By: Fuad Syazwan Ramli*
The issue of the suspension of Prof Aziz Bari had
brought UIA under the spotlight again. After the mysterious story behind the
Ustaz Azhar Idrus’s talk, now UIA’s credibility is being scrutinized again.
Legally speaking, UIA may or may not be right.
The suspension of Prof Aziz Bari is made according to the Staff Disciplinary
Rules 2005 of the International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM). Section 21
gives UIA the power to suspend its staff pending an inquiry. The section read:
21. The
University may suspend a staff member under this rule pending an inquiry into
the alleged breach of discipline by the staff member. The period of suspension
will depend on the reasonable time required to carry out an investigation and
conclude the inquiry into the alleged breach of discipline.
Even though UIA has the power to suspend, the
power is not compulsory. The word "may" indicates a discretionary
power. It gives the university two choices to make, whether or not to suspend
Prof Aziz. So why should the university straight away jump to the suspension
button? Who gives the advice to the Rector? Did the adviser think of the
consequences of using this method? Against a man with credibility and huge
followers like Prof Aziz? In Jain’s words, “An authority vested with discretion
has to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before taking
an action. If it passes an order mechanically without applying its mind, its
act will be ultra vires.”[1]
Under the law as well, the authority is expected
to decide each case based on its own merits and cannot simply apply the same
procedure to every single case. This rule is called the “fettering discretion”.
So, did the university consider this case thoroughly? Looking at the
circumstances surrounding this issue, Prof Aziz is known to be an outspoken
academician, most of the time his comments are against the interest of the
ruling party. And that is why the police reports, remarks made against him were
made by politicians. This surely creates tension. The university must expect
that the oppositions will use this issue to retaliate against their political
enemy as well. Suspending Prof Aziz will be seen as unfair and just following
orders from the Government. Politic is based on perception, people judge us
based on our acts.
Section 20 of the same Rules also states that the
alleged lecturer must be given an opportunity to be heard.
20. In all
disciplinary proceedings by the University, no staff of being member shall be
subject to disciplinary action unless he has heard been informed in writing of
the grounds on which it is proposed to take action against him and has been
afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
In Prof Aziz Bari's case, he was just been issued
with the show cause letter. The university should give him the opportunity to
explain his remarks first, then only conduct an inquiry. This can help the
university avoid suspicious from the outsiders and the community of UIA.
Without the explanation from Prof Aziz, how can the community expect the university
to conduct a fair and just inquiry? Analyze the explanation from him first and
from that, conduct an internal inquiry. Don’t have to straight jump to the
suspension button although the authority has the right to do so.
Prof Aziz Bari is the pearl of UIA. He is a great
asset for UIA. When the issue first arise, with remarks and police reports made
against him by politicians, the university did nothing to defend him. For two
consecutive days, he was made headline by Utusan Malaysia, a newspaper known to
be the tool of the ruling party. Allegations were thrown against Prof Aziz
Bari. Instead of protecting him, the university decided to show him the show
cause letter. By doing this, it shows that the university is also interested to
be involved with the game played by the politicians. The statement issued by
Prof Aziz was published in Malaysiakini. Is it too hard for the university
administrators to read the statement themselves? Why must the authority let the
words of the idiots undermine its intellectuality by listening to them?
The university should be wise enough to think
about the reaction of the public. Do all the public ever read the Staff
Disciplinary Rules? The authority must choose its action wisely. This is not
the first time Prof Aziz made such statement. He had even published books about
this issue. The university should issue a stern warning against the politicians
who politicized this issue. The authority should be protecting the intellectual
freedom, and make policies and decisions that can nurture this culture of
intellectual freedom, not the other way around.
As informed by Prof Aziz, the university is
investigating him for issuing public statement that is not in line with the university’s
interest. This is provided in the proviso of Section 15 of the same Rules. The
proviso is as follows:
Provided
that the making of such statement is not contrary to the interests of the
University.
