RESEARCH INDEPENDENCE / ACADEMIC FREEDOM POLICY

Protecting the integrity of inquiry, the freedom of thought, and the independence of scholarship

Document Reference BAC-EG-RIAF-V1.0
Policy Type Mandatory – Group-wide with Institution-specific Annexes
Version 1.0
Effective Date 1 July 2025
Policy Owner Group General Counsel in consultation with Group Academic Board
Approved By Academic Board, BAC Education Group
Primary Frameworks UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel (1997) | Lima Declaration on Academic Freedom and Autonomy of Institutions of Higher Education (1988) | Magna Charta Universitatum (1988, revised 2020) | Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) Standards | Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996 (PHEIA) | Education Act 1996 | Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA)
Review Cycle Every two years (mandatory); or earlier upon material change in law or MQA standards
Next Review Due 1 July 2027
Classification Internal – to be published on Group intranet and shared with all academic staff

WHY THIS POLICY EXISTS

Academic freedom and research independence are not privileges — they are preconditions for the production of trustworthy knowledge, for the preparation of graduates who can think critically and independently, and for the maintenance of institutional credibility with students, regulators, employers, and the public. This Policy exists to protect these conditions actively, not merely to acknowledge them.

1. PURPOSE

This Policy establishes the BAC Education Group’s (“the Group”) framework for protecting and promoting academic freedom and research independence across all five Institutions. It defines the rights and responsibilities of academic staff, researchers, and students in the exercise of intellectual inquiry; sets limits on institutional, external, and commercial influence over academic and research activities; and creates the governance structures and remedies necessary to ensure that academic freedom is a lived reality rather than a paper commitment.

This Policy applies equally to:

  • Academic freedom: the right of academic staff and students to pursue, develop, and communicate knowledge and ideas without interference, subject to the standards of their discipline and the responsibilities set out in this Policy.
  • Research independence: the right and obligation of researchers to design, conduct, analyse, and publish research according to the standards of sound scholarship and research ethics, free from undue external or institutional influence over methodology, findings, or publication.

2. SCOPE

This Policy applies to:

  • All academic staff (full-time, part-time, adjunct, visiting, and honorary) across all five Institutions.
  • All researchers engaged in research activities under the auspices of any Institution, including postgraduate research students.
  • All students in relation to their intellectual freedom in learning, discussion, and assessed work.
  • The Institution and Group as organisations, in respect of their obligations to protect and enable academic freedom.
  • All external parties (including funders, industry partners, sponsors, donors, and government agencies) in respect of the limits on their influence over academic and research activities.

Relationship to Other Policies

This Policy is to be read alongside the BAC Education Group AI Policy Framework (BAC-EG-AI-POLICY-FRAMEWORK-V1.0), the AI Research and Intellectual Property Policy (Policy 8), the AI Academic Integrity Policy (Policy 2), and the Group’s Research Ethics Policy (to be developed). In the event of conflict between this Policy and any other Group policy, this Policy prevails in matters affecting the content, methodology, findings, or publication of academic or research work.

3. FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES

The Group’s commitment to academic freedom and research independence is grounded in the following seven principles. These principles are not aspirational statements — they are operative commitments that inform every section of this Policy.

01
Freedom of Inquiry		 Academic staff and researchers have the right to choose their research questions, design their methodologies, interpret their findings, and reach their own conclusions, free from prior constraint by the Institution, funders, sponsors, or any other party.
02
Freedom of Teaching		 Academic staff have the right to teach their subjects according to their professional judgment, to present competing theories and perspectives honestly, and to express disagreement with received wisdom, provided they do so within the standards of their discipline and with intellectual rigour.
03
Freedom of Publication and Communication		 Researchers have the right to publish, present, and communicate their research findings, including findings that are inconvenient, contested, or critical of the Institution, its funders, its industry partners, or established policy. This right is subject only to legal obligations, ethical requirements, and legitimate confidentiality periods.
04
Institutional Autonomy		 The Institution has a collective obligation to protect the academic freedom of its staff and students from external pressure. This includes the obligation to resist inappropriate influence from government, industry, donors, professional bodies, or any other external party over academic appointments, curriculum content, research agendas, or research outcomes.
05
Responsibility and Accountability		 Academic freedom is exercised within a framework of professional responsibility. The freedoms protected by this Policy carry corresponding duties: rigour, honesty, respect for persons, compliance with research ethics, acknowledgement of limitations, and openness to scrutiny and challenge from the academic community.
06
Non-Retaliation		 No academic staff member, researcher, or student shall suffer adverse treatment by reason of the exercise of academic freedom, the expression of unpopular or controversial views, the reporting of research integrity concerns, or the challenging of institutional or external authority in matters of scholarly substance.
07
Student Intellectual Freedom		 Students have the right to form, hold, express, and develop their own views, to be assessed on the quality of their reasoning and not on whether their conclusions agree with those of the assessor, and to learn in an environment that models and values intellectual honesty and independent thought.

4. RIGHTS OF ACADEMIC STAFF AND RESEARCHERS

4.1 Research Rights

Every academic staff member and researcher at the Group’s Institutions has the following rights in relation to their research activities:

4.1.1 Freedom to Determine Research Agenda

  • The right to propose and pursue research questions of their own choosing, subject to available resources and research ethics approval.
  • The right to be free from institutional direction as to the conclusions or findings they should reach in any research project.
  • The right to decline to conduct research that conflicts with their professional ethics, provided they communicate this promptly and the research agenda can be reasonably re-assigned.

