PSD scholarships – to scrap or not to scrap
SAT, 26 JUN 2010 06:11
By Ken Vin Lek
KUALA LUMPUR: Every year around the months of May and June, hundreds of “straight A” SPM students receive the news of not being offered the “illustrious” Public Service Department (PSD) scholarship.
Thousands of complaints are made by various parties, the issue becomes politicised and many people start crying out about the injustice and inequality existing in the system of allocating scholarships.
Recently, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak announced that PSD scholarships would be phased out over time, and he was promptly supported by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department, Nazri Aziz, who said that the move is an effort to “reduce brain drain” and that the government “lacked capacity” to fund students.
FMT has made an indepth study into the arguments surrounding the PSD scholarship issue, and we leave it to the public to make up their mind on what’s right and what’s wrong.
Many parties have questioned the suitability of using the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) as a benchmark for PSD scholarships.
PJ Utara MP, Tony Pua, questioned the process of awarding scholarship at SPM level and instead suggested that students be picked based on their pre-university qualifications.
“The problem now is, we have too many top scorers for only 1,500 scholarships on offer. We should use pre-university qualifications as the benchmark as it is of a higher threshold and students would have then gained admission into top-class universities.”
“What we are doing now is, we are pre-determining whether one is suitable for courses like Medicine and Law based on the SPM results without the students receiving any offers from universities to pursue these subjects,” he added.
Pua also criticised Nazri for linking the phasing-out of scholarships to an effort to reduce the brain drain.
“It is nonsense to say that phasing out scholarships can actually reduce the brain drain. We all know foreign institutions are capable of developing talented leaders in their various fields,” he said.
For full article with in-depth analysis, click here.
Showing posts with label JPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JPA. Show all posts
Friday, June 25, 2010
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
'New' JPA scholarship next year?
Read this in the Star last weekend. "A new category will be established starting next year for scholarships under the Public Services Department scheme to be awarded purely based on merit, regardless of race."
PUTRAJAYA: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun razak said he was sure that such a category would be welcomed by all communities, including the Chinese.
“We are re-studying the distribution of scholarships under the Public Services Department scheme to introduce a new category.
“Starting next year, we will see the distribution of scholarships based purely on merit, regardless of race.
“We will announce it next year and with the plan to limit to 10 subjects, we expect to see a more level playing field,” he said in his speech at a dinner organised by both MCA and the Associated Chinese Chamber of Industry and Commerce here Saturday.
Najib said this would allow Malaysia’s best students to get aid to pursue higher studies.
“So we will get the best of best and the creme de la creme getting aid for higher studies.
“I believe this will be accepted well and it will allow each individual a fair chance to realise his full potential,” he said, adding however that he was not “letting the cat out of the bag” just yet on the scheme.
Najib said contrary to common perception, not all Chinese were rich.
“Like all Malaysians, they also want to see their children have good education and become successful. All this involves costs,” he said, adding that every race had its needs and if the Government could bring policies that were fair, the Chinese would continue to support Barisan Nasional.
Najib said the Chinese was not against Malays succeeding or opposed to efforts to help the Bumiputra but that they wanted policies that looked at the needs of all Malaysians fairly.
“And that’s why I included it in the 1Malaysia concept,” he said, adding that he would also look into MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat’s request for more government land to build Chinese vernacular schools.
Najib added that during his trip to China, the Chinese government had also promised to bring more investments into Malaysia in the term of equity investments.
“I’m told they are preparing a loan fund if we need this as a sign of their commitment to us. I believe there is an opportunity for China to make an economic boost in Malaysia in terms of development that will include banking as well,” he said.
“I looked into the needs of the local Chinese community when I introduced the 1Malaysia plan, which looks into the needs of every community regardless of the colour, ethnicity and culture.
MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat said in his speech that the dinner was not just to celebrate the appointment of Najib as Prime Minister but to also show that the Chinese community would always be with the Government and his leadership as it strived to overcome the current economic problems.
