Lecturer Challenges University’s KPI-Policies: The Judgment in Azlianor v Universiti Teknikal Melaka

 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

The University as an Arbitration Institution – Will it Support Collegial Governance in Public Universities?

Abstract

University Arbitration^[i] is a novel concept developed by a senior judge of the Malaysian Court of Appeal, Justice Datuk Dr Haji Hamid Sultan bin Abu Backer. When implemented, the concept would make radical changes to dispute resolution by arbitration, and equally importantly, to the purposes and role of the university as a social institution. Locating an arbitration tribunal in the university would also strengthen academic freedom and collegial governance which are two essential requirements of a university. The full concept with model rules of procedure governing the new arbitration process is described in a booklet entitled University cum Court Annexed Arbitration.^[ii]

Why annex arbitration to universities?

The concept’s main aim is to democratise arbitration, to offer the advantages of this form of dispute settlement to a larger section of the population, at a cost that is affordable and thorough procedures that are simple. The authors of the concept, with good reasons, believe this can be immediately achieved by annexing the arbitration institution to the university and leveraging on the latter’s resources. There are almost a hundred universities in the country, public and private. With at least one in every state, arbitration institutions can be rapidly established across the country and not only in the main cities. With the right collaboration, locating arbitration centres in universities will also minimise rental and administrative costs. The alignment of the two distinct types of institutions has a unique advantage in that the professoriate, with knowledge from across many disciplines, can be pressed to engage in the arbitral process. One of the acknowledged advantages of the arbitration process is that disputes are resolved by experts on the subject matter of the dispute.

This article examines how an arbitration institution in the university may fulfil an important need for an independent arbitrator to decide on intra-university disputes and foster the strengthening of academic freedom and collegial governance.

The university, to fulfil its role and duties to students and society must be assured of three important attributes – autonomy or freedom from external, especially government interference, a system of collegial governance that ensures the equal participation of the different components[iii] of the university, particularly, the academics and guarantee academic freedom. An independent tribunal within the university or another university will be eminently placed to arbitrate disputes arising between the different components of the university. 

Expanding the Purpose of the University

University arbitration sets to expand the purpose of the university as no other concept has done in recent years. The purpose of the university has always been to teach students, create new knowledge, and serve the community. Annexing an arbitration centre in the university contributes to all three of those traditional purposes. Firstly, arbitration can be taught as a course by itself or as part of a larger programme in the university’s offerings. The arbitration centre can then double as a place for practical training; the university’s research agenda can be enlarged using information generated by the arbitration centre; the arbitration centre with the support of students and academics can serve as a counselling and advisory centre for the local community.

A Short Note on the Different Types of Universities in Malaysia

 In Malaysia, the main legislation on universities, the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA), provides for the creation of two types of universities. The first type (UUCA universities), which includes all public universities, is established under s. 6 of the UUCA. The university thus established is an incorporated entity with all the attributes of a corporation. The second category, formed under s. 5A (2) of the UUCA is only a higher educational institution having the status of a university but is not incorporated. The next type of universities is those established under the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996, (Private universities) which are by far the most numerous. These universities are also not incorporated. Private universities are established, owned, and managed by companies registered under the company’s legislation. The private university operates as a business of the registered company. Polytechnics, institutes of teacher education and other higher education institution all operate under the aegis of the government and are not individually incorporated. A final category includes those higher education institutions established by special legislation such as the University Teknologi Mara (UiTM) established under legislation bearing the same name passed in 1976, and the Akademi Seni Budaya dan Warisan Kebangsaan (ASWARA) established by legislation of the same name in 2006. ASWARA is a statutory body.

In this article, unless otherwise stated, references are to UUCA universities.

Dispute Resolution in the University

The idea of setting up an arbitration centre in the university has the potential to support and enhance collegial governance in UUCA universities, which is an important aspect of academic freedom. The two ideals are important cornerstones of the university and have been so from the time universities were first established.

The UUCA does not expressly articulate either of the traditional values. However, collegial governance may be implied from the way the Act distributes the functions and powers of the university. An important fact that is not often recognised is that the functions and powers are not concentrated in any one single person or group but across many groups and individuals described by the UUCA as Authorities and Officers. The UUCA university is made up of the authorities and officers.[iv] Also called, shared governance, collegial governance is distinct to universities. It means that the academics are not only protected in their employment with the university but also in their right to participate in the management of the university. Collegial governance also involves the recognition of the rights of the different authorities and officers. Academic freedom consists not only of freedom over matters of scholarship but also the way the university is managed.

