I was shocked beyond words to read Deputy Education Minister Aziz Shamsuddin's statement on the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 and also the ' ISA 7 ' case.

I would like to address some of the intolerable and shallow opinion offered by someone who purportedly administers and handles the education affairs of the country. The statements that I refer to are:

That the UUCA continues to have "relevancy" and "long-term use".
That any calls for the repeal of the Act stem from "ulterior motives".
That the UUCA's provisions suit the local definition of human rights.
That the 'ISA 7' (as the seven suspended university students were dubbed by many) should be punished pending the criminal trial .

The UUCA is never, and will never be, relevant for students and universities. It is a piece of Act enacted to curtail student activism and their direct involvement in the political, economic and social sphere of the society, as history has proven.

It was an Act passed by parliament in 1971, in the midst of thousands of students showing their resistance towards unjust social and economic policies introduced by the government - the rise of poverty, emergence of misconduct including bribery among the civil servants and government bodies. It was never enacted purely for administrative purposes. It was created because it just dawned on the government how students can threaten their narrow personal interests and political careers.

As a responsible human being, would you say an Act, that prohibits university students from voicing the truth for the betterment of the country, as holding relevance? Would you say an Act, which deletes a student's inherent right to function as this country's citizen, as good for building personality with discipline?

The real bitter truth is that the Act has put students in a state of apathy, ' lesu ', or in an acute condition of fear under the control of the vice chancellors and its band of UUCA enforcers in the universities.

This Act has been repeatedly used as a tool to preserve the power and influence of the rulers in the country, by silencing students from responding effectively to the issues and problems of the people.

Aziz Shamsuddin's defense is an outdated bureaucratic excuse to preserve the Act.

In his statement, he also made the gory mistake of admitting the dynamic feature of law, while at the same time easily dismissing the call by human rights bodies to abolish UUCA as having ulterior motives and purposes.

The 'dynamism' of law, as he cleverly puts it, very much depends on the willingness and readiness of members of parliament to invoke their power and call for the reform of the Act itself, because it was parliament who gave birth to that draconian Act in the first place. But of course, the Barisan Nasional MPs who outnumbered the rest would not want to do something that is fatal to their own interests.

Just like any other despotic regime in other parts of the world, previously threatened by students' resistance, they fear and know the strength of the students and their legitimate calls for a return of their autonomous rights: freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of association.

I challenge the deputy minister to prove his allegation that the people who call for the Act to be repealed as having ulterior motives. If the struggle itself awards the concerned citizens or students with terrible risks, such as expulsion or suspension from university and other forms of threats, why would these people go on, if not because their conscience, wealth of knowledge and understanding of human rights?

There is no money or ' darjah kebesaran ' in store for these unsung heroes. Again, Aziz Shamsuddin remarks have hurt the feelings of those who have struggled a lifetime on behalf of campuses, just to free students and the university from the iron grip of the UUCA. Shame on you, Aziz!

Human rights are universal. It aims at protecting human dignity and thus, rejects any form of inhumane acts. In view of this, the UUCA contradicts many of the human rights principles. Section 15D allows students, who are yet to be proven guilty by law, to be punished and presumed guilty beforehand by university authorities. This violates the presumption of innocence grounded in rule of law. Since UUCA contains and supports such undemocratic provision, the UUCA, both locally and at the internationally, violates the definition and spirit of human rights itself.

During the press conference, Aziuz Shamsuddin declared that the ISA7 were already found guilty for participating in an illegal assembly, which amounts to a criminal offence under Section 27(5) of the Police Act 1967. He has no right to issue the statement when the actual trial for the said offence is pending. It is for the courts to determine, based on evidence and witnesses.

Aziz could in fact be found guilty for pre-judging the outcome of an on-going trial, and make it known publicly. This is a major effect of Section 15D of the UUCA. The law encourages university authorities to pre-judge and presume the guilt of students charged with criminal offence, even before they are proven guilty through due process and fair hearing. The ISA7 issue is a case in point.

Logically, as long as the students are not proven guilty by the court, the issue of "punishing them with suspension", or childish statements such as " bukan salah kerajaan tetapi salah mereka sendiri ", should not arise.

I would like to refresh the minds of Education Minister Musa Mohamed, the ministry's parliamentary secretary Mahadzir Mohd Khir, and Aziz Shamsuddin that universities are never, and will never be, the government's property.

This sacred educational institution was built with the money, blood and sweat of the rakyat . It belongs to the people. The students, academicians and people attached to this institution bear a responsibility to the people. Students are not meant to please or protect the interests of the government. Regardless how hard the government tries to indoctrinate the idea that the university belongs to the kerajaan , it can never change the truth - yesterday, today or tomorrow.

The writer is with the Independent Student Resource and Legal Training Centre (Isrec)