1588 66861 1 10 20220930 PDF

Asian Journal of Law and Governance
e-ISSN: 2710-5849 | Vol. 4, No. 3, 13-24, 2022

http://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ajlg
University Leadership and Academic Neutrality in Malaysian

Academia
Mohd Nazim Ganti Shaari1*
1
Law Faculty, UiTM, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
*Corresponding Author: mohdn045@uitm.edu.my
Accepted: 20 September 2022 | Published: 30 September 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.55057/ajlg.2022.4.3.2
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: In Malaysia, various legal and administrative instruments have been passed to
ensure academic neutrality in universities. While this directive maintains a veneer of neutrality
on the surface, it does not address the importance of neutrality and impartiality that a
university lecturer, and the university itself, must possess. As the law stands today, there is a
need to clarify this issue in ascertaining the degree of a lecturer’s neutrality since this involves
public law concepts and human rights concerns. This issue is particularly germane in
Malaysian academia since a mere whiff of an academic discussion regarding law and
governance could be possible frowned at as an “anti-government” activity. Since the
mechanics of “neutrality” transcends legal provisions, this paper utilises the doctrinal legal
research methodology in examining the legal and constitutional background of this concept in
light of the social theory concepts of power and hegemony, focusing on the works of James C
Scott and Mannheim. The aim of this paper is to question the conventional comprehension
which might be held by the university management regarding neutrality in academia.
Keywords: academic neutrality, academia, freedom

