Even before the government announced a review of the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA), academics like Dr Azmi Sharom were already underlining the critical need for academic independence and freedom in Malaysian universities. The 37-year-old is law associate professor at Universiti Malaya, and has been teaching in the country's oldest university since 1990. Far from being just an academic and an expert on environmental law, he is also a writer who has spoken out on issues of national interest. He speaks to JACQUELINE ANN SURIN about academic freedom, the quality of students, and Islam in Malaysia.

theSun: Let's talk about your open letter to Datuk Mustapa (Mohamed, when he was made Higher Education Minister). What were some of the points you raised about producing 'world-class universities', and have any of these been taken up in any way?

I raised four points, basically. Um, the first one was, the number of universities which they were creating at the time, um, I thought it was a bit ridiculous to promise universities as a political reward. Simply because it needs more planning than that. That was the first point.

The second point was with regards to, and it's related to the first, the nature of the university, it has to be elitist. It sounds awful, but if you want the universities to produce excellent students and if you want the universities to produce excellent research, then it has to be elitist in nature in the sense of who you bring in and how many you bring in.

So, with regards to who you bring in, you should bring in the best in both staff and students. And with regards to numbers, student numbers shouldn't be too high. Because once that happens, then it becomes a teaching institution, alright. And so the other elements of research and publication will suffer, ok. And also, when you have large numbers, even the teaching will suffer because you cannot have the intimate tutorial and the question-and-answer, that kind of stuff, ya. So, that was my second point.

My third point was the laws. The restrictive laws which are used in universities, primarily the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) for students and for staff, I raised the Statutory Bodies Discipline and Surcharge Act. So these two things, from my point of view, place too much control on what you can or cannot say, what you can or cannot do, and in that kind of atmosphere, it's very difficult to really achieve ground-breaking work. Because you're constantly looking over your shoulder, you're constantly wondering whether 'I'll get into trouble for this', and you know, it just doesn't sit well with the idea of a world-class university, whatever that might mean.

And then the final point I made was with regard to leadership, you know. There are a lot of problems with our universities which I think are difficult to overcome, primarily issues like funding. You know people like to compare us to NUS (National University of Singapore). But those buggers are rich! They're filthy rich! They've money coming out from their pores, you know. So, they can afford to do certain things that we cannot do, right. So, there are issues like that which I'm not going to scold anybody or anything like that because there's nothing we can do about that.

But, if you have good leadership, there are ways around the shortcomings. So, basically I was saying, we have to find a way to appoint capable people to lead universities. And when I say capable, I mean academically capable, managerially capable, and to some extent, diplomatically capable because you are the face of the university and you'll be dealing with people from all over the world.

Also, to a certain extent, no, to a very large extent, ethically aware of what academic integrity, academic freedom means. So, these are the four points that I raised.

Ok, has there been any response since that letter went to print (in an English daily in March)?

Well (laughs), I don't think it's because of the letter. But, there have been developments in the direction similar to what I was suggesting.

For example, the appointment of the vice-chancellor. It used to be a very closed-door thing. Suddenly, it happens! But now, it was a bit more open. The candidates were announced, um, the committee which selected them was announced. So, we knew who was doing the picking. So, you could actually question them if you wanted to. So, there appears to be a move towards a kind of search committee for the vice-chancellor.

And that's great. Hopefully, this is the first step. It's a baby step, you know, but it's a step in the right direction and then hopefully, now they will formalise it and have this committee, this body which is independent from the ministry (of higher education). That's what it should be. It should be independent from politics, ideally. And fixed. A fixed committee. So, that's one change which I think is good and encouraging, and hopefully will continue.

Um, there's talk about reviewing the UUCA again, looking at it again. So, there's talk about that (chuckles cynically). Yalah!

You sound skeptical and cynical.

Aar, I don't think there's going to be any serious changes there. I doubt it. I mean, I'm not part of the process of the review. So, I don't know what's happening, frankly, right now. But, I'm not hopeful that they're going to do anything of real value to the law.

Why not?

(Sighs heavily) I think there's a sense that university students must be controlled. I mean, this is a throwback to the 70s, you know. But, frankly, Jacque, I don't know how politicians think anyway.

In a way, I'm glad I don't know how they think because you know (chuckles), by not really understanding why they're doing this, means that I haven't actually gotten into that framework, that frame of mind, and...

You haven't crossed over to the 'dark side'? (chuckles)

Yes, I haven't crossed over to the 'dark side' (laughs). I haven't grappled with that side. I'm still naive and (wondering): 'What? What? Why are you doing this?'

But, I know that there's a (pauses), you see, I think university students unfortunately are being used almost like a tool. 'Look! University students support the government!' Or 'Look! The university students support the opposition!'

