THE proposed repeal of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971, better known as AUKU, has reopened an old debate in Malaysia.
How much freedom should university students have?
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim recently announced that the government would repeal the more than five-decade-old law to give students greater freedom and wider democratic space.
For many, especially those who remember the days when student political activities were tightly controlled, this is a significant development.
But perhaps there is a more basic question worth pondering.
If we trust an 18-year-old Malaysian to vote and help decide who should govern the country, should we not also trust that same young Malaysian to discuss politics, question policies and express an opinion while studying at university?
It would seem rather strange otherwise.
At 18, our young people are considered mature enough to enter a polling booth and make a decision that could influence the direction of the country for the next five years.
Yet, when they step onto a university campus, should they suddenly be expected to remain silent on issues affecting that very nation?
I don’t think that is what university education should be about.
A university should never simply be a factory that produces graduates armed with certificates.
It should produce thinkers – individuals who ask questions, challenge assumptions and are prepared to listen to views different from their own.
Equally important, universities should produce individuals who know how to disagree without becoming disagreeable.
Education, after all, is not merely about knowing the correct answer to an examination question.
It is also about learning how to arrive at that answer.
That requires curiosity, discussion, debate and, sometimes, disagreement.
If students are discouraged from questioning ideas while studying at institutions dedicated to knowledge and learning, where else are they expected to learn how to think critically?
Of course, giving students greater freedom does not mean giving them a licence to do whatever they please.
And this, I believe, is where the discussion becomes more interesting.
Freedom must come with responsibility. The right to speak does not remove the responsibility to think and the right to criticise does not mean accusations can be made without facts.
Likewise, the right to disagree does not give anyone the right to intimidate, insult or silence others.
Political freedom should also never become an excuse for universities to turn into permanent political battlegrounds.
There is a clear difference between developing students who are politically aware and producing students who are obsessed with partisan politics.
The first should be encouraged.
The second should concern us.
We should want university students who understand government policies, economics, social issues, international affairs and the challenges facing their communities.
We should welcome students who ask why something is done in a certain way and who are brave enough to suggest better alternatives.
But universities must also ensure that political activism does not come at the expense of academic responsibility.
A student who spends four years fighting for every imaginable cause but neglects his or her studies may have misunderstood the main purpose of being at university in the first place.
There must be a balance.
Likewise, freedom of expression cannot mean that the loudest voice automatically becomes the most credible.
In this age of social media, anyone can make a claim within seconds.
Facts often take much longer to establish.
Universities therefore have an even greater responsibility to teach young people something that society increasingly seems to be losing – how to disagree intelligently.
Students should be taught how to present an argument, support it with evidence and allow others to respond.
They should learn to challenge an argument rather than attack the person making it.
At the same time, they must be prepared to accept the uncomfortable possibility that the other person may sometimes have a better argument than their own.
That, to me, is intellectual maturity.
One of the views expressed following the announcement on AUKU is particularly worth noting.
Academic freedom should allow academics and students to explore difficult questions and present views based on evidence. But that freedom must also come with intellectual discipline, ethical conduct and respect for human dignity.
That is an important distinction.
Malaysia does not need universities filled with students who are afraid to speak.
Neither do we need universities filled with students who believe freedom means there should be no limits at all.
What we need are campuses mature enough to accept different views and healthy disagreement.
Government policies should be open to discussion.
Opposition policies should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny.
Students should be free to praise a policy when it deserves praise and criticise it when criticism is justified.
Political loyalty should never replace independent thinking.
Perhaps that is the real opportunity presented by the proposed repeal of AUKU.
Not simply to remove restrictions or create more political space but to redefine what we expect from our university students.
For decades, much of the debate has focused on how much students should be allowed to do.
Perhaps we should instead start asking what kind of graduates we want our universities to produce.
Do we want young Malaysians who simply wait to be told what to think?
Or do we want graduates who are capable of examining an issue, weighing different arguments and reaching their own conclusions?
Do we want people who feel threatened by opposing views?
Or do we want citizens who are confident enough to listen to opinions they strongly disagree with and respond with facts rather than anger?
These qualities matter far beyond university politics.
The young people sitting in lecture halls today will eventually become our teachers, doctors, engineers, journalists, entrepreneurs, civil servants, corporate leaders and politicians.
Some may one day sit in Parliament or a State Legislative Assembly.
Surely, we would want them to learn while they are young how to defend an idea, accept criticism and, perhaps most importantly, change their minds when the facts show they are wrong.
That is why greater student freedom should not frighten us.
But neither should it be romanticised.
Freedom alone does not create mature citizens.
Freedom exercised responsibly does.
And perhaps that should be the real measure of whatever replaces AUKU.
Not how loudly students are able to speak.
But whether our universities can produce generations of young Malaysians who have the courage to speak, the wisdom to think before they speak and the maturity to respect those who think differently.
If we are prepared to trust them with the future of the country at the ballot box, perhaps we should also trust them to find their voices on campus.
The challenge now is to ensure that those voices are informed, responsible and worth listening to.
That is something worth pondering.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at drnagrace@gmail.com.