A few comments:
(i) There is already a portion of the JPA scholarships which are allocated by merit (20% out of 2100 foreign JPA scholarships). Read this previous entry for more details. How will this new category of JPA scholarships be any different? Will they be restricted to those students who only take 10 subjects at the SPM level? Will there be a separate application and interview process?
(ii) Nothing is said here about the process by which these students will be bonded to the government. I've said this time and time again - most JPA foreign scholarship holders do not come back to serve the government, if they come back to Malaysia at all. There's no use giving out a new scholarship that is merit based if these students are not made to come back to serve the government in some capacity.
(iii) Nothing is said here about how the civil service will be restructured to cater to these scholarship holders. Again, I don't put the entire blame on these JPA scholars because the civil service is reluctant to take in these JPA scholars probably because they know that these high achievers will probably be bored by the career path taken by most civil servants.
I'd prefer the PM to focus on ensuring that JPA scholars are held accountable and the civil service is restructured so that these JPA scholars can come back to serve the government instead of creating another category of scholarships at taxpayers' expense.
PUTRAJAYA: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun razak said he was sure that such a category would be welcomed by all communities, including the Chinese.
“We are re-studying the distribution of scholarships under the Public Services Department scheme to introduce a new category.
“Starting next year, we will see the distribution of scholarships based purely on merit, regardless of race.
“We will announce it next year and with the plan to limit to 10 subjects, we expect to see a more level playing field,” he said in his speech at a dinner organised by both MCA and the Associated Chinese Chamber of Industry and Commerce here Saturday.
Najib said this would allow Malaysia’s best students to get aid to pursue higher studies.
“So we will get the best of best and the creme de la creme getting aid for higher studies.
“I believe this will be accepted well and it will allow each individual a fair chance to realise his full potential,” he said, adding however that he was not “letting the cat out of the bag” just yet on the scheme.
Najib said contrary to common perception, not all Chinese were rich.
“Like all Malaysians, they also want to see their children have good education and become successful. All this involves costs,” he said, adding that every race had its needs and if the Government could bring policies that were fair, the Chinese would continue to support Barisan Nasional.
Najib said the Chinese was not against Malays succeeding or opposed to efforts to help the Bumiputra but that they wanted policies that looked at the needs of all Malaysians fairly.
“And that’s why I included it in the 1Malaysia concept,” he said, adding that he would also look into MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat’s request for more government land to build Chinese vernacular schools.
Najib added that during his trip to China, the Chinese government had also promised to bring more investments into Malaysia in the term of equity investments.
“I’m told they are preparing a loan fund if we need this as a sign of their commitment to us. I believe there is an opportunity for China to make an economic boost in Malaysia in terms of development that will include banking as well,” he said.
“I looked into the needs of the local Chinese community when I introduced the 1Malaysia plan, which looks into the needs of every community regardless of the colour, ethnicity and culture.
MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat said in his speech that the dinner was not just to celebrate the appointment of Najib as Prime Minister but to also show that the Chinese community would always be with the Government and his leadership as it strived to overcome the current economic problems.
A few comments:
(i) There is already a portion of the JPA scholarships which are allocated by merit (20% out of 2100 foreign JPA scholarships). Read this previous entry for more details. How will this new category of JPA scholarships be any different? Will they be restricted to those students who only take 10 subjects at the SPM level? Will there be a separate application and interview process?
(ii) Nothing is said here about the process by which these students will be bonded to the government. I've said this time and time again - most JPA foreign scholarship holders do not come back to serve the government, if they come back to Malaysia at all. There's no use giving out a new scholarship that is merit based if these students are not made to come back to serve the government in some capacity.
(iii) Nothing is said here about how the civil service will be restructured to cater to these scholarship holders. Again, I don't put the entire blame on these JPA scholars because the civil service is reluctant to take in these JPA scholars probably because they know that these high achievers will probably be bored by the career path taken by most civil servants.
I'd prefer the PM to focus on ensuring that JPA scholars are held accountable and the civil service is restructured so that these JPA scholars can come back to serve the government instead of creating another category of scholarships at taxpayers' expense.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Making sense of the JPA numbers
Read this article in the Star about a question directed to Nazri in parliament in regard to JPA scholarships. I'll reproduce it in full below since it has a lot of numbers in it. My comments follow.