They're used as a bargaining chip between the political parties, and they want to make sure, the government wants to make sure that this bargaining chip is in their pocket, I think. But, like I said, I don't know how their minds work. I wouldn't know.

So, I don't hold too much hope with the review of the UUCA.

What else have they done, ah?

Well, ok, they, in fairness to them, they said they want to identify a handful of universities as research universities. And so, I would imagine that the concept of elitism would be for these universities. And, to a certain extent, that's fine because education as a whole shouldn't be elitist but if you want really quality education, then these have to be.

I mean, look at the old system before in the UK. You have universities, then you have polytechnics, then you have colleges. So, education is actually pretty open, right. But, the top, the (pauses) the figureheads, these have to be maintained as elitist. And, I think they are moving towards that, you know.

So, there appears to be an understanding that some, some things are for the public as much as possible, and some institutions really are only for the best and the brightest.

So, you know, credit where credit is due. They seem to be moving in the right direction.

Let's talk about the UUCA since you mentioned it. What do you think are some of the clauses which need to be dismantled the most?

If you look at the Act itself, the parent Act, the most obvious thing is the control over students with regards to joining, um, bodies, including political bodies. Or any, any bodies, legal or not legal.

So, basically, your freedom of association is curtailed. As is your freedom of speech because you're not supposed to, you know, you're not supposed to outwardly support any political group and things like that.

So, on a purely Constitutional level, what they're doing is they're basically saying (chuckles), 'Right, for four years of your life, your Constitutional rights are suspended.' Which is so weird, you know. Um, because I could be working in McDonald's or something like that, after my SPM, and I can vote, I can join whatever I want to join, I can say whatever I want to say, more or less, you know.

But if I do well and I go to university (starts laughing), I can't (laugh continues). You know, there's this weird contradiction in not allowing our brightest young people these freedoms. So, if you look at the Act itself, these are the portions which are clearly, from my point of view, unconstitutional and counterproductive to the development of our youth.

But, you know what's really bad is the regulation made under the UUCA. And this will differ from university to university.

Right, so each university has the power to make regulation specific to their campus.

Yes, exactly. And then this is where you really see the craziness, you know.

Because students in universities on campus are so tightly governed and so tightly regulated that it's completely stifling. You basically can't do anything without the approval of student affairs, you know.

Can you give me an example from UM?

Well, if you want to publish say, a pamphlet. If you are in a society, and you want to publish a pamphlet to put your society's views forward for distribution within campus, you have to get the HEP's (Hal Ehwal Pelajar or student affairs) approval, you know.

Now, that's quite smart, you know, that's quite intellectual. They're actually sitting down to write a pamphlet. If they want to put up a poster (sounding outraged) to say there's a Pesta Tanglung or something like that (chuckles hard), they need a HEP stamp, you know.

It's, it's ridiculous!

You know, there are rules which say that, if there is any gathering of a certain number of students, and it's a small number, something like five, then it can be declared 'illegal gathering'.

But that's true of people who gather outside of campus, as well.

That is true, that's true. Under the Police Act, anything above two. But, if that's the case, then you have the Police Act. Why do you want to tambah lagi? Why do you want to add even more, you know? Which will then not be enforceable by the police, but enforceable by universities.

That shows, if that's the case, if that's what the university believes, then what is it enforcing? You know, if your students were to get together for whatever reason, and if it be a party or a discussion or whatever, why, why do you want to stop them? You know, I don't understand.

Is it because there's a fear that university students might be politicised?

(Pause) So, what? My answer to that is, 'So, what?'.

Everybody can be politicised. What's the difference between a university student or if you're working outside or if you're a school student, you know?

And university students can be a powerful motivation for change, positive change! The opposition against Vietnam (the US involvement in the war there) in the US was led by university students. Um, you know, schoolchildren were fighting apartheid (in South Africa).

You know, everybody is politicallah.

Or should have the right to be political?

Or should have the right to be political if they want to. What difference does it make if they are students or they are not students?

You mentioned that you were rather skeptical that there would be any serious changes to the UUCA. What's the reason for your skepticism?

Because I don't see any signs that the government is actually becoming more liberal with our education, with our higher education, with our students, in particular. I can't see it. I don't see any evidence of that, you know.

So, it's just wait and see. It could just be lip service, you know. You must remember, the UUCA, by and large, is a real boring document, you know. (Chuckles) It's really dull! You know, 'The university is a body corporate, la di da. You can sue it.' Woo! You know, 'You can own property.' Really boring stuff! (Chuckles) There's a lot of stuff I'm sure you can change without causing any, any political, er, backlash or anything like that, you know.

But the biggest problem with it is its treatment of students. And that would be interesting to watch, to see what happens.

Like I said, I'm not in the review process. At this point, I don't know.

Do you know who's in the review process at all?