4.1.2 Freedom of Methodology

  • The right to design research methodology according to the standards of their discipline and in accordance with approved research ethics frameworks.
  • The right to disagree with the methodological choices of peers, supervisors, and funders, and to advocate for alternative approaches through legitimate scholarly channels.
  • The right to report negative, null, or inconvenient results with the same rigour and protection as positive results. The Group expressly prohibits the suppression of null or negative findings.

4.1.3 Freedom of Publication

Subject to the legitimate exceptions set out in Section 6, academic staff and researchers have the right to:

  • Publish research findings in journals, conference proceedings, books, or other scholarly outlets of their choosing.
  • Present findings at academic conferences and public forums.
  • Communicate research findings to the media, public, and policymakers using their own professional judgment.
  • Publish findings that are critical of the Institution, its policies, its commercial partners, or its funders, subject to legal obligations and ethical standards.
  • Determine the authorship of their publications in accordance with established disciplinary and ethical norms (see Section 8).

4.2 Teaching Rights

  • The right to design and deliver their modules and programmes according to their professional academic judgment, within approved programme structures and MQA requirements.
  • The right to present contested, controversial, or evolving knowledge honestly, including presenting evidence against as well as in favour of established positions.
  • The right to express their own expert views in teaching, provided they clearly distinguish personal professional opinion from established consensus and model intellectual humility.
  • The right to be free from institutional or external instruction as to which conclusions to present as correct where genuine scholarly controversy exists.
  • The right to update curriculum content to reflect current knowledge without requiring approval for each individual update, subject to programme structure and MQA requirements.

4.3 Freedom of Expression and Public Scholarship

Academic staff have the right to engage in public scholarship, including:

  • Contributing to public debate on matters within their area of expertise as private citizens or as scholars, clearly distinguishing between personal opinion and institutional position.
  • Commenting publicly on matters of public interest in their field, including matters that may be commercially or politically sensitive.
  • Engaging with media, policy bodies, civil society, and professional organisations on matters of scholarly relevance.

Important Distinction

When academic staff communicate publicly on matters of expert opinion, they should make clear whether they are speaking as a private individual, as a scholar in their field, or as a representative of the Institution. The Group does not, by virtue of this Policy, endorse the specific views of individual academic staff expressed in their capacity as scholars or private citizens. The Group does, however, protect their right to express those views without adverse institutional consequence, subject to the legal and professional limits set out in Section 5.

4.4 Rights in Relation to External Funding and Industry Partnerships

Where academic staff engage in externally funded research or industry-partnered projects, they retain the following rights regardless of the terms preferred by the external funder or partner:

  • The right to publish research findings within a reasonable time after conclusion of the project (see Section 6.2 on legitimate confidentiality periods).
  • The right to report all findings, including those unfavourable to the funder or partner.
  • The right to determine the research methodology independently of funder preference, subject to agreed project scope.
  • The right to decline to sign a funding or partnership agreement that purports to give the funder control over research outcomes, publication decisions, or the right to suppress findings.
  • The right to acknowledge funding sources transparently in all publications arising from funded research.

5. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ACADEMIC STAFF AND RESEARCHERS

Academic freedom is not unconditional. The rights set out in Section 4 are exercised within a framework of professional and ethical responsibility. The following responsibilities are integral to, not in tension with, the exercise of academic freedom.

5.1 Scholarly Integrity

  1. Conducting research and scholarship to the highest standards of rigour, honesty, and transparency applicable in the relevant discipline.
  2. Accurately representing the state of knowledge in a field, including areas of genuine uncertainty and scholarly disagreement.
  3. Acknowledging the limitations of one’s own research and the boundaries of one’s own expertise.
  4. Distinguishing clearly between established findings, working hypotheses, and personal professional opinion.
  5. Complying with the Group’s Research Ethics Policy and applicable national and international research ethics standards.

5.2 Responsibilities in Teaching

  1. Presenting knowledge fairly, including views that challenge or contradict one’s own position, and modelling intellectual openness and critical thinking.
  2. Assessing students on the quality of their reasoning, methodology, and evidence, not on whether their conclusions agree with the assessor’s own views.
  3. Creating a learning environment in which students feel genuinely safe to express, develop, and defend their own views.
  4. Ensuring that the expression of the lecturer’s own views does not suppress student intellectual freedom or create a chilling effect on student expression.

5.3 Responsibilities in Public Communication

  1. Distinguishing clearly between expert scholarly opinion and personal political or social opinion when engaging in public discourse.
  2. Not misrepresenting the state of knowledge in a field or the nature or extent of one’s own expertise.
  3. Not making false statements of fact about identifiable individuals or organisations under the claimed protection of academic freedom.
  4. Complying with applicable Malaysian and international law, including laws governing defamation, sedition, and national security (see Section 5.5).

5.4 Research Ethics Compliance

  1. Obtaining required research ethics approval before commencing any research involving human participants, sensitive data, or other matters requiring ethical review.
  2. Complying with data protection obligations under Malaysia’s Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (PDPA) in the conduct of research.
  3. Properly acknowledging all sources and contributions, including AI tool assistance (per the AI Research and IP Policy, Policy 8).
  4. Reporting suspected research misconduct through the channels set out in Section 10.