The UUCA university, although established as a separate legal entity with corporate status, manifests an amalgam of many different interests. These include the interests of the administrators, the interests of faculties, departments and officers of the university, the academics, and other staff, interests of the students, factions within the student body and, finally, the interests of the alumni. Most of these different interests - they may be regarded as internal stakeholders, are represented through the authorities that make up the UUCA university.

The authorities of the university, as defined in the constitution scheduled to the UUCA (the Constitution), include the Board, the Senate, the Management Committee of the University, the Faculties, the Schools, the Centres, the Academies, the Institutes, the Studies Committee, the Selection Committees, the Employee Welfare Committee, the Student Welfare Committee and such other bodies as may be prescribed by Statute as Authorities of the University.  The officers of the university are the Chancellor, Pro-Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, the Heads of Branch Campus, Deans of faculties, Heads of Schools, Centres, Academies, Institutes, the Bursar, The Registrar, the Chief Librarian, the Legal Adviser, and the holder of any office created by a university statute or otherwise. The composition, powers and procedure of the Authorities and officers are prescribed by the Act, the Constitution of the university and by university statutes, which are rules and regulations, made in accordance with the constitution of the public university.

These are not merely administrative divisions; they are a mark of the collegial governance structure of the university where authority is distributed across the divisions. Debate and dissent are vital to the functioning of the collegial system and are norms of the university. The distribution of power across authorities and officers ensure that decision making involves more than one person or one group. These ideals have fallen victim to the hierarchical systems that have been forged on to universities in recent years, mainly through political patronage. University governance has become authoritarian and has replaced the collegial ideal. Undermining the collegial processes have placed at risk academic standards, academic rights, student interests and the very meaning of the university. Academics and other staff, as well as students aggrieved in the processes, have little or no recourse within the UUCA university structure which has no independent authority to hear complaints such as an Ombudsman.

Arbitration

An arbitration centre in the UUCA university may contribute in a significant way to remedy the absence of an independent body to which grievances and disputes can be referred. The model that is proposed requires disputes to be filed in courts as a first step, which may not sit well with the temperament of university personnel. If this preliminary step is modified for intra-university disputes whereby disputants can refer directly to the arbitration institution in the university, the university annexed arbitration institution will play a transforming role in the way universities are managed. Not only will university disputes be resolved efficiently but the tribunals deciding the disputes may be able to develop a clearer understanding of the traditions, laws and regulations surrounding higher education through their accumulated decisions. It is not important that the concept is introduced in all universities. Arbitration centres in a few universities will be able to serve the needs of universities and higher education institutions that do not have such centres.

Private Universities and Colleges

As mentioned earlier these institutions are established under the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996 (Act 555). Private universities established under this Act bear no resemblance to their counterparts established under the UUCA. The complex division of the university into authorities and officers found in the UUCA are not found under Act 555. As private universities are established by companies registered under the Companies Act, the governance of these institutions follow the governance structure of commercial corporations. There is little scope for collegial governance in such universities unless of course, the company decides to implement such a system as a corporate decision. Even then, legal responsibility will still lie with the two main organs of the company, which are the general meeting and the board of directors.

A general survey of reported cases shows that most disputes in private universities centre around questions of employment. In the circumstances, an arbitration centre in the university may not have the same impact on governance as it would in the case of UUCA universities. However, academics in private universities may find that they are entitled to some measure of academic freedom and rights under the regulations issued by the Malaysian Qualifications Agency. Access to an arbitration system may therefore also be of service to academics in private institutions to enforce their rights as academics.

The first arbitration centre is established in MAHSA University, a private university. That fact and the potential of the arbitration centre is worth publicising through a conference or webinar.

---

[i] The full title of the concept is University cum Court Annexed Arbitration.

[ii] The full booklet can be downloaded from www.janablegal.com

[iii] More precisely, the authorities and officers of the university that make up the UUCA university.

[iv] The view held by many, that the Vice-Chancellor, the Board and the Senate have unfettered power over the affairs of the university does not fit the model of administration adopted in the UUCA. Power is not concentrated in any one authority of the university or in any single officer of the university.