___________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
University lecturers in public universities are categorised as “professional group” officers and
as such they are prohibited from active participation in political activities. This could be traced
to the British civil service tradition of neutrality which justifies it under the ground of “public
interests” (Report of the Committee on the Political Activities of Civil Servants, 1949) and this
was further continued by the constitutional proposals in paragraph 153 of the Reid Commission
Report of 1957. Such prohibitions are present among the rules and regulations for academics
in Malaysian public universities. (Act 605) These are always taken seriously by the
management of the public universities and lecturers are continually reminded of this rule ever
since their induction courses.
However, there remains a concern that the university management might not fully comprehend
the meaning and scope of this “neutrality” under the law. While lecturers are legally bound to
be loyal to the government, there is a concern that this legally required “neutrality” could
adversely impair a lecturer’s duty to uphold the truth which is commonly defended under the
concept of “academic freedom”. While previous papers on academic neutrality had only listed
the legal provisions relating to academic neutrality and freedom in Malaysia (Hasbullah, 2022;
Wan Chang Da, 2019; Lee Hwk Aun, 2019), this paper seeks to critically examine the related
13
Copyright © 2022 ASIAN SCHOLARS NETWORK - All rights reserved
e-ISSN: 2710-5849 | Vol. 4, No. 3, 13-24, 2022
legal mechanisms, to synthesize them along with the related judgments from the Court and to
frame them in the background of some selected social theories related to dominance.
2. Literature Review
An academic must be personally reminded at all times of the importance of neutrality and
objectivity since research is often influenced by personal values. (Tarunabh Khaitan, 2022)
However this does not mean that the pursuit for justice is secondary to neutrality. (Adrienne
Stone, 2022) Academic neutrality and by association, academic freedom, are often contentious
issues in post colonial societies (Lee Kuan Yew, 1966), and in the context of Malaysian society,
a plethora of laws have been passed by the legislature to ensure that freedom comes with
responsibilities. (Hasbollah Mat Saad and Ramalinggam, 2022) Yet it has been argued that this
long list of authoritarian legal restraints have only served the interests of those in power and
are contributories to the failure of universities to engage with critical analyses both at the
university and society levels. (John Aubrey Douglass, 2021)
3. Methodology
This paper utilises the doctrinal legal research methodology by firstly locating the law from the
legitimate source and next by analysing it with the case laws decided by the Courts and
synthesizing it with the relevant legal concepts and theories. (Terry Hutchinson and Nigel
James Duncan, 2012)
4. Result and Discussion
4.1.1 Neutrality
Like any other country in the world, Malaysia’s public service also emphasizes neutrality and
impartiality. To this end, one of the conditions of service for lecturers in Malaysian public
universities is that they must sign a formal pledge that they would always be loyal to the Yang
Di-Pertuan Agong, the country, the government and their respective universities.
(https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/39392) This serves as a cautionary mechanism to
maintain neutrality and to avoid any political entanglements that are conventionally known as
“anti-government sentiments or activities”. Unfortunately the law does not say anything nor
define with clarity the meaning of “anti-government”.
In Lim Lian Geok v The Minister of Interior, Federation of Malaya, the Court declared that a
citizen owes his/her loyalty only to the Federation. This case was one of the earliest legal
decisions that clarified the meaning and scope of the loyalty of a citizen in this country and the
Court unambiguously stated that there was no such principle as “loyalty to the government”.
per Thomson CJ:
“Clearly, then, if a citizen merely dislikes and wishes to change any of the
provisions of the Constitution or dislikes and wishes to change the Government
of the day in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution designed to
facilitate such a change or dislikes and wishes to have changed any part of the
policy of Government and if he states his views publicly with a view to
persuading his fellow citizens to operate the machinery of the Constitution in
such a way as to bring about the changes he would wish to see them, to my
mind, there can be no question of disloyalty or disaffection.”
14
e-ISSN: 2710-5849 | Vol. 4, No. 3, 13-24, 2022
This case had certainly clarified this issue in which a citizen only owes his loyalty to the
country, and not to the government, and this is in line with the concept of democracy in which
the government is formed by the ruling political party, who is in turn, voted to be in power by
the citizens. Furthermore, in Public Prosecutor v Ooi Kee Saik & Ors concerning seditious
tendency, Raja Azlan Shah J allowed criticism of government of policy where the purpose of
such criticism is to change the law and as long as that criticism is not accompanied with
“antagonism, enmity, disloyalty”. Therefore as much as the citizens have the right to elect
whomever to be in the government is as much as the citizens have the right to disagree with
the government, or even to vote for a different political party to be in power.
4.2. Statutory Bodies (Discipline & Surcharge) Act 2000 (Act 605) [Statutory Bodies
Disciplinary Regulations]
However, for university lecturers, this state of affairs seems to be contradicted by the provisions
of the regulations under the Statutory Bodies (Discipline & Surcharge) Act 2000. Regulation
3(1) unabashedly states that “An officer shall at all times give his undivided loyalty to the Yang
di-Pertuan Agong, the country, the Government and the statutory body.” While there is nothing
wrong in requiring lecturers to be loyal to the King and Malaysia, requiring lecturers to give
“undivided loyalty” to the Government and the University would be difficult to reconcile with
the principle of academic neutrality. This is further exacerbated by Regulation 18 which seems
to have nailed the coffin on a lecturer’s duty to educate holistically regarding pertinent issues
affecting them. For example, Regulation 18 (1)(a) prohibits a lecturer from making any
adverse public statements regarding “… any policy, programme or decision of the statutory
body or the Government on any issue;”. This curious prohibition is further extended to the
making of “… any public statement which may embarrass or bring disrepute to the statutory
body or the Government;” and “… any comments on any weaknesses of any policy, programme
or decision of the statutory body or the Government;”. An ordinary legal research, for example,