5.5 Legal Limits on Academic Freedom

Academic freedom operates within the law. The following legal limits apply across the Group’s operations and do not constitute an infringement of academic freedom properly understood:

Legal Limit Applicable Law / Basis
Defamation Defamation Act 1957 (Malaysia); common law of defamation. Academic freedom does not protect false statements of fact that damage identifiable persons’ reputations.
Sedition Sedition Act 1948 (Malaysia). Academic staff must be aware of the scope of this legislation in the Malaysian context when engaging in public commentary on sensitive political or constitutional matters.
Official Secrets Official Secrets Act 1972 (Malaysia). Research involving government-classified information must comply with applicable secrecy obligations.
National Security Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 and related legislation. Research or communication that constitutes a security offence is not protected by this Policy.
Data Protection Personal Data Protection Act 2010. Research involving personal data must be conducted in compliance with PDPA regardless of scholarly purpose.
Intellectual Property Copyright Act 1987; Patents Act 1983. Academic freedom does not justify infringement of third-party intellectual property rights.
Professional Conduct Bar Council Rules of Conduct (for legal academics with practising certificates); other applicable professional body requirements. Professional obligations complement academic freedom and do not override it except where the two are in direct conflict on a specific matter.

6. INSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATIONS

The Group and each Institution bear affirmative obligations to protect and enable academic freedom and research independence. These are not passive obligations: they require active institutional behaviour.

6.1 Obligation to Protect from External Pressure

The Institution shall:

  1. Resist and formally decline requests by government agencies, industry partners, funders, donors, or any other external party to direct, alter, suppress, or pre-approve academic or research outputs.
  2. Decline to enter into any funding agreement, sponsorship arrangement, or partnership that purports to give the external party control over research findings, publication decisions, or curriculum content.
  3. Notify academic staff promptly of any external pressure or request received in relation to their work, and document such requests in the Academic Freedom Register (see Section 9.3).
  4. Not remove, demote, or disadvantage an academic staff member in response to external pressure arising from the content of their academic or research work.

6.2 External Funding and Research Partnerships: Approved Constraints

The following constraints arising from external funding or partnership agreements are legitimate and do not constitute a breach of research independence, provided they are agreed in writing before the research commences and are proportionate to the legitimate interests of the funder:

  • A confidentiality period of up to twelve (12) months before publication, to allow the funder to review findings, prepare a commercial or regulatory response, or file patent applications. Confidentiality periods exceeding 12 months require written approval from the Academic Board.
  • Removal of genuinely commercially confidential information from the published version of a study, provided the removal does not materially misrepresent the findings and is disclosed in the publication as a limitation.
  • Acknowledgement of funding source in all publications arising from the funded research.
  • Prior notification to the funder before publication, not prior approval by the funder. The funder may comment; the researcher decides.

Permitted vs. Prohibited Funder Influence

PERMITTED: Funder may request a confidentiality period (up to 12 months); request acknowledgement; receive advance notification; provide comments on draft findings for the researcher to consider. NOT PERMITTED: Funder may not veto publication; require modification of findings to reach a preferred conclusion; require the researcher to exclude adverse or null results; require publication in a specific journal or under specific co-authorship as a condition of funding; require prior approval of the final published text.

6.3 Obligation to Support Controversial or Critical Research

The Institution specifically commits to supporting academic staff whose research or scholarship is:

  • Critical of the Institution itself, its governance, policies, or practices.
  • Critical of industry partners, donors, or sponsors of the Institution.
  • Politically sensitive, socially contested, or at odds with prevailing official positions.
  • Unpopular with a particular student cohort, community, or external stakeholder group.

Support in these cases means: not withdrawing resources, not discouraging the work, and actively protecting the researcher from institutional or external reprisal. It does not mean the Institution endorses the content of the work.

6.4 Obligation in Relation to Appointments and Promotions

Academic appointments, promotions, tenure decisions, and contract renewals shall be made on the basis of academic merit, scholarly record, and professional conduct. The following factors shall not influence such decisions:

  • The political, social, or religious views expressed by the candidate in academic or public discourse.
  • The candidate’s research findings, including findings critical of the Institution or its partners.
  • The candidate’s exercise of their rights under this Policy, including raising academic freedom concerns or reporting research misconduct.
  • The candidate’s refusal to conduct research that conflicts with their professional ethics.

6.5 Obligation to Resource Academic Inquiry

The Group recognises that academic freedom without adequate resources is hollow. The Group commits to:

  • Maintaining library and information resources sufficient to support independent scholarly inquiry across all disciplines taught and researched at its Institutions.
  • Providing reasonable access to research databases, journals, and primary sources.
  • Not conditioning access to research resources on agreement to produce commercially favourable results.
  • Supporting academic staff in applying for external research grants, including grants from bodies whose findings may not be commercially advantageous to the Group.

