Call for deeper reform as Malaysia axes decades-old university law

The abolition of the main piece of legislation governing public universities in Malaysia could lead to more academic freedom and institutional autonomy – but there is a lack of clarity on what comes next, with some fearing “one restrictive law could be replaced by another”.

Last month Malaysian prime minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim announced that he would repeal the Universities and University College Act 1971 (AUKU), the legal framework governing the administration and management of the country’s public university sector, and replace it with a new law. 

AUKU was enacted in the aftermath of the 1969 race riots that erupted between Chinese and Malay communities, and has been contentious ever since.

The act became closely associated with restrictions on student political participation and freedom of expression because it granted university councils the power to suspend or dissolve student organisations. 

Students have long been calling for AUKU to be reformed, and it has already been amended eight times to address concerns, notably in 2012 when students were allowed to join political parties and in 2024 when student bodies were granted more autonomy on fundraising.

Barrister JJ Chan, adjunct professor in the Faculty of Law at University of Malaya, said that the decision to repeal AUKU had brought together “longstanding reform commitments” with “the ministry’s existing work on a new higher-education framework and renewed student advocacy”. 

The personal dimension of the abolition is difficult to miss, Chan added. The prime minister was himself detained without trial in December 1974, and an amendment to the act the following year further tightened government control over public universities. “Half a century later, the same man has committed his government to retiring the statute most associated with that era,” said Chan.

“The government has said that student matters should be excluded from any successor law…the prime minister also said that academics should have room to research, write and publish scholarly views, even when those views differ from the positions of their university, the ministry or the government, provided that they can defend their arguments.

“These directions do not themselves amend AUKU but they signal the government’s intended direction while the legislation is prepared,” Chan explained.

Khoo Ying Hooi, associate professor of international relations and human rights at the University of Malaya, told Times Higher Education that politics was driving the repeal of the AUKU.

One of the main reasons that the prime minister has announced this policy shift “is to attract young voters”, she said.

Hooi said that, although the intervention has been positively received by the higher education sector in Malaysia, the welcome has also been “quite cautious”.

The Malaysian Qualifications Agency cautioned that abolition should be accompanied by an equivalent legal framework to prevent the emergence of regulatory gaps, stating that the sector needs governance and guidelines to function effectively.

“There are some reservations from the higher education sector,” said Hooi. “There is also a strong message that we should not simply replace AUKU with another restrictive law under a different name. There are calls for a transparent process, a clear timeline and meaningful participation by students, academics and civil society in drafting the new framework. 

“For universities more broadly, the bigger question is whether the reform genuinely strengthens institutional autonomy and academic freedom, including how universities are governed and how decisions are made.

“Repealing AUKU alone will not automatically make universities free. If the administrative culture, appointment structures and other forms of political or bureaucratic control remain unchanged, the impact could be much more limited.”

Teh Choon Jin, deputy president of the National Association of Private Educational Institutions (Napei), which represents the private higher education industry in Malaysia, told Times Higher Education that the abolition “presents an opportunity to rethink Malaysia’s higher education legislation more comprehensively”.

He added that the government should consult both public and private universities when developing new legal or regulatory frameworks to replace AUKU.

Private higher education institutions are regulated under the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996 in Malaysia, and the abolition of AUKU therefore does not directly affect the operations of private universities.

“From Napei’s perspective, this could be an opportunity to develop a more coherent higher education regulatory framework that provides appropriate institutional autonomy, academic freedom, quality assurance and accountability across the sector, while recognising the different mandates and funding models of public and private institutions,” said Jin.

The objective, he continued, should be “to build a more modern, facilitative and future-ready regulatory framework that gives universities greater autonomy while maintaining the quality, accountability and international credibility of Malaysian higher education”.

rosalind.skillen@timeshighereducation.com