68% of merit scholarships went to non-Bumiputra
KUALA LUMPUR: Nearly 68% or 280 of the Public Service Department (PSD) scholarships under the 20% merit-category were awarded to non-bumiputras, said Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz.
He said only about 32% or 135 scholarships were awarded to bumiputra in the latest round of applications for the PSD's overseas degree programme.
"This proves that the award was not based on skin color, that the Government is fair in the selection of the 20% without looking at race, culture or religion but based on academic excellence," he told Lim Kit Siang (DAP - Ipoh Timur) in Parliament Tuesday.
He also said that PSD scholarships looked at academic excellence based on nine subjects chosen by the student relevant to the degree of their choice.
"This limit was set to ensure all students were on an equal playing field because not all schools had the same facilities and teaching manpower," he said in reply to Tan Ah Eng (BN - Gelang Patah).
At the Parliament lobby, Nazri said: “We do not do things without referring to the Federal Constitution, which means that we cannot give all for merit,” he said.
Out of 2,100 PSD scholarships for students to study abroad this year, 20%, which is 417, was reserved for those with merit, regardless of race and religion, he said.
Of the 417, almost 68% were given to non-bumiputras based on merit and only 32% for bumiputras, he said.
On complaints by those with 13As and 14As and did not get scholarships, he said he could not give them because it was not fair since some schools did not allow students to take more than 10 subjects.
That was why the Government wanted to base it on 10 subjects only, he said.
Inside the dewan, Nazri said for year 2009, PSD offered 1,176 scholarships to Bumiputras and 924 to non-Bumiputras.
He also said that more than RM2.8bil in Public Service Department (PSD) sponsorships for overseas degree courses were given out between 2000 and 2008.
The sum was given to 12,485 recipients where 9,160 were bumiputera and 3,325 were non-bumiputera.
The breakdown of table showed that allocation for scholarships increased from RM109mil in year 2000 to RM659mil last year.
Similarly, the number of students also increased from 748 in year 2000 to 2,000 last year, while 598 Bumiputra students getting scholarships in 2000 and increased to 1,100 last year.
For non-Bumiputra, number of students in year 2000 was 150 and had increased to 900 last year.
From Jan 14, 2009, the awarding criteria of the Overseas Degree Programme was divided into four categories, he said.
The first was based on academic excellence without counting race and socio-economic backgrounds where selection was based on academic results (85%), co-curriculum (10%) and interviews (5%).
The category was based on current racial population ratios where one race's allocation would be divided to others if it was not used.
"Selection is also made based on academic excellence with at least A2 in all core and elective subjects.
"At the same time, the candidates were also selected based on their secondary school co-curriculum participation, families' socio-economic backgrounds and interviews," he said.
The third category, he said, were for Sabah (5%) and Sarawakian (5%) bumiputra.
The last category was given to socially disadvantaged students from rural areas with limited facilities and from low-income families.
Nazri added that applicants in categories three and four also had to have at least A2s in all subjects relevant to their degree of choice, which made up 65% of the selection criteria.
He said students under the programme were sent for first degrees in the US, UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Russie, Germany, France, Czech Republic, Poland, Egypt, Jordan, India and Indonesia.
Some general comments:
According to Nazri, 1176 out of 2100 overseas JPA scholarships were given to Bumiputra students while the rest went to non-bumi students. This is very close to the 55 / 45 ethnic quota which the government promised in June 2008.
The composition of these scholarships is as follows:
60% allocated based on 'excellence' as well as the racial composition of the country.
20% allocated purely on merit without considering any ethnic quotas.
10% allocated to students from Sabah and Sarawak (which is not the 20% promised earlier)
10% allocated to students from disadvantaged backgrounds (no ethnic quota specified).
If 280 non-bumi students were allocated the JPA scholarship from the purely merit based portion, this would mean that a balance of 644 non-bumi students were given the JPA scholarship from the other two allocations i.e. the 60% allocation based on 'excellence' and racial composition of the country and the 10% allocation based on the background of a student.
