AUKU: More optics than freedom, activists say
Auku reforms don’t match realities on the ground
SHAH ALAM – Freedom of expression has emerged as the central fault line in the debate over the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (AUKU), with politicians and student leaders arguing that current restrictions no longer reflect how today’s generation communicates, organises and challenges power.
Malaysian United Democratic Alliance (Muda) president Amira Aisya Abd Aziz highlighted what she sees as a contradiction.
"Every Malaysian should be allowed to express their concerns or frustrations, especially students who want to improve the system," she said, noting this right was guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.
Students today, she said, were no longer reliant on physical mobilisation.
"Students now use platforms like videos, live sessions and podcasts to raise awareness. Physical mobilisation is no longer the only way as digital spaces are more accessible and cost-effective," she said.
Yet, while expression has expanded online, she said scrutiny within universities remained tightly policed.
She said universities must allow students to play a stronger role in holding institutions accountable, particularly in areas such as financial transparency and governance.
"Students need to be able to scrutinise, criticise and demand answers without fear of disciplinary action," she said, warning that restrictions risked stifling critical thinking in a politically enfranchised post-Undi18 generation.
International Islamic University Malaysia Student Union vice-president Umairah Bajrai Jaffar said student power depended less on law and more on access.
"The level of influence can be relatively high, but it is not uniform. It depends on how effectively student representatives engage and advocate," she said.
She acknowledged progress but it was not enough, saying there was still room for improvement.
She added that some changes appeared more aligned with institutional considerations rather than student realities.
Student councils, she said, remained a crucial bridge between students and administration but were constrained by bureaucracy, funding limits and approval delays, which weaken timely responses.
Her solution was clear: give students a seat at the table, including at the highest levels of university governance.
Meanwhile, student activist from Universiti Malaya Adom Teh was more direct, saying that reforms have yet to translate into genuine freedom.
"The changes are more about optics than actual freedom," he said.
Despite reforms, he said, pressure and intimidation persisted, while meaningful representation remained limited.
"It’s unfair to compare today’s student activism with the 1960s. Back then, there was no AUKU restricting or silencing students.
"Today, laws are used in ways that restrict freedom and punish those with differing views. The issue is not a lack of courage among students, but a system that is more focused on control than engagement," he said.
He said students were forced to choose between academic survival and speaking out and that the openness universities claimed was often conditional.
In reality, he said engagement was tightly controlled through formal channels.
"When we organise discussions, especially on topics like abolishing AUKU, they are often cancelled or moved off campus.
"It is ironic that universities encourage critical thought, but restrict discussions the moment they become controversial.
"This shows that institutions are not truly open to dissent, they are simply managing and controlling it," he said.
Download Sinar Daily application.Click Here!
