are
diminished the moment, they enter the halls of the academe.
The following is a summary of the points made in the
webinar.
1.
The student-HEI relationship is founded on a contract.
HEIs are required to provide students an education, regardless of the level, which
is based on the minimum standards set by authorised agencies like Malaysian Qualification
Agency and the various professional bodies.
2.
The Consumer Protection Act 1999 (CPA) has in
major ways strengthened the contractual position by laying out ways in which
the contractual terms imposed by HEIs can be challenged and rendered void.
3.
Menon explored some legal technicalities like
whether education is commerce, trade, and whether education is a service; is
the whole of the HEI a trade or it is
just some parts of its activities which are patently commercial.
4.
A key issue explored is the duty of care owed to
students when delivering the programme. Do the HEIs and their employees owe
this duty to students? How does this affect their right to seek redress if the
HEIs or their agents fail in their duty? Although courts have eschewed
evaluating the sufficiency of the service provided to the students, there are new
grounds to expect a higher level of responsibility, accountability, and
professionalism on the part of HEIs and their employees. Some recent cases have
raised questions, in some circumstances about the culpability of HEIs and their
employees when students fail to complete their programmes.
5.
Another key point he repeatedly made is the role
of the accreditation standards issued by MQA in establishing and understanding
the duty of care to be exercised by HEIs. HEIs which fall short of these
standards may be potentially culpable for not providing the service contracted
with the students.
6.
The talk also dealt with the requirement that under
the implied terms imposed by the CPA, the HEI’s service or product must be fit
for purpose. This requirement raises plentiful of risks for programmes designed
and delivered by HEIs. Are they fit for the purpose? This opens a pandora’s box
in higher education. What is the purpose; whose purpose; how to balance
multiple purposes and myriad other questions.