would require the academic to tackle the imperfections of a law or a government’s policy, to
examine them from all possible angles and to suggest remedies or solutions to such
problems.(J.Peter Byrne, 1993) The framework of neutrality that is literally envisaged by these
legal provisions would possibly hinder the production of competent teaching and research.
The saving provision in Regulation 18 that allows all these prohibited actions with a prior
written permission from the Minister could not be said to maintain and safeguard a lecturer’s
academic freedom since for practical and political reasons, such “prior written permission” is
largely unheard of in the public arena. Regulation 20 enshrines the principle of neutrality in
that lecturers are prohibited from active participation in political activities. What seem to be
the contention here are Regulations 3 and 18 since these could possibly be interpreted for
political reasons.
While these prohibitions might appear to be normal rules of employment, the practical effect
of these rules might go beyond mere issues of obedience to the law particularly when they
operate within the framework of government bureaucracy which is never free from politics.
Firstly, these restraints encroach upon the neutrality of university lecturers. A law that could
be interpreted to require university lecturers to give their undivided loyalty to the ruling
political party which is veiled with the label/cloak of “government” would be against the
principle of neutrality. While university lecturers are not strictly speaking, “public servants”,
the principle of neutrality arguably governs the university lecturers as well.
Secondly, any restraints on fundamental liberties must be reasonable. The celebrated decision
of Tan Sri Gopal Sri Ram in Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Peguam Malaysia that was applied in
the case of Muhammad Hilman Bin Idham & Ors v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors (“the UKM4”
15
e-ISSN: 2710-5849 | Vol. 4, No. 3, 13-24, 2022
case) certainly upheld the principle that in a constitutional democracy, the government does
not have absolute powers to pass any laws that it desires and that in the event that the
government decides to place restraints on fundamental liberties, such restraints must be
reasonable. From the UKM4 case in which Mohd Hishamudin JCA boldly declared that
“..Universities should be the breeding grounds of thinkers and reformers…”, it is easy to
conclude that any restraints that stifle academic freedom are unconstitutional. While the case
of PP v Azmi Sharom might have dampened the support for reasonable restrictions of
fundamental liberties, it is arguable that there is a certain inconsistency when the Federal Court
did not accept the argument on reasonable restrictions. After the Court stated that judicial
precedents do not play a big factor in constitutional interpretation, the Court however followed
the precedent of the earlier Supreme Court’s decision in Pung Chen Choon which decided that
it was not up the Court to examine the reasonableness of the restrictions on fundamental
liberties. Furthermore, the jurisprudence of the Malaysian Federal Court could be said to have
changed from the earlier decision of the Azmi Sharom’s case. For instance, there was a strong
dissent from Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ in Letitia Bosman v Public Prosecutor & Other
Appeals (no.1) who remarked that the word “law” could not be given a literal meaning and that
it order for it to conform with the Federal Constitution, it must include Rule of Law, rules of
Natural Justice, “justice, fairness, due process and proportionality”. In fact, this dissenting
judgment continued the previous Chief Justice Tan Sri Richard Malanjum’s decision in Alma
Nudo Atenza v PP and Another Appeal.
Thirdly, by impairing the impartiality and academic freedom of academics, this would violate
the “right to life of” the academics. It is arguable that academics in Malaysian universities
have the right to teach and impart knowledge without being beholden to the political interests
of the politicians. While Article 5 of the Federal Constitution only expressly states “right to
life”, Gopal Sri Ram CAJ (as he then was during that time) interpreted “life” in “right to life”
in Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan and Anor expansively and liberally
so as to include other specific rights such as the right to be lawfully and gainfully employed
and the right to a clean environment. While there have been a number of decisions of the
Federal Court that rejected Gopal Sri Ram’s “prismatic” interpretation of “right to life” (Eg.
Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Sabah v Sugumar Balakrishnan, Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah
Persekutuan v Victoria Jayaselee Martin and Another ) including the majority decision of
CTEB and Another v Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran Negara Malaysia & Ors, the strong
dissenting opinions of the judges in this case in adopting a liberal interpretation had been
continued further in the case of Dhinesh a/l Tanaphil v Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah & Ors
in which Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ upheld the fundamental feature of human rights in the
Federal Constitution. The latest Federal Court’s decision in Nivesh Nair a/l Mohan v Dato
Abdul Razak Bin Musa and Others had also firmly supported the liberal interpretation of the
Federal Constitution.
It is certainly puzzling to note that none of these issues were raised when this Bill was debated
in its Second Reading in Parliament on 10th July 2000. (Dewan Rakyat Hansard, 10 July 2000
https://www.parlimen.gov.my/files/hindex/pdf/DR-10072000.pdf ) Also, for an important Bill
that would have far reaching consequences in the lives of civil servants in Malaysia, it is even
more puzzling to note that only eight (8) Members of Parliament took part in debating this Bill.
Tan Sri Bernard Dompok in his speech in presenting the Bill explained that the purpose for the
Bill was to standardize the disciplinary procedures in all the federal statutory bodies, thereby
setting the theme of “uniformity” and his colleagues from the government’s bench briefly
touched on the procedures of the tribunal. While such input was indeed relevant and
substantial, an issue regarding political biasness or victimization of civil servants for political
16
e-ISSN: 2710-5849 | Vol. 4, No. 3, 13-24, 2022
reasons was deliberately brushed aside as evidenced from pages 64 and 73 of the Hansard.
When a lecturer is prohibited from campaigning/extolling the virtues of the opposition parties,
it necessarily follows that he is also prohibited from campaigning/extolling the virtues of the
ruling political party. This was the issue that was disregarded when the Bill was debated in
Parliament.
4.3 Selected theories on dominance