(Sighs) Probably important people, like deans... (laughs)

Can you talk about some of the other laws? You've mentioned already that there is the Statutory Bodies Discipline and Surcharge Act. And can you talk about it in terms of, speaking in real terms, of how they would cramp creative thinking or independent thinking?

Ok. The killer part of the Statutory Bodies Discipline and Surcharge Act is with the discipline section, where it says that, members of statutory bodies which include university staff cannot speak for or against, for or against! government policies without permission. And by this, I would imagine, ministerial permission. Ok?

And, er, 'Hello!' (laughs)

That's pretty wide, isn't it?

As wide as it can be! And the phrasing of that particular section, from my reading, is so broad it could include lectures, ok?

So (pauses), I don't think I need to explain much further (chuckles) how restrictive that can be, you know.

But, you see the thing is, Jacque, over the years, what has really been a problem, yes, the law is a problem because it's a sword of Damocles hanging over your head, right. For both students and the staff. But, it's the whole attitude on campus, erm, which is, which is really an issue, as far as I can see.

Let's talk about attitude towards students. I mentioned the regulations. These are regulations which the university comes out with under the UUCA. Why is it that they feel that they need to not just govern the student body, but to control how they think, who they vote for in the student elections, you know.

And it is that extent of control which is the problem, really, you know. You have the law, and then you have the incredibly overzealous application of the law, which leads to an atmosphere where students are so cowed that you don't have that kind of vibrant university society! Which is what ideally it should be.

Now, the same goes with staff. You know, over the years, right, there's this culture that has grown where you have to watch what you're saying, to whom you are saying it, you've to watch what you're writing, ok. Because you never know when you could be punished, you know. Or you will never climb the academic ladder, you'll never get promoted because you're politically incorrect.

It is this intangible culture of fear which is really doing the damage. Because to a certain extent, right, we're doing their job for them.

You're doing the government's job?

Well, ya...

Whose job is 'their' job?

It's the governmentlah (laughs). I'm trying to be subtle here (laughs).

(Laughs) Right.

Ok. I always tell the students, 'Why, if you want to vote Mr X over Mr Y, why would you let anybody influence you against that?' You know, 'Why? Why you letting what little rights you have be taken away when you vote? Because no one's holding your hand when you're putting a cross on your ballot paper. So, why don't you just do what you want to do?'

What can they do to you, anyway? They can't expel you from school, not for doing something like that. The tiniest little thing, you know, they (the students) are so easily swayed, alright.

And the staff, right. We don't speak out. Why not? You know. It's this, this fear that something is going to happen to us. But, you don't even try.

Do you think the problem is exacerbated by the fact that you have to sign this Aku Janji pledge?

Let me tell you a story about this Aku Janji pledge (chuckles). When it first came out, the union, the UM (academic) union was absolutely appalled at this thing. Because it goes against all the precepts and concepts of academic freedom. There's one line that says, 'We swear to be loyal to king, country and, government!' King and country, never mindlah. That's the Rukun Negara, anyway, you know. So, that's alright.

But, government? And what do you mean by 'loyal to government'? Who's defining 'loyal'? If I say, a government policy is poor or a particular law which they made is, is unjust, you know, is that being disloyal? Who's going to judge that?

So, based on this, we decided, alright, ok, how do we get around this? Now, to say, 'No, we don't want to sign at all' would be a bit risky because then you'd have the issue of mengengkar perintah (defy an order) and that kind of stuff, right.

So, we decided let's draft a letter, which we submit with our Aku Janji form, ok. So, we drafted this letter to say that, 'We are signing this thing because of economic duress. For fear of losing our jobs. In no way are we signing away our Constitutional rights.' Basically, these were the two things that we said.

Very mild, you know, Jacque. I thought this was extremely mild. You know, you sign the Aku Janji and then you have this letter which is signed, you attach it, and you ask for the stamp, because it was done through the dean, you ask the dean to stamp it to say that it (the letter of protest) is there, you know. I've got a copy if you want. And then, that's it. So, it's a very mild form of protest and hopefully, try to cover yourself legally as well.

Because, you know, I was worried that, suddenly, they might come up to you and say, 'Oh, you shouldn't have said that. You can't say that. You signed the Aku Janji.' 'But, it's my Constitutional right.' 'Oh, you signed it away with the Aku Janji.' But if you have this letter which said, 'No, I didn't actually sign it away.' Because this letter says, 'I'm not signing away any of my Constitutional rights.' So, it was that, that kind of game.

Dude! Out of this entire campus, we got about a dozen people using it!

Oh, that's disappointing.

It's pathetic! And most of them (who signed the additional letter) came from the law faculty. So, in other words, we are so cowed that even the mildest form of protest to something which strikes at the very core of our job, ok, will not be taken up.

Part 2 of this interview will be published next Thursday.