Questions of ethnic quotas aside, this kind of reply from Nazri doesn't really give me any more confidence in the way in which these JPA scholarship recipients are chosen. For example, how is the pool of 20% purely merit based students selected? How are they different from the group of 'excellent' students from which the 60% allocation is given? How is a 'disadvantaged' background determined?
Unless there is more transparency in regard to the criteria for giving out these scholarships, beyond the superficial information of 60%, 20%, 10%, 10% allocated to whom and what, the questioning of the JPA scholarship allocation will continue to rage on and on.
68% of merit scholarships went to non-Bumiputra
KUALA LUMPUR: Nearly 68% or 280 of the Public Service Department (PSD) scholarships under the 20% merit-category were awarded to non-bumiputras, said Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz.
He said only about 32% or 135 scholarships were awarded to bumiputra in the latest round of applications for the PSD's overseas degree programme.
"This proves that the award was not based on skin color, that the Government is fair in the selection of the 20% without looking at race, culture or religion but based on academic excellence," he told Lim Kit Siang (DAP - Ipoh Timur) in Parliament Tuesday.
He also said that PSD scholarships looked at academic excellence based on nine subjects chosen by the student relevant to the degree of their choice.
"This limit was set to ensure all students were on an equal playing field because not all schools had the same facilities and teaching manpower," he said in reply to Tan Ah Eng (BN - Gelang Patah).
At the Parliament lobby, Nazri said: “We do not do things without referring to the Federal Constitution, which means that we cannot give all for merit,” he said.
Out of 2,100 PSD scholarships for students to study abroad this year, 20%, which is 417, was reserved for those with merit, regardless of race and religion, he said.
Of the 417, almost 68% were given to non-bumiputras based on merit and only 32% for bumiputras, he said.
On complaints by those with 13As and 14As and did not get scholarships, he said he could not give them because it was not fair since some schools did not allow students to take more than 10 subjects.
That was why the Government wanted to base it on 10 subjects only, he said.
Inside the dewan, Nazri said for year 2009, PSD offered 1,176 scholarships to Bumiputras and 924 to non-Bumiputras.
He also said that more than RM2.8bil in Public Service Department (PSD) sponsorships for overseas degree courses were given out between 2000 and 2008.
The sum was given to 12,485 recipients where 9,160 were bumiputera and 3,325 were non-bumiputera.
The breakdown of table showed that allocation for scholarships increased from RM109mil in year 2000 to RM659mil last year.
Similarly, the number of students also increased from 748 in year 2000 to 2,000 last year, while 598 Bumiputra students getting scholarships in 2000 and increased to 1,100 last year.
For non-Bumiputra, number of students in year 2000 was 150 and had increased to 900 last year.
From Jan 14, 2009, the awarding criteria of the Overseas Degree Programme was divided into four categories, he said.
The first was based on academic excellence without counting race and socio-economic backgrounds where selection was based on academic results (85%), co-curriculum (10%) and interviews (5%).
The category was based on current racial population ratios where one race's allocation would be divided to others if it was not used.
"Selection is also made based on academic excellence with at least A2 in all core and elective subjects.
"At the same time, the candidates were also selected based on their secondary school co-curriculum participation, families' socio-economic backgrounds and interviews," he said.
The third category, he said, were for Sabah (5%) and Sarawakian (5%) bumiputra.
The last category was given to socially disadvantaged students from rural areas with limited facilities and from low-income families.
Nazri added that applicants in categories three and four also had to have at least A2s in all subjects relevant to their degree of choice, which made up 65% of the selection criteria.
He said students under the programme were sent for first degrees in the US, UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Russie, Germany, France, Czech Republic, Poland, Egypt, Jordan, India and Indonesia.
Some general comments:
According to Nazri, 1176 out of 2100 overseas JPA scholarships were given to Bumiputra students while the rest went to non-bumi students. This is very close to the 55 / 45 ethnic quota which the government promised in June 2008.
The composition of these scholarships is as follows:
60% allocated based on 'excellence' as well as the racial composition of the country.
20% allocated purely on merit without considering any ethnic quotas.