This legal compulsion of neutrality shows more interesting features when it is examined in
relation with some theories. Firstly Manheim’s “Sociology of Knowledge”. According to
Mannheim, an ideology is used by the dominant elites to enforce certain ideas upon other strata
in the society for the purpose of protecting and enshrining their personal interests. (Mannheim,
1991, 36 and 49) This particular concept of ideology certainly carries overtones of Marxism
regarding class interests and class struggles. (Mannheim, 66-67) The concept of “loyalty to
the government” needs to be examined under this theory in order to gauge whether it is just a
tool used by the dominant groups to protect and entrench their interests and positions.
One controversial aspect of Malay feudalism is the ideology of “unquestioning loyalty”.

(Chandra Muzaffar, 2020) This ideology stems from the historical notion that the Raja is the
shadow of God on earth. (Chandra Muzaffar, 26-27) As such, the people are bound to render
unquestioning obedience and loyalty to him. Later, this notion was still practiced in spite of
the conversion of the Malay Rajas into Islam, and this ideology entails that for the protection
and material benefits which are offered by the Sultan, the individual must be unquestioningly
loyal to the Sultan. The Sejarah Melayu contains many romanticised/exoticised examples as
to how no matter how abusive/oppressive the Sultan is, the individual must still be
unquestioningly loyal to him.
This notion of “unquestioning loyalty” was then embraced by the bureaucrats, administrators
and politicians, after a shift of power from the aristocrats to the “administocrats” (Chandra
Muzaffar, 55) who claimed the mantle of authority from the noble class. With the dawn of a
new nation leaving the embrasure of British colonialism, power had shifted from the
aristocracy to the administrators. (Chandra Muzaffar, 61) In theory, the notion of
“unquestioning obedience/loyalty” to the Raja/nobility would die a natural death with the
demise of their real, political power. However, owing to the social relations of people which
had “socialized” their way of thinking, this notion still exists. It is arguable that this is one of
the reasons which obfuscates the line between loyalty to the government and loyalty to the
ruling political parties.
Having briefly sketched the history of this particular “ideology” we now turn to another side
of this issue namely, the attitude of the people holding high positions in the government service,
as to why these “educated” class similarly subscribe to the same ideology that peculiarly
demands university lecturers to be loyal to politicians wearing the cloak of “government”.
Related to this idea of “unquestioning loyalty” are the twin concepts of “bebalism” and “captive
mind” as had been propounded by the late Prof Syed Hussein Alattas to further illustrate and
explain the malaise of the Malay elites.
Shaharuddin Maaruf succinctly summarised these two concepts in his work examining the
concept of hero in a Malay society:
“Bebalism refers to an attitude of the mind which is lethargic, unthinking,
impervious to logic, at times crudely unaesthetic, indifferent, credulous,
unscientific, unreflective, piecemeal in orientation, without direction, passive,
17
e-ISSN: 2710-5849 | Vol. 4, No. 3, 13-24, 2022
uninventive and without unconsciously avowed goal. The Captive Mind is

identified as the westernized, alienated, imitative, piecemeal, fragmented and
the non-contextual type of thinking typical of the Westernized and intellectually
limited elites in the former colonies of Western powers.” (Shaharudin Maaruf,
2014, 117)
Dr Mahathir Mohammad himself had warned us the danger of trusting the politicians. In his
“The Malay Dilemma’, he cautioned us that high positions in politics are awarded to those who
are faithfully loyal to the political leaders, rather than on merit. (Mahathir Muhammad, 2008,
19) This serves as a warning to everyone to differentiate between “the government” as an entity
on one hand and politicians and political parties on the other. Both concepts of bebalism and
“captive mind” demonstrate that even with access to high levels of education, an individual
who fails to cleanse himself from the feudal mentality would still be trapped in the feudal
mindset. There is a real concern as to whether our universities are managed and controlled by
such people and this concern could not be dismissed as a mere speculation since the late Prof
Syed Hussein Alattas had already written regarding “the rise to power of the fools” in the
government service in his “Intellectuals in Developing Societies”. (Syed Hussein Alattas, 1977,
45-46)
Mannheim also cautioned us against “utopian mentality”. According to Mannheim this is

where the marginalized or oppressed group do not correctly diagnose the problem or the
situation which fills them with dislike/hatred in which they only seek to change it.
(Mannheim,36) Further explanation of this concept was given by Shaharuddin Maaruf who
focused it on the ‘single-minded mentality of the group of wishes to destroy and change the
object of their dislike/hatred without a proper nor complete understanding of the problem.
(Shaharudin Maaruf, 2005, 315-316) One needs to acknowledge that it is not easy to eradicate
the feudal mindset especially in post-colonial societies. Attempting to change the mindset and
culture in universities alone is woefully insufficient. The legal culture and the political culture
of the society must also be transformed. This “utopian mentality” obscures the individual from
reality. With reference to the issue at hand, one needs to be aware that in any social
phenomenon, it is differently seen and experienced in multi-different ways.
Secondly, the scholarship of Professor James C Scott would provide more nuances to the
dynamics of relationships between the dominant and the subaltern groups. After Professor
James C Scott conducted a study of Malay peasants in Malaysia, he found that the subservience
displayed by the Malay farmers in the villages to the dominant stratum that dominated them
was not all that it appeared to be. (James C Scott, 1985) His field trip provided him with
materials to prove that in the relationship between the dominant and subservient groups, both
groups have their own codes of behaviour at both public and private situations. He found that
while publicly the peasants might appear to be meek, subservient and accommodatingly docile
to their dominant superiors, in private they might have launched some form of resistance
against the same people. (James C Scott, 1985, 241-289) The use of cunning and deception in
masking their true feelings was soon came to be known as the dichotomy between the “hidden
transcripts” and “public transcripts”. (James C Scott, 1990) Public transcripts refer to the
conduct publicly displayed by either group in their open and public interaction with each other.
(James C Scott, 1990,2) Any member of the subservient group is aware of the public transcripts
that they adhere to in their public interaction with the dominant group, and similarly any
member of the dominant group is aware of the public transcripts that they conform to in their
public interaction with the subservient group. Both dominant and subservient groups are aware
of the “public transcripts” employed by each group, but each group’s “hidden transcripts” are
18
e-ISSN: 2710-5849 | Vol. 4, No. 3, 13-24, 2022
not visible/open to the other group. This contribution to the body of knowledge by Prof James
C Scott has been said to form a new and different strand of thought in the study of power
relationships between unequal groups which departs from the usual concept of hegemony of
the dominant class over the subalterns.
We must be concerned with the “hidden transcripts” deployed by the lecturers in resisting the
superior’s command to be loyal to the government. While there might not be any overt display
of hostility on the part of lecturers concerned towards their dominant superiors, their resistance
might engender a certain degree of cynicism and scepticism towards any policies of the
university. If the subalterns are known to sabotage the policies of the government in secret
which is done in furtherance of their resistance to the dominant elites, it is not inconceivable
that similar tactics might also be deployed in our “loyalty” problem.
Similarly, we need to be concerned with the “public transcripts” employed by the dominant
policy making elites. Firstly, we need to pinpoint the identity of the actual formulator of this
“neutrality” policy and to lay bare its true purposes. It is normal in social relations that even
among the members of the dominant group, they are pressured/compelled to act according to
the established “public transcripts”. This clearly shows that even within the dominant group
itself, there are sections of the upper echelon that are manipulating them for the purpose of
protecting their own interests which are masqueraded as the interests of the dominant group.
Secondly, the cost of maintaining the public transcript. For the lecturers who pretend to
subscribe to the notion of “loyalty to the government” it is possible that their pretence would
adversely affect their academic competency. This pretence might be a cause/effect on the
accompanying mindset that a university career is just a 9-5 job which is the same with any
other jobs in the market hence there is no need to strive for the highest level of academic
excellence. On the other hand for the dominant superiors, the cost of requiring loyalty to the
government as a condition precedent in the career of an academic might result with the
university being inundated with academics who are only excellent in being loyal to the
politicians from the ruling political parties. The university would then be an arena for the
various political warlords to pit their loyal soldiers upon one another to test each other’s loyalty
instead of being a bona fide institution of higher learning.
4.4 ”A contractual employment with the university”