6.6 Obligations Specific to University Colleges (Veritas and UNIMY)

Veritas University College and UNIMY, as university colleges operating under the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996 and subject to MQA quality standards, bear the following additional institutional obligations:

  1. Embedding research independence and academic freedom as explicit institutional values in strategic plans, MQA self-review documents, and quality assurance processes.
  2. Ensuring that programme approval and review processes do not compromise academic staff’s ability to update curriculum content in response to advances in their discipline.
  3. Establishing and maintaining a functioning Academic Freedom and Research Ethics Committee at the institutional level (see Section 9).
  4. Including academic freedom as a dimension of institutional climate in any student or staff satisfaction surveys conducted.

7. STUDENT INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM

7.1 Right to Form and Express Views

Students at all Group Institutions have the right to:

  • Form, hold, and express their own views on academic matters, including views that challenge received wisdom, contest the views of their lecturers, or question the content of their programmes.
  • Engage in academic discourse, debate, and discussion in a manner that is intellectually rigorous and respectful of others.
  • Be assessed on the quality of their reasoning, use of evidence, and scholarly methodology, not on whether their conclusions agree with those of the assessor.
  • Question the curriculum and academic content through appropriate institutional channels without fear of academic or disciplinary penalty for doing so.

7.2 Student Academic Integrity and Intellectual Honesty

Student intellectual freedom carries corresponding responsibilities:

  1. Students must engage with the evidence and arguments relevant to any academic question, not merely assert their preferred conclusion.
  2. Students must acknowledge the sources of ideas and arguments they use, including AI-generated content (per the AI Academic Integrity Policy, Policy 2).
  3. Students must distinguish between their own reasoned views and established knowledge in their submissions.
  4. Students must engage respectfully with views they disagree with, including in assessments, seminars, and academic debates.

7.3 Postgraduate Research Students

Postgraduate research students (where applicable) enjoy additional protections aligned with those of academic staff:

  • The right to develop their own research questions within the agreed scope of their programme, in genuine dialogue with their supervisor.
  • The right to disagree with their supervisor on matters of scholarly substance and to seek a second academic opinion through the IAC or Academic Board without fear of retaliatory treatment.
  • The right to publish their research findings independently upon completion of their programme, subject to any legitimate confidentiality period agreed before commencement.
  • The right to change supervisor where a genuine and documented conflict of interest, incompatibility, or academic freedom concern makes continuation with the current supervisor inappropriate.

7.4 Limits on Student Intellectual Freedom

Student intellectual freedom does not protect:

  • Speech or conduct that constitutes harassment, intimidation, or discrimination against other students, staff, or third parties.
  • Academic dishonesty, plagiarism, or misrepresentation of sources.
  • Conduct that violates applicable Malaysian law or the Group’s Student Conduct Regulations.
  • Disruption of the academic activities of other students or staff.

8. RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND PUBLICATION ETHICS

8.1 Research Misconduct: Definitions

The following constitute research misconduct and are incompatible with academic freedom (which requires scholarly integrity):

Form of Misconduct Definition
Fabrication Inventing data, results, or other outputs that were not actually obtained.
Falsification Manipulating, altering, or omitting data, methodologies, or findings to produce a misleading result.
Plagiarism Presenting the ideas, text, data, methodology, or findings of another person as one’s own without proper attribution, including AI-generated content presented as original human scholarship (per AI Policy, Policy 2 and Policy 8).
Suppression of Results Deliberately withholding or failing to report research findings, including null or negative results, for reasons unrelated to scientific validity or ethical necessity.
Selective Reporting Reporting only results that support a preferred hypothesis while withholding contradictory data within the same study.
Ghost Authorship Omitting from authorship a person who made a substantial intellectual contribution to a work.
Gift Authorship Including as an author a person who made no substantial intellectual contribution.
Undisclosed Conflict of Interest Failing to disclose a financial, professional, or personal relationship that a reasonable reader would consider relevant to the objectivity of the work.
Duplicate Submission Submitting substantially the same work to multiple journals simultaneously without disclosure, or republishing previously published work without acknowledgement.
Misrepresentation of Credentials Claiming qualifications, affiliations, or expertise not held.

8.2 Authorship Standards

Authorship of academic publications shall be determined in accordance with the following principles, consistent with international standards (ICMJE, COPE):

  1. Authorship requires: (a) substantial contribution to conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation; (b) drafting or critically revising the work for important intellectual content; and (c) approval of the final version for submission.
  2. Meeting only one criterion is insufficient for authorship. All three must be met.
  3. All persons who qualify as authors must be listed. No person may be excluded without their knowledge and agreement.
  4. AI tools cannot be listed as authors. The use of AI tools must be disclosed in the methods section or acknowledgements in accordance with the target journal’s requirements and the Group’s AI Research and IP Policy (Policy 8).
  5. Authorship disputes shall be referred to the Academic Freedom and Research Ethics Committee (see Section 9.2).

8.3 Conflict of Interest Disclosure

All academic staff and researchers must disclose, in any publication, grant application, or public presentation, any financial, professional, or personal relationship that could reasonably be perceived as influencing their work. Mandatory disclosures include:

  • Research funding received from any commercial, government, or non-governmental entity.
  • Consultancy relationships, board memberships, or advisory roles with entities whose interests may be affected by the research.
  • Equity holdings or financial interests in entities whose products or activities are the subject of the research.
  • Personal relationships with individuals whose interests may be affected by the research findings.

Disclosure of a conflict of interest does not render the research impermissible. The requirement is transparency. It is the concealment of a conflict of interest that constitutes research misconduct.