10% allocated to students from Sabah and Sarawak (which is not the 20% promised earlier)
10% allocated to students from disadvantaged backgrounds (no ethnic quota specified).
If 280 non-bumi students were allocated the JPA scholarship from the purely merit based portion, this would mean that a balance of 644 non-bumi students were given the JPA scholarship from the other two allocations i.e. the 60% allocation based on 'excellence' and racial composition of the country and the 10% allocation based on the background of a student.
Questions of ethnic quotas aside, this kind of reply from Nazri doesn't really give me any more confidence in the way in which these JPA scholarship recipients are chosen. For example, how is the pool of 20% purely merit based students selected? How are they different from the group of 'excellent' students from which the 60% allocation is given? How is a 'disadvantaged' background determined?
Unless there is more transparency in regard to the criteria for giving out these scholarships, beyond the superficial information of 60%, 20%, 10%, 10% allocated to whom and what, the questioning of the JPA scholarship allocation will continue to rage on and on.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
How Many JPA Scholars Serve Their Bond?
I've been meaning to post this for the longest time, but somehow never got around to do it. Anyway, there has been plenty of talk on the JPA scholarship (again) recently, and one of the related issues which keep cropping up is whether the talents of our returning(?) scholars are actually being fully "exploited" by the Government.
I have addressed the following question to the Prime Minister in parliament:
No wonder everyone wants the JPA scholarship, while you sign up with a bond, in practice, you'd rarely have to serve a single day of the contract.
I have addressed the following question to the Prime Minister in parliament:
...berapa ramai pemegang biasiswa yang telah selesai pengajian pada 5 tahun yang lepas, antara mereka, berapakah yang telah berkhidmat untuk Kerajaan mengikut syarat perjanjian biasiswa, berapakah yang enggan menunaikan perjanjian dan yang telah dilepaskan daripada tanggungjawab mereka.We obviously know that many of the scholars never served in Government but even I was a little taken abacked by the number who has been released incognito.
Bagi tempoh 5 tahun lepas iaitu 2003-2007, seramai 30,832 pelajar tajaan JPA telah menamatkan pengajian di dalam dan luar Negara. Jumlah ini meliputi pelajar-pelajar yang tamat pengajian di peringkat diploma, ijazah sarjana muda dan sarjana.Yes, that means that only 16% of JPA scholars actually serve their bonds upon return to the country over the last 5 years. The remainder? Your guess is as good as mine.
Sepanjang tempoh tersebut, seramai 4,920 orang telah berkhidmat dalam pelbagai skim perkhidmatan lantikan SPA. Terdapat juga pelajar-pelajar ini yang sedang berkhidmat di bawah skim perkhidmatan yang dilantik oleh Pihak Berkuasa Melantik yang lain seperti Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pelajaran (SPP), Badan-badan Berkanun dan Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan.
Manakala, seramai 314 bekas pelajar tajaan JPA telah memohon dan dilepaskan daripada kontrak.
Pemegang-pemegang biasiswa yang tidak menunaikan kewajipan mereka, tidak akan dilepaskan dari tanggungjawab dengan sewenang-wenangnya. Tuntutan gantirugi melalui penguatkuasaan syarat perjanjian Biasiswa akan dikenakan ke atas mereka yang ingkar terhadap perjanjian yang telah ditandatangani.
No wonder everyone wants the JPA scholarship, while you sign up with a bond, in practice, you'd rarely have to serve a single day of the contract.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Abolish JPA Undergrad Scholarships?
Check out Bakri Musa's latest post on the JPA undergrad scholarships. Well worth a read. I wouldn't go so far as to call for the JPA undergrad scholarships to be abolished but I wouldn't mind if the numbers were cut down drastically to only those who gain admission into the best universities overseas and if steps are taken to ensure that these students come back to serve in the public service.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Only 20% of JPA scholarships given on merit?
Not sure if the thrust of this report in the Malaysian Insider accurately reflects what the PSD DG told the DAP contingent. That 20% of the scholarships are given based on merit seems a bit too low. I'll reproduce the article below in full since Tony is mentioned a few times. I agree with his suggestion that these scholarships should be awarded based on pre-U results such as STPM results instead of SPM results and should more accurately reflect the kinds of universities that these students manage to get accepted into.