Since part of the employment mechanics in public universities involve the signing of
employment contracts, could the management of the university use such contracts to control
the “academic neutrality” of the lecturers?
In Datuk Ong Kee Hui v Sinyium Anak Mutit, the issue facing the Federal Court was the validity
of an arrangement made between the Democratic Action Party and its legislators in which the
DAP would send a pre-signed letter of resignation to the Speaker of the legislative assembly in
the event that a particular Sarawak Legislative Assembly man “seems to go against the interests
of the party”. The Federal Court declared any arrangement that “impairs his independent
judgement as a legislator” is void and illegal as against public policy. The Federal Court
reached this decision after referring to an English case in which the House of Lords stated that
“the candidate so chosen must also be free to act according to the best of his ability and his
judgement and should not be subjected to the dictates of others...”.
When the principles of the above are applied in this problem, then it necessarily follows that
any law/directives that require a university lecturer to be loyal to the government is also void
and illegal since it is against public policy. A lecturer’s main task is to delve into academic
19
e-ISSN: 2710-5849 | Vol. 4, No. 3, 13-24, 2022
substance and in doing so he would inevitably be confronted with matters/issues which affect
the public/country. Therefore his profession demands him to be impartial and to render his
duty without fear and/or favour. By requiring a university lecturer to be loyal to the politicians
from the ruling political party would indeed jeopardise his impartiality. Unlike a
typical/normal/common civil servant, a university lecturer has to continuously engage with the
society on various issues which bear some relevance to his field of expertise, especially so
when his university is largely subsidised by taxpayers.
While the law of contract itself makes it clear in section 24(e) that there are contracts that are
void for public policy reasons, (Sinnadurai, 1981) government employment contracts on the
other hand have more to do with “status” as refined under public law rather than to be seen
merely as a contract between an employer and an employee. Firstly, the case of Pengarah
Pelajaran Wilayah Persekutuan v Loot Ting Yee has often been used as an authority to buttress
the powers of the Government in the context of public service. In this case the Federal Court
held that the Government had the discretion to transfer teachers to wherever they wished and
that the Court also held that there was no need to hold a trial to inquire into allegations of mala
fide surrounding the transfer. While this judgment was based on the principle of a public
servant holding a post during the pleasure of His Majesty the Yang Di Pertuan Agong, this
judgment has been criticised at least in two major law books: MP Jain’s “Administrative Law
of Malaysia” and Sheridan and Groves’ “The Constitution of Malaysia”.
Next, the Court of Appeal’s recent judgment in the case of Nazrul Imran Bin Mohd Nor v Civil
Service Commision Malaysia and Anor has also been used for such an authority. In this case
Abu Bakar Jais JCA upheld the ruling of the High Court regarding the bindingness of the Public
Officers (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1993 on public servants, specifically rule
19(1)(b) which prohibits public servants from issuing a statement that embarrasses or is
prejudicial of the government. However, in the same judgment, Abu Bakar Jais JCA applied a
previous decision of the Federal Court and stressed the need to protect public servants “against
victimizations by their superior officers or their political masters”. While lecturers in public
universities are not “public servants” simpliciter since they are employees of statutory bodies,
the same caution should also apply in such an employment. In reality it is very difficult to deny
the existence of “politically connected” superiors in public service. (Sophie Andreetta and
Annalena Kolloch, 2022) Similarly in public universities, appointment of the higher
management posts in universities is deeply influenced by politicians. (Lee Hwok Aun, 2019).
This could also be seen during the short time of the Pakatan Harapan government during
which politically connected individuals were still appointed to some positions in the public
universities. (Lai Suat Yan, 2019)
4.5 The law is seen merely as a tool.