8.4 Open Access and Research Dissemination

The Group encourages open access to research outputs where:

  • The quality and peer-review standards of the publication venue are not compromised.
  • Any applicable embargo or confidentiality period has elapsed.
  • Open access fees, where applicable, are sustainable within the researcher’s available resources.

The Group commits to not penalising academic staff for choosing open access publication over subscription-journal publication, provided the publication venue meets accepted standards of scholarly quality.

9. GOVERNANCE AND OVERSIGHT

9.1 Policy Owner and Accountability

The Group General Counsel (“GGC”), in consultation with the Group Academic Board, is the Policy Owner and is responsible for:

  • Maintaining and periodically reviewing this Policy.
  • Receiving and acting upon reports of academic freedom concerns at the Group level.
  • Maintaining the Group-level Academic Freedom Register.
  • Reporting to the Academic Board on the state of academic freedom across the Group annually.

9.2 Academic Freedom and Research Ethics Committee (AFREC)

Each Institution shall establish an Academic Freedom and Research Ethics Committee (“AFREC”). Where an Institution’s scale does not justify a standalone AFREC, it shall designate a combined Academic Standards and Ethics Committee that discharges the AFREC’s functions under this Policy.

Composition of each Institutional AFREC:

  • Chair: A senior academic staff member elected by the academic staff body (not an administrative appointment of management).
  • Two academic staff members, elected by peers, from different discipline areas.
  • One postgraduate research student representative (where applicable).
  • One undergraduate student representative.
  • The institution’s Head of Academic Affairs (ex officio, non-voting).
  • An external independent academic (from another institution), appointed by the Academic Board for a three-year renewable term, to provide external perspective and resist institutional capture.

Functions of each Institutional AFREC:

  1. Receive and investigate academic freedom complaints and research misconduct allegations under Section 10.
  2. Review and approve research that involves potentially sensitive, controversial, or high-risk topics before commencement.
  3. Review proposed external funding agreements for academic freedom compliance under Section 6.2.
  4. Review proposed publication embargo and confidentiality arrangements to ensure they comply with the limits in Section 6.2.
  5. Advise academic staff on academic freedom questions arising in their work.
  6. Report annually to the Institutional Principal and to the Group Academic Board on the state of academic freedom at the Institution.
  7. Escalate Group-level or unresolved matters to the GGC.

9.3 Academic Freedom Register

The Group shall maintain a Group-level Academic Freedom Register and each Institution shall maintain an Institutional Academic Freedom Register. Each register shall record:

  • All academic freedom concerns, complaints, and inquiries received, with date, nature, and outcome.
  • All requests from external parties (funders, government, industry) to influence academic or research activities, with date, nature, the requesting party, and the institutional response.
  • All external funding agreements reviewed under Section 6.2, with any approved constraints noted.
  • All publication embargo and confidentiality arrangements approved, with duration.
  • All research misconduct allegations received, with outcome (subject to confidentiality obligations to the parties).

Registers shall be reviewed by the AFREC annually and a summary (anonymised where necessary to protect individuals) included in the Academic Board’s annual report.

9.4 Group Academic Board Oversight

The Group Academic Board shall:

  1. Receive an annual academic freedom report from the GGC covering all five Institutions.
  2. Review any systemic or recurring academic freedom concerns identified across the Group.
  3. Approve any proposed external funding agreement where the proposed constraints exceed those permitted under Section 6.2.
  4. Receive and act upon recommendations from Institutional AFRECs.
  5. Ensure that academic freedom considerations are incorporated into MQA self-review and programme approval processes.

10. COMPLAINTS, INVESTIGATIONS AND REMEDIES

10.1 Who May Raise a Concern

The following persons may raise a concern or complaint under this Policy:

  • Any academic staff member who believes their academic freedom has been infringed or threatened by the Institution, a colleague, a funder, or any other party.
  • Any researcher who believes their research independence has been compromised.
  • Any student who believes their intellectual freedom has been suppressed or penalised.
  • Any person who has become aware of potential research misconduct.

10.2 Reporting Channels

Route Contact When to Use
Institutional AFREC Chair Contact details available on each institution’s intranet. Reports may be made in writing or in person. First port of call for all academic freedom and research integrity concerns at the institutional level.
Group General Counsel Direct report by email or in person for matters involving senior management, systemic concerns, or concerns that cannot appropriately be raised at the institutional level. Senior-level concerns; matters involving the Institutional Principal or a member of the AFREC.
Whistleblowing Channel (Anonymous) Available via the Group’s whistleblowing platform. Details on each institution’s intranet. Anonymous reports; matters involving potential retaliation; concerns about research fraud.
External — MQA Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) complaints mechanism, where the concern relates to programme quality or accreditation standards. Where the institutional process has been exhausted or is itself compromised.

