UTAR BJ E-FORUM: Is Act Relevant or to be Abolished?

   The analysis will be touching on the matter concerning four UKM students who were charged by their university for showing support for a political party in April last year, violating the law under Section 15 of the University and University Colleges Act (UUCA). The students then requested a court declaration that Section 15(5)(a) was unlawful, arguing that Article 119 of the Federal Constitution states that every citizen aged 21 years and above is authorized to vote. The query before the court was whether Section 15 invaded the students’ right of expression and should the Act be abolished.

   After comparing the issue which was reported by Sin Chew Daily newspaper and Utusan Online, it is obvious to discover that the news angle for both media is quite similar. Both have mainly reported the opinions from various professional interviewees towards the future action of Section 15(5)(a) UUCA on whether they agree or disagree to repeal the act. Furthermore, both media also have similar structure of arranging the order of news which is highlighting the important events first then followed by the supporting details.

   In contrast, the opinion by the interviewees of both media is totally different. Sin Chew Daily was reporting that they agree with the action to abolish the Act stating that undergraduate students have the rights to contribute to the society by voting for their political party, while Utusan Online disagree with it stating that this action might affect their studies as they should fulfill their duty as a student.

   In conclusion, different media vehicles will have different angle of covering the news. Although sometimes they might choose the same angle to present it but there will be some differences in between. Throughout the comparison of both media, it is distinct which side they tend to be standing on.