There is a concern that universities might be administered and governed not as universities, but
rather as typical government departments which to a very large extent puts a heavy emphasis
on political patronage rather than on what universities are for, which is first and foremost, a
place for the pursuit of truth, logic and knowledge. This is exacerbated by the school of
thought that views law merely as a tool, which is devoid of any values either in the law itself
or the consequences of its application. (Brian Z Tamanaha, 2009) Some might argue that this
is no different from positivism, a branch of legal philosophy, but when it is viewed holistically
the defect in this kind of mentality is clear for all to see. There is also a related concern that
people in the upper management are only interested to protect and further their own interests
and the interests of their political masters. Hence the law is used merely as a tool in order to
achieve such aims. Notwithstanding the fact that there are legal provisions which prohibit the
20
e-ISSN: 2710-5849 | Vol. 4, No. 3, 13-24, 2022
clash of personal interests and the interest of the University, in reality the element of “personal
interests” is so wide that it impairs the equitable enforcement of the law. Hence what the law
says, and how the law is administered or enforced could be two diametrically opposite things.
As such, these administrators would be ignorant in simple yet important concepts such as
“neutrality of public university lecturers” or even “academic freedom”, preferring to brush such
things aside as irrelevant. While Act 605 clearly prohibits active political participation among
university lecturers, there has yet to be a visible concerted effort among legal advisors of public
universities in driving home this prohibition. This brings to mind JM Balkin’s jurisprudential
theory as to how people understand the law differently and that the task of understanding the
law differs according to each purpose. (JM Balkin 1993) Regarding the task of legal advisors
in universities, one needs to clarify whether they are advising the law on the level of genuine
altruism or whether they are acting as legal counsel representing the personal interests of the
higher ups in the university.
Organizationally, one would naturally question the role played by the academic staff
associations of the universities. Going by the terms of reference for these associations, they
have a role in protecting the welfare of the lecturers. It needs to be clarified how active these
associations have been in protecting the welfare of the lecturers from victimizations caused by
politicians and politically connected individuals or whether the office bearers of these
associations themselves are accessories and beneficiaries of political opportunism. From the
observation of this writer, in the event that an academic faces a threat to his academic neutrality
and academic freedom, he has 3 immediate avenues : 1)lodging a complaint with the academic
staff association; 2)lodging a complaint with the university’s Integrity Unit; 3) lodging a
complaint with the Public Complaints’ Bureau (PCB) under the Prime Minister’s Department.
The first and the second avenues are part of the internal mechanisms of the particular university.
However, these two avenues are not accompanied by any compelling legal redress. The
academic staff association of the university does not truly represent all the academic members
of that particular university since it only represents the academic staff who are registered
members of the association. Furthermore there is no automatic guarantee that any application
to join as members would be immediately approved. Like any other associations, it is not
immune from the mechanics of politics. It could choose to disregard the complaint and
impliedly taking sides with the management or otherwise. Even if it chooses to do something
regarding the complaint, there is no guarantee that it would act zealously in defending the rights
and welfare of the affected academic. The second avenue provides a more formal opportunity
within the university to remedy the complaint. However, the Integrity Unit is merely part of
the university’s bureaucracy in which the investigation and possible settlement of disputes
might not emphasize on the victim’s right of restitution and retribution. Currently, there has
been no research nor any information from any of the Integrity Units regarding cases of
victimization of academics. The third avenue involves an alleged third party or an outsider.
Although, strictly speaking, the PCB is not a body that exists outside of the government
machinery. After receiving the complaint against the university, the PCB would invite the
university to respond to such complaints in writing. It does not have any real power to conduct
a thorough investigation into the nature of the complaint, it does not have any real power in
prosecuting any cases of abuses of power, nor does it have any power compel restitution on
behalf of the complainant.(Roy Lee, 2017) Litigation in Court is one possible avenue of course,
but it is time consuming. This is truly an area which is in urgent need of serious scholarly
attention and legal reform.
Conclusion
The confusion regarding the neutrality of university lecturers in Malaysia has again proven the
21
e-ISSN: 2710-5849 | Vol. 4, No. 3, 13-24, 2022
sociological adage that the law does not truly adequately explain everything. A literal reading
of the provisions of the law without the accompanying legal analysis from the relevant cases
that had been decided by the Court together with the related legal concepts would present a
skewed comprehension of the law. More than that, since State law is the domain of the
authorities, reading the legal provisions without a clear understanding of the politics of power
involved, one would always be presented with a hegemonic interpretation which supports the
dominant power. Frantz Fannon’s “The Wretched of the Earth” (Frantz Fannon, 2004 reprint)
warned us that despite having been liberated from Western colonial powers, in post-colonial
societies the mentality of “Master-servant” is still prevalent. More needs to be done in
deconstructing the present laws from the lens of “postcolonial constitutionalism” (Peggy
Davies Cooper, 2019) since the current rules and regulations of the public service were
originally crafted by the British Colonial government which had the purpose of serving the
interests of the colonial power.
Acknowledgements
This writer would like to acknowledge the effort of the Pergerakan Tenaga Akademik Malaysia
(GERAK), Akademi Professor Malaysia and the Academic Staff Association of University
Malaya for tirelessly advocating and championing the cause of academic integrity in Malaysia
References
Andreeta S, Kolloch A(2022). Politicised Bureucrats: Conflicting Loyalties, Professionalism

