When it was established in 1999, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia inspired the hope that human rights abuses in Malaysia will be addressed and resolved.
Among those at the forefront to welcome the commission were university students, long crippled by the manacles of the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) since the 1970s.
'Favoured' as they are with this 'special' act, students are the most vulnerable of all groups in society where human rights are concerned.
Although students who are adults (above 21) have the right to vote like other citizens, their other rights — such as freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association — are denied by the UUCA.
The UUCA was enacted in 1971 and amended in 1975, 1983 and 1996 with even more stringent restrictions on students' rights.
Ostensibly an act to "provide for the establishment, maintenance and administration of Universities and University Colleges and for other matters connected therewith", the UUCA is most notorious for preventing students from being actively involved in politics, society or trade unions — unless permission is obtained from the university — by subjecting offenders to a maximum jail term of six months and a RM1,000 fine, or both.
If one of its objectives was to curtail student movements, the act has surely served its purpose as from the mid-1970s, student involvement in national politics declined precipitously. By the 1990s, a majority of students appeared to have disengaged themselves from public debate on political and social issues that might be deemed 'controversial' or frowned upon by the ruling coalition.
Oppression
Even with the waning student involvement in current societal issues, the authorities have been busy in acting against some students who are testing the parameters of their existence.
Below are some cases of how students have been oppressed in recent memory:
Case 1: In June 2001, Rafzan Ramli, was dismissed from Universiti Teknologi Mara because he was caught at a peaceful assembly at the National Mosque where undergraduates had gathered to publicly urge for the abolition of the Internal Security Act (ISA) which allows for indefinite detention without trial. Action was taken while the trial was still going on. Obviously, the university authorities have no respect for the basic principle of law: Innocent until proven guilty.
Case 2: In July 2001, the authorities detained two student activists, Khairul Anuar Ahmad Zainuddin and Mohamad Fuad Mohamad Ikhwan (who is also president of the Universiti Malaya Students Representative Council) under the ISA. The former for 23 days and the latter for 10 days.
Case 3: This May, Lee Yen Ting, president of the Chinese Language Society of Universiti Sains Malaysia, and Choo Chon Kai, the secretary-general, were fined RM200 per person for giving statements to the press without official permission from the vice chancellor. Later, disciplinary action was taken against members of the society for participating in a debate in Singapore without the permission of the deputy vice chancellor. (See Suhakam 2001 Annual Report, pg 59, [v].)
Case 4: In May 2002, 18 students from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia were charged for various 'offences' including the submission of a memorandum to Suhakam concerning their grouses over last year's campus elections!
Three short paragraphs
Imagine how helpless the students felt when even their right as citizens to seek Suhakam's intervention was forbidden by the authorities. More dismay was to come when Suhakam declined their request to mediate in a dialogue between both parties. Instead, Suhakam only held a dialogue with the university authorities and did not even let students in on the progress of the dialogue.
Unfortunately, such human rights violations on our students seem to escape our society. Even in the Suhakam 2001 Annual Report, only three short paragraphs talked about students' rights [pg 59, (v) + pg 24, no.7 + pg 59, (iv)]. And the only way Suhakam has handled these cases is by holding a dialogue with the authorities, which is hardly fair or effective.
Although we understand that many matters are beyond the jurisdiction and powers of Suhakam, we still think that Suhakam can and should play a more crucial role, as an arbitrator between the university authorities and students.
Without Suhakam's intervention, students are liable to disciplinary action without fair consideration to the circumstances. This is because university authorities have absolute power under the UUCA. They act as prosecutors and judges in the university senate — or what we call the "kangaroo court". Students are not given the benefit of the doubt in that 'court'. They have to defend themselves and prove their innocence instead of the onus falling on the 'prosecutors' to provide evidence of the alleged misconduct. The whole procedure is against the basic principle of common law.
Akujanji
Suhakam should be proactive and not just take in complaints of human rights abuses. Yet even when it is reactive, it fails to live up to its role. Sometime early this year, the government enforced a policy stipulating that all civil servants, academicians and undergraduates must sign the "Pledge of Good Conduct" or " Surat Akujanji ". During that period, Suhakam did not issue any stand or opinion on the matter.
We students formed a coalition to voice out our objections. We sent in our memorandum to Suhakam in May 2002, and were met by one of the commissioners, Tan Sri Ramon Navaratnam.
We followed up repeatedly for Suhakam's response. Finally, a staff member met with us and said that the commissioners had arrived at a stand on the Akujanji issue: Since no student has been disciplined for not signing the pledge, there has not been any violation of any rights.
Then, starting from July, Suhakam applied a new policy which limits the public from meeting directly with the commissioners to submit their complaints. A staff member will take over that task instead.
This policy can hurt Suhakam's credibility as a protector of human rights. Because the commissioners were appointed to deal with such important issues, we expect Suhakam to perform and deliver results. Suhakam should not develop as another bureaucratic administration that distances the public from the powers that be.
Level playing field
We students are glad to see that there are recommendations from Suhakam on students' rights. However, since disciplinary action and retaliatory measures on the students from the authorities are still going on, Suhakam's recommendations should be done within a democratic process, in which consensus must be gained from the campus community.
Suhakam should create a level playing field between the authorities and students so that its recommendations won't fall on deaf ears, and it won't end up like a dog barking at the moving train.
CHANG LIH KANG is a third-year civil engineering student in Universiti Putra Malaysia. He is a member of the Malaysia Youth and Students Democratic Movement (Dema), formed by local undergraduates to promote student rights and campus democracy, with the abolition of the UUCA as its main objective.