by Tan Aik Keong (AK)
A response to Prime Minister Anwar's "three campus policies" — making AI a line of defence for education, not just cold surveillance.
When a short video becomes a stage for violence, a campus killing cuts the public again. Facing public anger, the Prime Minister announced three measures: strengthening campus security monitoring, studying a ban on smartphone use for students under 16, and reinforcing values and character education.
The direction is right. The real question is whether we're actually ready to let technology and education work together.
AI is already quietly entering Malaysian schools
Artificial intelligence isn't a future-tense word anymore — it's already making its way into Malaysian campuses.
Around the world, AI systems can spot unusual movement in camera footage, tracking fights, weapons and crowding; natural language processing (NLP) models can analyse student text and speech to pick up signals of depression, anger or isolation; machine learning can even build "risk heatmaps," helping schools work out which areas, times and groups are more likely to see conflict.
Used properly, this technology really can shift "safety monitoring" from passive recording to active early warning — a machine's eyes letting a teacher's care arrive a little sooner.
But AI isn't a cure-all. It can recognise a knife, but not humiliation. It can flag violence, but doesn't understand loneliness. An algorithm's judgment comes from data, not empathy. If a school over-relies on monitoring and models, the campus might become safer — and colder at the same time. What students learn then isn't how to express themselves, but how to hide. The more precise the technology gets, the further the emotional distance can grow.
Responding to the three campus policies: AI as a bridge, not a cage
Across the three measures under Cabinet discussion, AI can be the bridge between the real and the ideal.
First, strengthening campus safety monitoring. AI can give a camera "attention" — recognising a violent stance, unusual gathering, or the shape of a weapon, and alerting security to step in immediately, while behavioural data analysis can build a safety heatmap to help schools deploy patrols. But it has to come with limits: only in public areas, never toilets or dormitories, with data retention kept short, transparent, and open to appeal.
Second, studying a smartphone ban for under-16s. Even with phones restricted, AI can still preserve an emotional outlet for students. Schools can set up a secure local network and an AI chatbot system so students can confide anonymously or ask for help, with information staying within a protected in-school environment. AI can replace a risky corner of the internet without taking away a student's right to say "I'm not okay." Banning the phone shouldn't mean silencing the voice.
Third, reinforcing values and character education. AI can help build an emotional profile for each student, helping teachers spot who needs more attention; through affective computing it can read classroom mood and prompt a teacher to step into a brewing conflict; it can even bring restorative-conversation templates into schools, helping students repair relationships and take responsibility after a conflict. AI isn't just a watcher here — it can be a teaching assistant, a reminder that character-building needs data-driven warmth too.
Closing
If we can run AI through all three policies — from early warning against violence, to providing an outlet, to supporting education — Malaysia's schools may be able to close a genuine safety loop: AI warns → emotional support follows → character intervention completes it.
Let the machine handle speed. Let people handle warmth.
AI's purpose isn't to replace education — it's to amplify it. It can help guard the school gate. But only the human heart can guard the line that keeps a civilisation whole.
Part of the AK AI Corner column. Originally published in Oriental Daily (东方日报) on Oct 17, 2025.