and the Lawin the Making of Public Services. International Journal of Law in Context
18, 279-287. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552322000246
J.M.Balkin, 1993, “Understanding legal understanding : the legal subject and the problem of
legal coherence”, Yale Law Journal, Vol.103: 105-176. DOI
(https://doi.org/10.2307/797078
J. Peter Byrne, Academic Freedom and Political Neutrality in Law Schools: An Essay on
Structure and Ideology in Professional Education, 43 J. Legal Educ. 315 (1993)
Peggy Davies Cooper, “Post Colonial Constitutionalism”, 44 N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social
Change 1 (2019), 1-12
John Aubrey Douglas, “Neo Nationalism and Universities”, John Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, 2021
Chandra Muzaffar, “Protector? : An Analysis of the Concept and Practice of Loyalty in Leader-
Led Relationships Within Malay Society”, SIRD, Petaling Jaya, 2020
Frantz Fannon, “The Wretched of the Earth “, Grove Press, New York, 2004
Hasbollah Mat Saad & Ramalinggam Rajamanickam. (2022). Perlembagaan
Persekutuan dan undang-undang spesifik yang berkaitan dengan pendidikan di
Malaysia serta hubungannya dengan kebebasan ahli akademik. Kanun: Jurnal Undang-
undang Malaysia, 34(2), 225-260. http://doi.org. 10.37052/ kanun.34(2)no3
Hutchinson, Terry & Duncan, Nigel. (2012). Defining and Describing What We Do:
Doctrinal Legal Research. Deakin Law Review. 17. 83-119.
10.21153/dlr2012vol17no1art70.
Tarunabh Khaitan, “On scholactivism in constitutional studies: Skeptical
thoughts”, International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2022;,
moac039, https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moac039
Lai Suat Yan, “Reforming Higher Education in Malaysia : combating entrenched patronage
and racial politics”, https://www.newmandala.org/ph-education-reform/ (last accessed
on 13 September 2022)
22
e-ISSN: 2710-5849 | Vol. 4, No. 3, 13-24, 2022
Lee Hwok Aun, “Autonomy and Academic Freedom” in “Quality, Equity, Autonomy
:Malaysia’s Education Reforms Examined”, ISEAS, Singapore, 2019,
https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/TRS13_19.pdf (last accessed on 13
September 2022)
Lee Kuan Yew, “Academic Freedom and Social Responsibility”, 1966,
LKY/1966/LKYl124A.DOC
Roy Lee, “Upgrading Democracy : Soft Laws and the Ombudsman”, Policy IDEAS No.37,
2017, https://www.ideas.org.my/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/PI37-Upgrading-
Democracy-Soft-Laws-and-The-Ombudsman.pdf(last accessed on 14 September 2022)
Shaharudin Maaruf, “Concept of AHero in Malay Society”, SIRD, Ptaling Jaya, 2014
Mahathir Muhammad, “The Malay Dilemma”, Marshall Cavendish Edition, 2008
Karl Mannheim, “Ideology and Utopia : An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge”,
Routledge, Great Britain, 1991
Syed Hussein Alattas, “Intellectuals in Developing Societies”, Frank Cass, London, 1977
Shaharuddin Maaruf, “Religion and Utopian ThinkingAmong the Muslims of Southeast Asia”,
in Chapter 16, “Local and Global: Social Transformation in Southeast Asia”, eds.
Vineeta Sinha et al, Brill, Leiden, 2005
MP Jain’s “Administrative Law of Malaysia” , LexisNexis, Malaysia, 2020
Sheridan and Groves’ “The Constitution of Malaysia”, MLJ Publication, 5th edition
James C Scott, “Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance”, Yale
University Press, New Haven, 1985
James C Scott, “Domination and the Arts of Resistance”, Yale University Press, New Haven,
1990
Sinnadurai, V. (1981). Public Policy Under The Contracts Act 1950. Journal of Malaysian and
Comparative Law, 8(1 and 2), 1–20. Retrieved from
https://ejournal.um.edu.my/index.php/JMCL/article/view/15254
Syed Hussein Alattas, “The Myth of the Lazy Native”, Routledge, New York, 2006
Stone, Adrienne: A Defence of Scholactivism, VerfBlog, 2022/8/22,
https://verfassungsblog.de/a-defence-of-scholactivism/, DOI: 10.17176/20220822-
181930-0.
Brian Z. Tamanaha, “Law as a Means to an End : Threat to the Rule of Law”, Cambridge
University Press, New York, 2009
Wan Chang Da, Wan, C.D. 2019. The Universities and University Colleges Act in Malaysia:
History, contexts and development. Kajian Malaysia 37(2): 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.21315km2019.37.2.1
Case law:
Alma Nudo Atenza v PP and Another Appeal [2019] 4 MLJ 1

