If the law is respected, justice will be done — Hafiz Hassan

DECEMBER 24 — I’m referring to the report “UM suspends speaker for inappropriate sexual messages.”

According to the report, Universiti Malaya (UM) has announced the suspension of a professor involved in sending inappropriate sexual messages, in accordance with the Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Sanctions) Act 2000 (Act 605).

First of all. It should be a ban (Ditahan Kerja) and not a suspension (digantung kerja). Law 605 itself distinguishes between the two.

Why Law 605?

It must be remembered that UM is established under an Act of Parliament, namely the University of Malaya Act 1961 (revised 2007) (Act 682). The statutory name is University of Malaysia.

Law 682 makes the UM a statutory body. Thus, since November 1, 2000, law 605 has applied to UM.

We can refer to the case Universiti Utara Malaysia v Mutiara bt Mohamad & Ors and another suit (2011) 9 MLJ 655, where the High Court held that all matters of discipline of officers of federal statutory bodies, including that of the University Utara Malaysia (UUM), which is established under the University Act 1971 universities and university colleges (law 30), are governed by law 605.

Section 3 of Act 605 states that the Act shall be read together and construed as one with the constitutive law of a statutory body. This simply means that Law 605 is part of Law 682 and the UM Constitution as contained in subsidiary legislation known as PU(A) 107/1997.

Section 5 of Act 605 states that the regulations contained in the Second Schedule apply to the discipline of officers of a statutory body, including the UM.

An agent is a person employed on a permanent, temporary or contractual basis by a statutory body, and who receives emoluments from the statutory body, and includes a person who is seconded to a subsidiary or management company. the statutory body or any other statutory body or any ministry, department or agency of the Federal Government or any department or agency of the government of any State or any undertaking in which the Federal Government or the government of any State has an interest.

A UM lecturer is therefore subject to Law 605 and the regulations contained in the second annex.

Violation by a speaker — or any official of a statutory body for that matter — of any provision of the code of conduct set out in the Regulations will subject them to disciplinary action.

The code of conduct is set out in full in Part II of the Regulations. This includes not behaving in a way that brings the statutory body into disrepute or brings the statutory body into disrepute.

Part V of the Regulations sets out the disciplinary procedure to be followed when an officer is the subject of disciplinary proceedings.

I do not want to go into the details of the procedure. Suffice it to say that it is imperative that the procedures set out in the Regulations are followed, failing which a breach of the principle of natural justice may arise.

Let us take the example of the recent case of Hayatunnisah bt Sulaiman v Datuk Roger Tan Kor Mee & Ors (2022) MLJU 929 in which the High Court held that the disciplinary proceedings against an official of a statutory body violated the principle of natural justice regarding the rule against bias and the right to be heard.

In a subsequent case of Dr Jumiati bt Ismail vs Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) & Anor (2023) 8 MLJ 706, the High Court also found that there had been a violation of natural justice, entitling the plaintiff, who had been a lecturer for almost 34 years (most of which was spent in university service), to a declaration that she will receive a pension, a gratuity and a golden handshake.

These cases remind statutory bodies to comply with the requirements of the law when it comes to disciplining their officers.

If the law is respected, justice will be done.

*This is the personal opinion of the author or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malaysian mail.