MOHE Relaxes Disciplinary Actions, But the Laws of Control Remain Intact

 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.