CTEB and Another v Ketua Pengarah Pendaftaran Negara Malaysia & Ors [2021] 4 MLJ 236
Datuk Ong Kee Hui v Sinyium Anak Mutit [1983] MLJ 36
Dhinesh a/l Tanaphil v Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah & Ors [2022] 3 MLJ 356
Lee Kwan Woh v Public Prosecutor [2009] 1 LNS 778
Letitia Bosman v Public Prosecutor & Other Appeals (no.1) [2020] 5 MLJ 277
Lim Lian Geok v The Minister of Interior, Federation of Malaya [1962] 1 MLJ 159
Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan v Victoria Jayaselee Martin and Another [2016] 4
CLJ 12
Muhammad Hilman Bin Idham & Ors v Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors [2011] 9 CLJ 50
Nazrul Imran Bin Mohd Nor v Civil Service Commision Malaysia and Anor [2021] 6 MLJ 750
23
e-ISSN: 2710-5849 | Vol. 4, No. 3, 13-24, 2022
Nivesh Nair a/l Mohan v Dato Abdul Razak Bin Musa and Others Criminal Appeal No.:
05(HC)-7-01/2020(W)
Pengarah Pelajaran Wilayah Persekutuan v Loot Ting Yee [1982] 1 MLJ 68
Pihak Berkuasa Negeri Sabah v Sugumar Balakrishnan [2002] 3 MLJ 72
PP v Azmi Sharom [2015] 8 CLJ 921 Public Prosecutor v Ooi Kee Saik & Ors [1971] 2 MLJ
108
Public Prosecutor v Ooi Kee Saik & Ors [1971] 2 MLJ 108
Shamim Reza v Public Prosecutor [2011] 1 MLJ 471
Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Peguam Malaysia [2010] 2 MLJ 333
Tan Tek Seng v Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pendidikan and Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 261
Special Reports
Report of the Committee on the Political Activities of Civil Servants, June 1949,
http://hdl.handle.net/10973/35603
Reid Commission Report 1957
Hansard
https://www.parlimen.gov.my/files/hindex/pdf/DR-10072000.pdf
https://www.parlimen.gov.my/files/hindex/pdf/DR-17062002.pdf
Statutes and Regulations

Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136)
Statutory Bodies Disciplinary Regulations, under the Statutory Bodies (Discipline and
Surcharge) Act 2000 (Act 605
Websites
https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/530917,
https://www.malaysiakini.com/news/579659
24

1588 66861 1 10 20220930 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1588 66861 1 10 20220930 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Asian Journal of Law and Governance

e-ISSN: 2710-5849 | Vol. 4, No. 3, 13-24, 2022

University Leadership and Academic Neutrality in Malaysian

*Corresponding Author: mohdn045@uitm.edu.my

Accepted: 20 September 2022 | Published: 30 September 2022

Keywords: academic neutrality, academia, freedom

4. Result and Discussion

4.3 Selected theories on dominance

One controversial aspect of Malay feudalism is the ideology of “unquestioning loyalty”.

uninventive and without unconsciously avowed goal. The Captive Mind is

Mannheim also cautioned us against “utopian mentality”. According to Mannheim this is

4.4 ”A contractual employment with the university”

4.5 The law is seen merely as a tool.

Andreeta S, Kolloch A(2022). Politicised Bureucrats: Conflicting Loyalties, Professionalism

Alma Nudo Atenza v PP and Another Appeal [2019] 4 MLJ 1

Statutes and Regulations

You might also like