10.3 Investigation Procedure

  1. Receipt and acknowledgement: The AFREC shall acknowledge receipt of a written complaint within five (5) working days and provide the complainant with an estimated timeline.
  2. Prima facie assessment: The AFREC Chair shall conduct a prima facie assessment within ten (10) working days of receipt. If the complaint does not disclose a potential breach of this Policy, the matter is closed and the complainant notified with written reasons.
  3. Formal investigation: If the prima facie assessment identifies a potential breach, the AFREC shall constitute a three-member investigation panel (including the independent external member) to conduct a formal investigation. The respondent shall be notified of the allegation and provided an opportunity to respond in writing within fifteen (15) working days.
  4. Hearing (where required): For serious allegations, the AFREC panel may convene a hearing at which both parties may present evidence and be accompanied by a support person (but not a legal representative in the hearing itself, without leave of the panel).
  5. Finding and recommendation: The AFREC panel shall issue a written finding and recommendation within thirty (30) working days of the formal investigation commencing. The finding shall be communicated to both parties.
  6. Institutional response: The Institutional Principal shall implement the AFREC’s recommendations within twenty (20) working days of receipt, or provide written reasons for departing from them. Departure from an AFREC recommendation must be reported to the GGC.
  7. Appeal: Either party may appeal the AFREC’s finding to the Group Academic Board within fifteen (15) working days of receiving the finding. The Academic Board’s decision is final within the Group’s internal processes.

10.4 Remedies Available

Where an academic freedom breach is established, the following remedies may be recommended by the AFREC:

Category Available Remedies
Where the Institution is the respondent Withdrawal of an improper instruction or directive. Reinstatement of a withheld resource or opportunity. Formal acknowledgement of the breach. Amendment of a policy, contract, or agreement that infringes academic freedom. Recommendation for disciplinary review of any institutional officer responsible for the breach.
Where a colleague is the respondent Formal caution. Requirement for training or supervision. Referral to disciplinary process for serious misconduct. Publication of a correction where research misconduct has resulted in a misleading publication.
Where an external party is the respondent Termination of the relevant funding, partnership, or sponsorship agreement. Formal notification to the external party’s governing body or relevant professional organisation. Referral to law enforcement where conduct constitutes a criminal offence.
Where a student is the respondent Action under the institution’s student conduct regulations. Where research misconduct by a student is established: academic penalty as per the AI and Academic Integrity policies.
Systemic recommendations Recommendations to the Academic Board for changes to Group-level policy, governance, or practice to prevent recurrence.

10.5 Protection from Retaliation

Any person who raises a concern, makes a complaint, gives evidence in an investigation, or exercises any right under this Policy in good faith shall be protected from retaliation. Retaliation includes:

  • Adverse employment actions (demotion, dismissal, non-renewal, salary reduction, denial of promotion).
  • Withdrawal of research resources, funding, or support.
  • Social or professional ostracism facilitated by institutional structures.
  • Academic penalties applied to a student for raising a concern.
  • Any other adverse treatment causally connected to the exercise of rights under this Policy.

A complaint of retaliation shall be treated as a separate and independent academic freedom complaint and investigated under the procedure in Section 10.3. Establishing retaliation is a serious disciplinary matter.

11. EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS, FUNDING, AND PARTNERSHIPS

11.1 Principles for External Engagement

The Group actively encourages academic staff to engage with industry, government, civil society, and international partners in ways that advance knowledge and serve the public good. Such engagement is a sign of academic vitality and community responsibility, not a compromise of independence. However, engagement must be structured to protect the conditions that make it valuable: the credibility that derives from independence.

11.2 Mandatory Academic Freedom Review

Before the Group or any Institution executes any of the following agreements, the relevant AFREC must complete an Academic Freedom Review (using the Academic Freedom Review Checklist at Annex A):

  • Any external research funding agreement exceeding RM50,000 (or equivalent) in value, or any duration.
  • Any industry-partnered research or consultancy agreement where the external party has or seeks any degree of influence over research design, methodology, findings, or publication.
  • Any donation, endowment, or naming agreement that could be construed as creating an expectation of influence over academic activities.
  • Any curriculum sponsorship or programme partnership with an external party.
  • Any agreement with a government agency that involves research into matters of public policy, law, or governance.

11.3 Prohibited Contract Provisions

The Group shall not enter into any external funding, sponsorship, or partnership agreement that contains any of the following provisions:

  1. A right for the external party to approve, amend, veto, or suppress research findings before or after publication.
  2. An obligation on the researcher to modify findings to align with the external party’s preferred conclusions.
  3. A prohibition on the researcher disclosing the existence of the funding relationship.
  4. A confidentiality period exceeding twelve (12) months from completion of the research (save with Academic Board approval in exceptional circumstances).
  5. A right for the external party to determine the authorship of publications arising from funded research.
  6. An obligation on the Institution to dismiss or remove a researcher whose findings are inconvenient to the funder.
  7. A clause that conditions payment of research funding on the production of findings favourable to the funder.

11.4 Donor and Naming Agreements

The acceptance of donations, including named chairs, named buildings, named scholarships, or endowed programme positions, shall not be construed as creating any entitlement on the part of the donor to influence the academic activities of the beneficiary or the Institution. All naming agreements shall include an express clause to this effect. The Group shall return a donation and terminate a naming agreement if the donor uses or attempts to use the donation as leverage to influence academic activities.

11.5 Sponsored Research: Transparency Requirements

All publications arising from externally funded research shall disclose:

  • The identity of all funding sources.
  • Any financial or other relationship between the authors and the funding organisation.
  • Any embargo or confidentiality arrangements that have affected the completeness or timing of the publication.
  • Any significant contribution by an AI tool to the research or writing of the publication (per Policy 8).

12. ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS, SECURITY OF TENURE AND EMPLOYMENT

12.1 Appointments on Academic Merit

All academic appointments shall be made on the basis of academic and professional merit. A candidate’s demonstrated commitment to academic integrity and independent scholarship shall be considered a positive qualification. A candidate’s expression of views — political, social, religious, or academic — that are lawful but unpopular with institutional leadership or external stakeholders shall not be a basis for exclusion from appointment.

12.2 Security of Tenure and Contract Renewal

Security of tenure, to the extent provided by the relevant employment contract and Malaysian employment law, is an important practical condition of academic freedom. The Group commits to the following in relation to academic employment security:

  • Contract renewal decisions for academic staff shall be made on documented, merit-based criteria communicated to the staff member at the time of appointment.
  • A decision not to renew an academic contract shall not be made solely or substantially on the basis of the content of the staff member’s academic or research work, their exercise of rights under this Policy, or their raising of academic freedom or research integrity concerns.
  • Where a non-renewal decision is contested on academic freedom grounds, the staff member may invoke the complaints procedure under Section 10.

12.3 Redundancy and Restructuring

Where academic positions are made redundant for genuine organisational or financial reasons, the Group commits to:

  • Applying objective, documented selection criteria that do not include the content of a staff member’s academic or research work as a selection factor.
  • Complying fully with the Employment Act 1955 and Industrial Relations Act 1967 (Malaysia).
  • Consulting with affected staff and their representatives before finalising restructuring decisions.

13. AI TOOLS AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM

13.1 AI as a Tool of Scholarship, Not a Substitute for It

The Group’s AI Policy Framework (BAC-EG-AI-POLICY-FRAMEWORK-V1.0) governs the use of AI tools in academic work. The following principles apply specifically to the intersection of AI and academic freedom:

  • Academic freedom protects the right of academic staff to form and express their own scholarly judgments. The use of AI tools to generate academic content without the exercise of independent scholarly judgment is not an exercise of academic freedom — it is its abdication.
  • Academic staff retain full professional responsibility for all work product they produce or publish, regardless of AI assistance. Academic freedom does not provide immunity from accountability for AI-generated errors or misrepresentations.
  • The Group recognises that academic staff have the freedom to choose whether, when, and how to use AI tools in their scholarly work, within the parameters of the AI Policy Framework and applicable disciplinary and publication standards.

13.2 AI and Research Independence

In relation to research independence specifically:

  • AI tools may be used to assist in literature review, data processing, and preliminary drafting, provided their use is disclosed and the researcher retains intellectual control over research design, analysis, and conclusions.
  • Researchers must critically evaluate AI-generated research outputs and are responsible for the accuracy of all claims in their published work, whether or not AI assisted in their production.
  • The use of AI in research methodology that has not been disclosed to the relevant ethics review body, or that exceeds the scope approved by that body, constitutes a research ethics violation.

13.3 AI and Institutional Influence

The Group explicitly commits that it will not:

  • Use AI-powered surveillance or monitoring tools to track the academic output, research activities, or communications of academic staff in a manner that creates a chilling effect on the exercise of academic freedom.
  • Use AI-generated analysis of academic staff’s publication record, research interests, or expressed views as a basis for employment decisions, in a manner that circumvents the merit-based principles in Section 12.
  • Require academic staff to use specific AI tools in their scholarly work.

14. REGULATORY AND ACCREDITATION CONTEXT

14.1 MQA and MOHE

The Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) Malaysian Qualifications Framework and the MQA Standards for University Colleges and Private Higher Educational Institutions require that institutions demonstrate commitment to academic quality and intellectual rigour. This Policy directly supports the Group’s MQA compliance by:

  • Protecting the conditions necessary for programme quality: independent academic judgment in curriculum design, assessment, and scholarship.
  • Providing the governance structures (AFREC) necessary to demonstrate institutional accountability for academic standards.
  • Establishing clear standards for research integrity consistent with MQA’s expectations for institutions engaged in research and postgraduate education.

14.2 PHEIA 1996 and Institutional Autonomy

The Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996 (“PHEIA”) governs the operation of the Group’s private higher education institutions. This Policy is designed to operate within the PHEIA framework while giving maximum effect to academic freedom within the discretion that the Act affords private institutions. Where PHEIA or MOHE directives constrain academic activities, the Group will comply with those legal obligations while advocating, through appropriate channels, for policy frameworks that better support academic freedom.

14.3 International Standards

This Policy is designed to give effect to the following international standards, which the Group adopts as normative frameworks:

  • UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel (1997): the international standard for academic freedom protections, including freedom of teaching, research, and publication.
  • Lima Declaration on Academic Freedom and Autonomy (1988): foundational statement on the indivisibility of institutional autonomy and individual academic freedom.
  • Magna Charta Universitatum (1988, revised 2020): the freedom of research and teaching as the fundamental principle of university life; signed by leading universities worldwide.
  • UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs): the Group’s obligations as an institution to respect human rights, including the right to freedom of expression and opinion, in relation to its academic community.

15. REVIEW, AMENDMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS

15.1 Review

This Policy shall be reviewed every two (2) years from its effective date. An extraordinary review shall be triggered by:

  • Any material change in Malaysian law affecting academic freedom, research ethics, or higher education governance.
  • Any material change in MQA or MOHE standards bearing on academic freedom or research independence.
  • A significant academic freedom or research misconduct incident within the Group.
  • Significant developments in international best practice on academic freedom in private higher education.

