SHAH ALAM – The banners have not changed, but the argument has. Today’s student activists are no longer asking for a louder voice — they are questioning who holds power in Malaysia’s universities.
For the Abolish Universities and University Colleges Act (AUKU) Secretariat, the issue is not whether reforms existed, but whether they mattered.
"Reforms to AUKU are largely symbolic rather than transformative," the group said, arguing that amendments have adjusted processes without addressing deeper structural concerns.
Despite revisions since 1971, key provisions — including ministerial authority, leadership appointments and disciplinary controls — remained intact.
Sections on student misconduct, they argued, still reflected a system rooted in control rather than trust.
The result, they warned, was a university ecosystem that risked prioritising compliance over critical thought.
At the core of this critique lies a deeper concern about how students were perceived.
"There is still a tendency to treat students as subordinates rather than equal stakeholders," the secretariat said, describing engagement platforms as tightly managed spaces where dissent remained limited.
The implications extended beyond governance into campus culture.
"AUKU also reinforces the misconception that students should focus solely on academics… undermining their role as agents of change.
"More critically, the Act has not evolved to address current challenges… graduate employability, industry linkages and practical skills.
"Universities should not just be places of learning, but platforms for building life capabilities… efforts are often ad hoc rather than systemic," it said.
Student activism, however, has evolved.
While demonstrations and advocacy continued, they now operated within a more regulated, constrained environment — though increasingly independent and issue-based.
"The issue is not whether student movements are more or less institutionalised, but rather who holds control over these institutions," the secretariat said.
Legal perspectives suggested that while abolition may not be a straightforward solution, maintaining the status quo was equally problematic.
Lawyer Fatihah Jamhari argued for recalibration rather than removal.
"We still need a legal structure, but our political landscape has changed, especially with greater youth participation.
"Undi18 should not simply be lip service. If we want a more enlightened society, we must allow space for young people to practise critical thinking," she said, describing provisions such as Section 15(2)(b) as reflective of an outdated approach.
Still, she cautioned against reducing AUKU to student politics alone.
"Much of it deals with governance and administration to ensure institutions maintain quality and credibility," she added.
Former Malaysian Bar president Salim Bashir echoed the need for meaningful reform.
"While AUKU provides a framework, its restrictions on autonomy and expression have made it contentious.
"Amendments must protect and encourage free discussion, inquiry and expression," he said.
Insulating universities from broader societal discourse, he warned, risked stunting intellectual growth.
For student groups, that risk was already materialising.
Universities, they argued, should not merely produce graduates, but thinkers, leaders and active participants in society.
Without deeper structural change, they cautioned, ambitions around innovation, employability and democratic engagement will remain fragmented — constrained by a system still grappling with the balance between control and freedom.