A Lecturer Challenges Unilateral KPI-Driven Policies
Azlianor v UTeM[1]
is a rare instance of a university lecturer resorting to legal action to challenge
a university’s exercise of its power over its academic staff.
The High Court,
however, dismissed her application after the university amended and reissued
the circulars, rendering the dispute “academic”[2].
Because of this, the judgment may not bind future cases in any strong way.
However, despite its limited
precedential weight, the judgment reveals how Malaysian courts currently
understand university autonomy, academic regulation, and the governance
structures created by the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA).
By treating the matter as an administrative dispute, the Court missed an
opportunity to examine the special character of the UUCA university as a self‑governing
academic community where decisions are made through collegial processes, unlike
government departments or other statutory bodies.
The applicant, a
senior lecturer at UTeM, applied for judicial review of the university’s
decision to impose new KPI requirements, including mandatory publication in
indexed journals such as Scopus and Web of Science.
She applied to the
High Court for judicial review of the university’s decision on the long‑established
grounds of irrationality, unreasonableness, and procedural impropriety, with
the further allegation that the changes were introduced mid‑year for immediate
implementation in that same year. As stated earlier, the High Court dismissed
her application.
Historically, judicial
review was only concerned with the decision‑making process where the impugned
decision is flawed on the ground of procedural impropriety, i.e., the decision
did not follow prescribed procedures. However, over the years, our courts have
made inroads into this field of administrative law. The Federal Court in a
landmark case[3],
held that the decision of inferior tribunals, such as the authorities of a
university may be reviewed on the grounds of “illegality”, “irrationality” and
“proportionality”, not only on the decision-making
process but also on the merits, thus
allowing the courts to scrutinise a decision not only for process but also for
substance. The upshot of this approach is that an application for judicial
review can now examine both procedure and substance of an official decision‑making
body or person.
Any person, such as
the senior lecturer in this case, who is adversely affected by the decision, action,
or omission in relation to the exercise of the public duty or function is entitled
to apply for a judicial review.
Summary of the
Applicant’s Case
The applicant argued
that the two KPI circulars were procedurally improper because they bypassed the
Majlis Bersama Jabatan (MBJ), the staff–management forum established
under JPA’s 2020 service circular. She contended that the lack of engagement
and consultation rendered the circulars invalid and further, that they contravened
sections 8 and 26 of the UUCA and section 4(r) of the university’s
Constitution.
Substantively, she
argued that the mandatory Scopus publication requirement was unreasonable,
ignored lecturers’ many other duties, and imposed a punitive score cap of
79.99%. She also highlighted procedural defects: the minutes approving PP
11/2024 were issued after the circular took effect, and PP 23/2024 was not
approved by the University’s Board as required. Finally, she asserted that the
circulars violated her constitutional rights and imposed an excessive workload,
with an unrealistic nine‑month deadline to produce an indexed article.
Autonomy Is Not the
Whole Story
The Court emphasised
the autonomy of the university and the Vice‑Chancellor. Autonomy is indeed a
core principle: it protects universities from political interference. But
autonomy is not the only principle embedded in the UUCA. The Act’s Schedule
Constitution distributes authority across a wide range of bodies, such as the
Board, the Senate, faculties, centres, committees, reflecting a model of
governance built on shared deliberation.
This is not
accidental. A university is a community of scholars. Its academic policies are
meant to emerge from discussion, critique, and collective judgment. Collegial decision-making
is therefore not an abstract ideal; it underlies the manner in which Malaysian
public universities are governed.
While the Court
emphasized the autonomy of the university and the Vice-Chancellor, this
external independence is only one facet of the UUCA framework. Autonomy is a
foundational principle that shields universities from political interference,
yet it does not grant unchecked administrative power, even to the
Vice-Chancellor. The UUCA’s Scheduled Constitution explicitly distributes
authority across a diverse matrix of statutory bodies—including the Board, the
Senate, faculties, centres, and committees. This deliberate statutory design
establishes a system of checks and balances, codifying a model of governance
rooted in shared deliberation rather than top-down executive command.
