MUCH has been written about the late Tun Arshad Ayub, the “father of ITM/UiTM” whose contributions to tertiary education in Malaysia, specifically the education of the Bumiputera, have been unparalleled.

Lately, there have been calls for the rebranding of UiTM as Universiti Arshad Ayub.

There have been a few rebranding exercises in the past concerning ITM/UiTM.

Firstly, the Institut Teknologi Mara (ITM) Act was promulgated to address some of the concerns raised by the ITM students in the past.

It was alleged that their qualifications from ITM back then were not recognised. Thus, the ITM Act 1976 aimed to put that to rest.

Next, an amendment was passed in 1996 to allow ITM to formally confer degrees.

This was when it was alleged that ITM only conferred diplomas, but in reality, some of the diploma programmes in ITM had been formally recognised by the government as equivalent to a general degree and the advanced diploma programmes had been recognised by the government as equivalent to honours degrees.

 Pursuant to the prime minister’s declaration in 1998 to change ITM to Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM), the ITM Act was amended in 2000 to reflect such changes.

There had been concerns regarding this name change. Some people remarked that some academic institutions that are far better than ITM such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, California Institute of Technology and London School of Economics still maintained their prestige without the appellation of “university” to their names.

The latest call to rebrand UiTM as Universiti Arshad Ayub would nod to the nostalgia of the personal affiliation of this public university with one of its founding fathers.

But surely more should be done in order to “continue the legacy of Arshad Ayub”?

While it is not the intention of this writer to disparage the effort, contributions and legacy of Arshad, one needs to question whether the renaming of UiTM as Universiti Arshad Ayub would fit in the legacy of the late Tun.

If there is a serious intention to honour the memory of Arshad, these are the main areas of concern in UiTM which must be addressed as soon as possible since they have been persistently ignored.

Firstly, UiTM’s policy in excluding non-Bumiputeras from its enrolment. Some supporters of this policy have claimed that the UiTM Act 1976 and article 153 of the Federal Constitution support the exclusion of non-Bumiputeras from UiTM.

It has not been conclusively proven whether these supporters are naturally ignorant or whether they just pretend to be ignorant or whether they could not care less if they are ignorant. But the fact remains that the UiTM Act 1976 does not support the exclusion of non-Bumiputera students from UiTM.

Next, in using article 153 of the Federal Constitution, this provision is about the validity of the quota system for the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak.

Reserving the entire system or institution for the benefits of the beneficiaries of the quota system could not be called a “quota”. In fact, it is a fraudulent misrepresentation of what a quota system is all about.

A quota system is where only a certain proportion of the system or institution are reserved for such beneficiaries. This is also evidenced from clause 2 of article 153, which states that such reservations are to be made only in reasonable proportions.

To completely reserve an entire university could not be called a quota.

Successive vice-chancellors, including legal advisers of UiTM, have not addressed this legal problem with legal certainty, preferring instead to appeal to mere sentiments, which only had the effect of questioning their real intention and motivations.

It was only in 2019 that Arshad called for UiTM to admit non-Bumiputeras into UiTM but limiting their enrolment only in the postgraduate courses.

This call was not supported by any legal authorities, but the Alumni Association of UiTM had opposed his suggestion, and similarly the opposition by the association was not backed by any legal authorities whatsoever.

On the other hand, UiTM has been admitting foreign students into its undergraduate and postgraduate programmes.

This policy of admitting foreign students while at the same time excluding non-Bumiputera students in an institution of higher education for Bumiputera students had been ruled as null and void by the High Court in the past case of TSC Education Sdn Bhd v Kolej Yayasan Pelajaran Mara & Anor. [2002]5 MLJ 577.

To admit or not to admit non-Bumiputera students? That is the question.

Next, UiTM must make up its mind as to how it should treat students from well-to-do and wealthy families such as children of Tan Sris, Datuks, professors and the likes.

In relying on the quota system under article 153, students from wealthy families must and should be prohibited from enjoying the benefits of the quota.

This is the nature of a quote system in which it is only for the benefit of those who are poor and marginalised.

This fits in with the “reservations in reasonable proportions” under clause 2 of article 153 of the Federal Constitution.

This was also made in clear when the Malaysian government amended article 153 in 1971.

Tun Abdul Razak Hussein explained that while scholarships were important for the relatively small number of Malay students in the universities, scholarships would only be granted based on qualifications and family background. But this has long been ignored in UiTM. 

Thirdly, UiTM needs to be honest with regard to its policy of using English as its medium of instruction.

Arshad had insisted on using English as the medium of instruction in ITM ever since its early days and he refused to be drawn into the political and cultural debates of the Malay supremacists.

However, in 1982, the Federal Court ruled in the case of Merdeka University v government of Malaysia that a university as a public authority and a statutory authority must use the Malay language as its medium of instruction.

While the importance of the English language cannot be ignored nor whittled down, it is this language issue that has been side-stepped by UiTM.

It is thus peculiar that one of its previous vice-chancellors derided some quarters of the Malaysian society who, according to him, do not respect the constitutional status of the Malay language, yet at the same time he made no effort to engage with the validity of the status of the English language as the medium of instruction in UiTM. 

Fourthly, there has been a legitimacy problem with regard to integrity in UiTM.

Among the many demands of integrity is that the university must be free from any political interference/opportunism.

Yet, that is far from the case in UiTM. Students were once transported to attend Umno’s events and it was even argued that there was nothing wrong with it.

On the other hand, when some political science students from UiTM visited the DAP headquarters to interview the politicians, it became a big issue.

Also, academic integrity demands lecturers to be impartial and objective in which they are prohibited from actively involved in politics and this is further contained in the regulations under the Surcharge Act. But Umno supporters in UiTM seem to have been enjoying an impunity.

There have been cases in the past in which UiTM vice-chancellors publicly proclaimed their support for Umno and there have also been cases of lecturers holding posts in Umno.

The glib response that had been offered is that “as a government servant, I must support the ruling party since they are the government of the day”.

But any honest and reasonable person who knows ethics and the law would know that that glib response is just a mere denial and escapism.

Granted that law is not the only mechanism of social engineering, but if policies are allowed to be crafted without any due regard to the law, particularly the Federal Constitution, which is the highest law in Malaysia, then impunity would set in allowing those in power to do anything without any regard to the law.

ITM and UiTM have shown themselves to be mainly concerned with uplifting the economy and living standards of the Bumiputera.

Nobody in his right mind would oppose this endeavour. In fact, this is laudatory and praiseworthy.

But in persistently ignoring the law, this would allow and indeed have allowed UiTM to be used as a political instrument for the personal benefit of the few.

With these problems in UiTM, change the law if need be, amend the Constitution if it should come to that, but more needs to be done, and ignoring all these problems while attempting to justify them with so-called creative explanations would only seek to amplify these problems.

One must also question as to who really benefits by having all these problems infantilised and ignored.

These are the main concerns that need to be addressed if anyone in UiTM is serious about maintaining the legacy of Arwah Tun Arshad Ayub. – June 21, 2022.

* Mohammad Abdullah reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.