This year`s campus election has just recently concluded. The most-talked about event on campus, as expected, was the emergence of pro-establishment proxies monopolising all the Student Councils.

Despite blatant foul-play and dubious electoral processes, the university chancellors, Student Affairs officers, plainclothes police officers and of course, the Higher Learning Ministry, all really believed that all this that happened was for the sake of securing order on campus.

They also have the nerve to perceive this as positive and welcoming. They forgot to view the whole campus election process as a benchmark of democracy on campus. They were too busy in ensuring that the election would be in favour of their vested interests that they forgot about the interests of the students at large.

This sort of mentality - which unbelievably believes that Malaysia can produce world class education - deserves perpetual condemnation.

I must sound so furious and I am not going to deny it. Reading through Higher Learning Ministry Parliamentary Secretary Dr Adham Baba's statement yesterday, I could not believe he had the nerve to:

- reject Suhakam`s intention to monitor the campus election;

- blame the former student council which was dominated by so called 'anti-establishment' elements for University Malaya's ranking among Asian universities dropping and

- Use the University and University Colleges Act (Uuca) 1971 as a shield to avoid any form of scrutiny and critique from external bodies to improve the quality of the university.

These three 'sins' he made clearly reflect that he is willing to sacrifice democracy and university autonomy for the sake of transforming our local universities into institutions which conform to the wishes of the powers-that be.

He has no concern for the rights of students nor for the need to establish independent universities. Pak Lah, I'm sorry to say this but your desire for good governance and transparency is going down the drain with the Higher Learning Ministry`s outlook on university policies.

First, why is the ministry reluctant on having Suhakam officials monitor campus elections? Don`t give us reasons such as the Commission is only 'hangat-hangat tahi ayam' or that Suhakam was late in sending in their application to monitor.

How can Adham talk about Suhakam being 'hangat-hangat tahi ayam' when they have not even given the chance to prove their intention? I believe Suhakam is committed to its cause to probe the whole matter since it has been receiving lots of memoranda from students who claim that something had gone wrong with the campus elections.

Now, I would definitely use another Malay proverb for this situation: 'Kalau tidak ada angin, masakan pokok bergoyang'.If the Higher Learning Ministry sincerely believes and acknowledges that there was no foul-play in the campus elections, then why don't they just welcome Suhakam and even other independent bodies to monitor the process.

There is another saying appropriate for this: 'Berani kerana benar, takut kerana salah'.

Secondly, being a supporter of student rights and academic freedom, I must question why Adham linked the Uuca to the campus elections. I believe those who used to study in local universities would understand why the Uuca is totally unreliable.

Its own reason of existence was due to the government's intention to crack down on student activism in the' 70s and thus cover up weaknesses which the government has not and is still not willing to overcome.

Uuca, being an Act which deserves abolishment, is not the ultimate reference point in this matter. If Adham claims that there is no mention under Uuca for the empowering of an external body to monitor campus elections, then there is also no mention of campus election procedures under the Uuca.

Being a mother Act, Uuca merely confers power onto university authorities to come up with regulations and procedures to governs the internal affairs of universities. This means that vice- chancellors and deputy vice-chancellors have wide discretionary power to 'decide' on matters for the best interests of their universities and students.

I guess that is what our university authorities are doing now. But unfortunately, they are exercising their discretionary powers with bias and double standards thus prejudicing the rights and interests of the students.

Isn't supporting one group of candidates (the ones they are 'pleased with') over another a manifestation of discrimination of students based on ideas and political beliefs? In view of this matter, I totally disagree with how the Higher Learning Ministry is manipulating the Uuca to prevent external bodies from scrutinising campus elections.

Thirdly, and the most hilarious allegation of all, is how dare the ministry state that the former UM student council should be blamed for the drop in the university's ranking among Asian varsities?

The process of ranking best Asian universities is not done in the narrow-minded way the ministry perceives it to be. The ranking looks at the whole university system holistically - academic reputation, student selectivity, faculty resources, researches and financial resources.

According to the 2000 ranking in which Kyoto University was ranked first, UM was at number 47 that year, scoring only 2.14 percent for research compared to Kyoto University which scored 11.48 percent, ranking second in research.

What does this tell us? How is the former student representative council responsible for UM ranking now? In fact, as we all know, the council should not be blamed at all as they could not even make a single memorable contribution to both their university and society due to the regimented control of students.

So, Adham Baba, please put forth fair and justifiable arguments. Don't treat the public as stupid individuals that cannot see beyond your lame statements. Don't reinforce and reinstate the pro-establishment's 'victorious' achievement in the recent campus elections as a signal that the students 'want change'.

What does 'change' mean if the whole process is very much scripted and orchestrated according to the wishes of the powers-that-be? What does 'change' mean when students are continuously 'blindfolded' and 'gagged' by Uuca?

When do students at large ever need 'change' when they are all along trained to become academically excellent parrots that cannot comprehend the need for justice and democracy on campus?

'Change' for now on campus is very much dictated by university authorities who are desperate enough to attempt to kick out anyone who is willing and daring enough to stand up for human rights and justice.

The only change that I can think of now is to reform the whole corrupted university system and to kick out university staff and academicians who are proactive in apple-polishing for the government and are too scared to voice out the truth.

Now, that is the change that we all should look forward too.