Three first-year law students, Faris, Haziq and Badron, approached you with the intention of consulting you on the provisions of the following: (a) the SECOND SCHEDULE [Section 5] STATUTORY BODIES DISCIPLINARY REGULATIONS, PART II CODE OF CONDUCT, Section 20 (1)(a)-(f) of the Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 (Act 605) which regulates the conduct of public servants and; (b) the UNIVERSITIES AND UNIVERSITY COLLEGES ACT 1971 (AUKU 1971) which was amended to grant students the freedom to take part in politics in their respective campuses. Haziq and Badron were intrigued that there are some academic staff of public universities who are not only members of political parties but also stand in contests for key posts within those political parties. On the other hand, some public universities still bar their students from any participation in politics, even to the extent of reprimanding them and issuing warning threats of possible dismissal. Faris raised the point that why must such threats and reprimand be made even after the landmark decision of MUHAMMAD HILMAN IDHAM & ORS v. KERAJAAN MALAYSIA & ORS [2011] CLJ (JT 5). A further dilemma faced by Faris and Haziq was that they were reprimanded for their participation in the political activities of an opposition party, PADI (fictitious) while Badron was encouraged, given support and lauded by some academicians for his participation in KERIS (fictitious). Draft an advice for Faris, Haziq and Badron on the jurisprudential aspects of possible amendments these statutes so that political freedom should be granted in public universities. Your advice should be given from the perspective of sociological and postmodernist jurisprudence. (2