15.2 Amendment Authority

Material amendments (those that alter the rights, responsibilities, or governance structures in this Policy) require Academic Board approval. Minor amendments (clarificatory or operational) may be made by the GGC. All versions shall be retained for a minimum of ten (10) years.

15.3 Related Documents

Document Relationship to This Policy
BAC Education Group AI Policy Framework (BAC-EG-AI-POLICY-FRAMEWORK-V1.0) Governs AI use in academic and research work. Policy 8 (Research and IP) and Policy 2 (Academic Integrity) apply directly to research activities covered by this Policy.
BAC Education Group Research Ethics Policy (to be developed) Provides the detailed ethical framework for research involving human participants, sensitive data, and other matters requiring ethical review. This Policy establishes the AFREC as the governance body; the Research Ethics Policy will govern the substantive ethical standards.
BAC Education Group Academic Integrity Policy (Policy 2 of AI Framework) Governs student and staff academic honesty, including AI disclosure requirements. Complements this Policy’s research misconduct provisions.
BAC Education Group Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking Policy (BAC-EG-MSP-V1.0) Where research involves supply chain, labour rights, or human trafficking subject matter, both policies may be relevant.
BAC Education Group Whistleblowing Policy Governs the anonymous reporting channel available to persons raising concerns under this Policy.
BAC Education Group HR Recruitment Policy Governs academic appointments and must be read alongside Section 12 of this Policy.
BAC Education Group Equal Opportunities Policy Underpins the non-discrimination principles in Sections 6.4 and 12.
Institutional Academic Freedom Register Operational record maintained by each AFREC under Section 9.3.
Academic Freedom Review Checklist (Annex A) Operational tool for reviewing external funding and partnership agreements under Section 11.2.

ANNEX A: ACADEMIC FREEDOM REVIEW CHECKLIST FOR EXTERNAL FUNDING AND PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS

This checklist must be completed by the Institutional AFREC before the Group or any Institution executes any external funding, sponsorship, donation, or partnership agreement that falls within Section 11.2 of this Policy.

Agreement Title / Reference  
External Party  
Institution  
Proposed Duration  
Total Value (RM or equivalent)  
AFREC Reviewer  
Review Date DD / MM / YYYY

PART 1 — PUBLICATION AND DISSEMINATION RIGHTS

Question YES NO
Does the agreement permit researchers to publish findings in their own name? ☐ ☐
Is the proposed embargo / confidentiality period 12 months or less? ☐ ☐
Is publication contingent only on prior notification (not prior approval) by the funder? ☐ ☐
Does the agreement prohibit the funder from vetoing publication? ☐ ☐
Does the agreement require disclosure of the funding source in publications? ☐ ☐
Does the agreement permit disclosure of null or negative results? ☐ ☐
Does the agreement permit researchers to present at academic conferences without funder approval? ☐ ☐

PART 2 — RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Question YES NO
Does the researcher retain control over research methodology? ☐ ☐
Is the funder prohibited from directing the researcher to specific conclusions? ☐ ☐
Does the agreement permit the researcher to modify the methodology in response to findings? ☐ ☐
Is the scope of the research clearly defined and agreed before commencement? ☐ ☐
Does the agreement avoid any result-contingent payment structure? ☐ ☐

PART 3 — AUTHORSHIP AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Question YES NO
Does the agreement reserve authorship determination to the researchers (per Section 8.2)? ☐ ☐
Does the IP ownership arrangement comply with the Group’s AI Research and IP Policy (Policy 8)? ☐ ☐
Is the funder prohibited from requiring ghost or gift authorship? ☐ ☐
Does the agreement comply with the Group’s standard IP clause requirements? ☐ ☐

PART 4 — DATA PROTECTION AND ETHICS

Question YES NO
Does the research involving personal data comply with PDPA 2010? ☐ ☐
Is research ethics approval required and, if so, has it been obtained or is it being sought? ☐ ☐
Does the agreement comply with the Group’s Data Protection Policy? ☐ ☐
Is the funder prohibited from accessing identifiable personal data collected in the research without appropriate consent and legal basis? ☐ ☐

PART 5 — AFREC DETERMINATION

  • ☐ APPROVED — Agreement complies with this Policy. May proceed to execution.
  • ☐ APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS — The following modifications must be made before execution: ______________________________________________________________________________
  • ☐ REFERRED TO ACADEMIC BOARD — Agreement raises issues exceeding AFREC authority (e.g. proposed embargo exceeds 12 months). Referred for Academic Board determination.
  • ☐ REJECTED — Agreement is incompatible with this Policy. Reasons: ______________________________________________________________________________

AFREC Chair Signature: ________________________________ Date: ____________________

AFREC Chair Name (print): ________________________________

APPROVAL AND SIGN-OFF

This RESEARCH INDEPENDENCE AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM POLICY was reviewed, approved and adopted by the Board of Directors of BAC Education Group as well as all related Public Higher Education Institution (PHEI) and shall be open for review on 1 July 2027

BAC Education Group • Research Independence and Academic Freedom Policy • Version 1.0 • Effective 1 July 2025 • Internal