malaysiakini logo
story-image
mk-logo
From Our Readers
Unlawful varsity suspension is a deprivation of a fundamental liberty
ADS

It is an undisputed fact that education is the keystone to an opportunity to employment which would then, with all things being equal, provide for a reasonable livelihood for a person.

The term ‘livelihood’ has been incorporated into the term ‘life’ guaranteed under Article 5 of the Federal Constitution.

Article 5 (1) of the Federal Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law.

In 1996, the Court of Appeal in the case of Tan Tek Seng vs Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan (1996) 1 MLJ 261 after making reference to the Indian Supreme Court cases of Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corp AIR 1986 SWC 180 and Delhi Transport Corp vs DTC Mazdoor Congress & Ors (1991) Supp 2 SCC 600, essentially and collectively came out with the following principles:

1. The expression ‘life’ appearing in Article 5(1) does not refer to the mere existence.

2. It incorporates all those facets that are an integral part of life itself and those matters which go to form the quality of life.

3. An equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood.

4. If the right to livelihood is not treated as a part of the constitutional right to life, the easiest way of depriving a person of his right to life would be to deprive him of his means of livelihood to the point of abrogation.

5. Such deprivation would not only denude the life of its effective content and meaningfulness but it would make life impossible to live.

6. That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life livable, must be deemed to be an integral component of the right to life.

7. Deprive a person of a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life.

8. The right to livelihood therefore cannot hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority.

Having appreciated the above, let us now come back to the issue at hand.

Suspension of a final year student by a university

Section 16C of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 provides for the disciplinary rules for students and section 16(1) states that the disciplinary rules made under this subsection shall be published in the Gazette.

There is in existence a ‘Kod Tatakelakuan Aktiviti-Aktiviti Politik Di Dalam Kampus Universiti Malaya 2012' (Code) approved by the Universiti Malaya’s management on Sept 6, 2012 and published by the Bahagian Hal Ehwal Pelajar Universiti Malaya.

This ‘Kod Tatakelakuan Aktiviti-Aktiviti Politik Di Dalam Kampus Universiti Malaya 2012' (Code) was in response to the 2012 amendment to Section 15 of the Act which states that a university student can be a member of a political party.

In accordance with the spirit of Section 15(1) of the Act which states that a university student can be a member of a political party, University Malaya pursuant to the ‘Kod Tatakelakuan Aktiviti-Aktiviti Politik Di Dalam Kampus Universiti Malaya 2012' (Code) has outlined a schedule called ‘Aktiviti-aktiviti Yang Dibenarkan’ divided into ‘Di Luar Kampus’ and ‘Di Dalam Kampus’.

At the end of this schedule, there is a ‘Peringatan’ which states “pelajar perlu mengisytiharkan secara bertulis kepada Universiti Malaya penglibatan mereka dalam parti politik di luar Kampus. Ini adalah untuk membolehkan Universiti Malaya memantau prestasi akademik pelajar yang terlibat agar tidak terjejas”.

It also states “Pelajar yang melibatkan diri dalam aktiviti parti politik di luar Kampus perlu menjaga adab sopan dan kelakuan masing-masing. Sekiranya didapati pelajar terlibat dalam perkara yang memudaratkan dan mencemarkan nama Universiti Malaya, pelajar masih tertakluk kepada peraturan Universiti Malaya sedia ada”.

It would appear that Universiti Malaya has got it right and has put the student’s academic performance as top priority.

It is only logical that a student taking part or organising a political activity outside Universiti Malaya’s campus is doing so as an individual. If that student was taking part or organising a political activity outside Universiti Malaya’s campus but under the banner of Universiti Malaya without the permission of Universiti Malaya, then perhaps it can be said that there is some breach of the student code.

Then it can be said, perhaps, that there is involvement “dalam perkara yang memudaratkan dan mencemarkan nama Universiti Malaya”.

But when Section 15(1) of the Act provides that a university student can be a member of a political party, and that university student pursuant to that right takes part or organises a political activity as an individual outside campus and not under the banner of the university, then what wrong has been committed? It would seem that Universiti Malaya has breached Section 15(1) of the Act.

Universiti Malaya is an education institute, not a political one. Interrupting a student’s education halfway, or even worse towards the end, when his or her grades are very good and commendable, is probably the biggest mistake any education institute can do.

Therefore, if a university, whose main nature of existence is for education, has suspended and interrupted the education of a student for an unrelated act of taking part or organising a political activity, it has essentially deprived that student of his opportunity for employment which would then deprive him of a livelihood, and therefore depriving him of life which is guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.


PUTHAN PERUMAL is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya.

View Comments