UNIVERSITI Malaya student leaders recently accused the university administration of abusing its acquired autonomy to restrict intellectual freedom, which apparently is also the case of a few other public universities in the supposedly new Malaysia.

Freedom, as rightly pointed out by these students, is indeed a double-edged sword as exemplified by the alleged abuse of university autonomy by top management, particularly the students’ affairs department (HEP).

The students said autonomy should have been used to help, among other things, enhance intellectual ability by providing space and platform for academic interactions so as to ensure free exchange of ideas.

To be clear, university autonomy should be used for the common academic good of all on campus, not as a mechanism to maintain restrictions on freedom of ideas on campus for the advantage of a few.

If the students’ accusation is true, which is within the stretch of our imagination given the past prescriptive and anti-intellectual practices of the all-powerful HEP, then such an allegation deserves the rapt attention and deep concern of the Education Ministry, as well as concerned academics and ordinary Malaysians.

Restricting intellectual and political freedom of students under the cover of so-called university autonomy is a sad reflection of the mental makeup of the top management concerned, which is not in keeping with the spirit of the supposedly new political era.

Worse, this kind of thinking is anathema to the very notion of university education where students and academics are expected to be open to a variety of ideas, and equally important, to be inquisitive and critical.

Ideas, no matter how much we disagree with some of them, should be given the opportunity to be discussed and debated as this serves as an important learning process for the people concerned, especially students.

Students, particularly those who are fired by the idealism to make a difference in this world, should be given the liberty and responsibility to decide on the kind of intellectual activities that would best serve fellow students and the larger society.

Idealism, particularly a youthful one, should not be doused by the cold pragmatism of people with narrow interests.

In the long run, decisions and choices made by students on, say, who to invite and what topics to discuss would serve as a measure of the intellectual and political maturity of the student bodies concerned. This would also be instructive for students in general.

Additionally, the academic freedom that the students have should be a useful platform for them to build self-confidence, assertiveness and improve communication skills that many of them sorely lack now.

The past undemocratic practices of the HEP give meat to the assertion that its existence is now irrelevant. Indeed, a remnant of the old regime has no place in a society that strives to be progressive and democratic.

If anything, the HEP should be reduced to a mere appendage of the university bureaucracy to deal with such mundane matters as student accommodation, campus transportation and logistical assistance.

Students, and young people in general, must be treated as adults, who should be given the freedom and responsibility to think critically and independently.

Present and future challenges that confront our country demand students (who subsequently graduate) of sterner stuff. – December 14, 2019.