This distribution of
power is a clear recognition that a university is fundamentally a community of
scholars. Academic and institutional policies are legally and structurally
designed to emerge from rigorous peer discussion, critique, and collective
judgment. Collegial decision-making underlies the lawful governance of
Malaysian public universities, ensuring that institutional autonomy from
external actors is matched by internal democracy and shared academic
responsibility. The UUCA Schedule Constitution even provides for the resolution
of disputes between the Authorities of the University (or between an officer
and an Authority) regarding the scope of their powers, functions, or
jurisdiction may be referred to the Minister, who may determine the matter or
appoint an independent Dispute Resolution Panel.[4]
Azlianor’s complaint
that the KPI circulars were issued without discussion goes to the heart of the
collegial principle. Even if the Majlis Bersama Jabatan (MBJ) was not the
correct forum, her grievance was fundamentally about the absence of collegial
processes. KPI circulars that directly affect academic work — teaching,
research, publication — should logically be deliberated by the Senate. The
Court did not consider this. By treating the university as a hierarchical
bureaucracy, the judgment ignored the collegial foundations of academic
governance.
The Scopus
Requirement: A Missed Opportunity for Substantive Review
The Court accepted
UTeM’s justification that requiring publication in Scopus‑indexed journals
would improve institutional performance. But it did so without asking a basic
question: Does publication in Scopus truly measure academic quality or
excellence?
Research from the
National Higher Education Research Institute (IPPTN)[5]
suggests otherwise. As its Issues Paper notes, citation‑based metrics are
“simply a measure of visibility (not necessarily positive) and misleadingly
used as a proxy for impact.” A paper may be widely cited because it is controversial
or flawed; high‑quality work in niche fields may receive few citations. Scopus
measures attention, not quality.
The IPPTN paper also
warns that once a metric becomes a performance indicator, “it ceases to be a
good measure.” Academics naturally shift their behaviour to maximise the metric
rather than the underlying academic purpose. A mandatory Scopus requirement
risks encouraging quantity over substance, salami‑slicing of publications, and
choosing topics that are “publishable” rather than meaningful.
More troublingly,
global indexing systems are owned by commercial entities such as Elsevier and
Clarivate, which have “replaced the peer/expert colleagues in deciding what excellence is.” In other words, the KPI outsources the definition of academic
excellence to private corporations, a move that sits uneasily with the
university’s mission to advance knowledge for society.
Under the expanded
scope of judicial review recognised by Malaysian courts, the High Court could
have examined not only the procedure but also the substance of the KPI. It
could have asked whether a one‑size‑fits‑all publication requirement is
realistic across disciplines, or whether it distorts academic priorities. These
questions were not explored.
What Makes a
University a University
These omissions matter
because they touch on the very nature of the university. A university is not
merely a place that grants degrees or produces research outputs. It is a
distinctive kind of institution built on shared inquiry, intellectual independence,
and collective responsibility for the advancement of knowledge.
Its governance
structures such as the Senate, academic boards, committees, exist to ensure
that academic decisions are made through deliberation among scholars. When
these structures are bypassed, the university begins to resemble a government
department: efficient perhaps but stripped of the intellectual culture that
defines its purpose.
A Narrow View of
the University
In the end, the
Court’s decision affirms autonomy but overlooks collegiality. It upholds
managerial authority but ignores the academic community. It treats the
university as a public agency rather than a self‑governing institution
dedicated to knowledge.
If this trend
continues, Malaysian universities risk losing the very qualities that make them
universities.
The Azlianor
case was an opportunity to reaffirm the principles of collegial governance. It
was not taken. The responsibility now falls to academics, policymakers, and
civil society to insist that our universities remain what they were meant to
be: autonomous, yes, but autonomous in the service of a collegial, self‑governing
pursuit of knowledge.
[1] [2025]
MLRHU 1902
[2] A court decides a case is academic when the underlying
controversy has disappeared, the remedy sought is no longer meaningful, or the
court’s intervention would be purely theoretical rather than resolving a live
dispute.
[3] R Rama Chandran v. Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor 1996] 1 MELR
71; 1996] 1 MLRA 725; 1997] 1 MLJ 145.
[4] See Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (Act 30), First
Schedule, section 33.
[5] https://ipptn.usm.my/images/issues_paper/05_IPPTN_Issues_Paper-Quality_Excellence_and_Impact.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment
I would love to hear your comments.