As we can see here, the term “interests of the University”
is ambiguous in nature. As an Islamic university, we can assume that “contrary
to the interests” means any statement that is not in line with the Shariah
(Islamic laws). This is the simplest explanation can be given about this
proviso. So, did Prof Aziz ever make a statement that is contrary to Shariah?
This issue explode due to the remarks made by
politicians. The story started when Malaysiakini published a statement from
Prof Aziz, which they received from his sms. Here we can see that the source of
the story read by the politicians is secondary source, already edited by the
editor of Malaysiakini. They did not see the actual statement sent by Prof
Aziz. So, to judge this issue, we must look at the content of the said article.
This article, and this article alone, should be the one to be examined by us in
finding whether Prof Aziz had breached the proviso.
These are the statements published by Malaysiakini:
“Seseorang
akan berfikir sama ada dengan meletakkan umat Kristian dalam kedudukan itu - sesuatu
yang tidak dapat dielakkan berikutan serbuan ke atas DUMC - adalah benar-benar
mengikut ajaran Islam.
“Lebih-lebih
lagi, campurtangan istana dalam perlembagaan negara amat jarang sekali. Apa
yang berlaku di Selangor hari ini bukan sesuatu yang lazim.
"Sebelum
ini, pernah terjadi kejadian yang lebih teruk seperti bekas menteri besarnya
merobohkan surau tertentu di Selangor. Tetapi pihak istana tidak campurtangan,”
“Di bawah
undang-undang atau sistem undang-undang mana-mana sekalipun, jika tiada bukti,
kes ditutup. Tohmahan dan dakwaan lanjut dan sebagainya, mesti dielakkan,
khususnya di negara seperti Malaysia,”
“Yang
pasti, baginda menerima kuasanya diambil (oleh kerajaan persekutuan) dalam
pelantikan Setiausaha Kerajaan Negeri tanpa sebarang bantahan atau aduan.
Daripada apa yang dilaporkan, baginda menerima perkara itu sebagai fait
accompli.
“Bagi
saya, istana perlu melihat kuasanya dengan gambaran yang lebih luas; iaitu
peranannya sebagai simbol negeri dan faktor penyatuan yang mesti mengatasi
parti politik. Ia tidak boleh mengambil kuasa secara isolation (terasing).
“Apa yang
berlaku hari ini, adalah contoh yang baik.”
These are the statements. Is it against the
Shariah to say that the King had erred in his words? Even the law that governs
defamation, the Defamation Act, protect Prof Aziz. If you do not believe me,
try and read for yourself, this following Section 3 of Defamation Act:
(2)
Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) an act, speech, words, publication
or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a
tendency—
(a) to
show that any Ruler has been misled or mistaken in any of his measures;
See? Simply saying that the King had erred in his
decision and action does not amount to sedition. It was a clear wording of the
law. If you want to argue about sedition, you must refer to this act. And the
Act clearly protects Prof Aziz.
It is really sad to see that the university
administrator had failed to read the real intention of the politicians who
politicized this issue. They are not protecting the Sultan. They are protecting
themselves! The comment made by Prof Aziz is an honest comment based on his
expertise, the monarchy of Malaysia. So why should the university even listen
to the frogs making noises? Based on circumstances surrounding this issue alone
the authority can make a conclusion that the reports, remarks were made just to
gain political mileage.
No one ever expected that this issue will be like
this. This is not the first time Prof Aziz issued such statements. However
because of the fault of the intellectuals, and the university, who failed to
defend their colleague when he was being attacked by politicians had made the
matter worse. Everyone should learn something from this issue. When an
academician is under attack, it is not only himself, but also the freedom of an
intellectual to express his views based on what he knows. Everyone, especially
the academicians must defend their right. As according to Martin Luther King, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
*Third
year student of Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyyah of Laws, IIUM.
No comments:
Post a Comment