Only 20pc of PSD scholarships given on merit
By Shannon Teoh
PUTRAJAYA, May 18 — Only 20 per cent, or one in five, of Public Service Department (PSD) scholarships are given based on merit while the rest are allocated based on racial quotas.
This appears to be a key factor leading to the public outcry over the large number of top-scorers in the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM), Malaysia's school-leaving exam, not obtaining scholarships to further their studies.
This was revealed when DAP leaders, including its parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang and information chief Tony Pua, met with PSD director-general Tan Sri Ismail Adam today.
Also present was DAP Socialist Youth chief Anthony Loke, who told The Malaysian Insider that Ismail had confirmed that 60 per cent of scholarships were given out based on the population ratio of respective races.
Another 10 per cent is set aside for East Malaysian Bumiputras and the same ratio for underprivileged students.
"This is at odds with what Parliament Minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz told the house last year, when he said it would be split according to a 55:45 ratio," Loke said.
The Rasah MP said that there was no way that the current method of allocation could hit that desired ratio.
"This change of policy is why there are more clear-cut cases of qualified students not getting scholarships this year," Loke added.
Ismail had on Saturday asked the public for understanding as there are 8,000 students who qualify on merit but his department had only 2,000 scholarships to allocate.
Lim, in a press conference on Friday, had called for students with nine 1As and onwards to "automatically qualify for scholarships, especially now that the new prime minister has promised to put the people first."
Pua today also called for a total reform of the system, saying that too many high achievers were falling through the net and that pre-university courses such as A-levels or the local equivalent, Sijil Tinggi Pelajaran Malaysia, were a more accurate benchmark for who deserved a scholarship.
"We should change the benchmark to the point when they actually apply to enter university. Then if you do not get accepted into a certain list of universities, there is no argument – you are simply not qualified for a scholarship," he told The Malaysian Insider.
Only 20pc of PSD scholarships given on merit
By Shannon Teoh
PUTRAJAYA, May 18 — Only 20 per cent, or one in five, of Public Service Department (PSD) scholarships are given based on merit while the rest are allocated based on racial quotas.
This appears to be a key factor leading to the public outcry over the large number of top-scorers in the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM), Malaysia's school-leaving exam, not obtaining scholarships to further their studies.
This was revealed when DAP leaders, including its parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang and information chief Tony Pua, met with PSD director-general Tan Sri Ismail Adam today.
Also present was DAP Socialist Youth chief Anthony Loke, who told The Malaysian Insider that Ismail had confirmed that 60 per cent of scholarships were given out based on the population ratio of respective races.
Another 10 per cent is set aside for East Malaysian Bumiputras and the same ratio for underprivileged students.
"This is at odds with what Parliament Minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz told the house last year, when he said it would be split according to a 55:45 ratio," Loke said.
The Rasah MP said that there was no way that the current method of allocation could hit that desired ratio.
"This change of policy is why there are more clear-cut cases of qualified students not getting scholarships this year," Loke added.
Ismail had on Saturday asked the public for understanding as there are 8,000 students who qualify on merit but his department had only 2,000 scholarships to allocate.
Lim, in a press conference on Friday, had called for students with nine 1As and onwards to "automatically qualify for scholarships, especially now that the new prime minister has promised to put the people first."
Pua today also called for a total reform of the system, saying that too many high achievers were falling through the net and that pre-university courses such as A-levels or the local equivalent, Sijil Tinggi Pelajaran Malaysia, were a more accurate benchmark for who deserved a scholarship.
"We should change the benchmark to the point when they actually apply to enter university. Then if you do not get accepted into a certain list of universities, there is no argument – you are simply not qualified for a scholarship," he told The Malaysian Insider.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
JPA Scholarships – Seeking A Fair & Equitable Policy
Read about all the renewed controversy over the JPA scholarships recently? Check out Kian Ming's latest take (of our many takes).
Well, in the light of the neverending controversy over the award of government scholarships by Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam (JPA) of the Prime Minister's Department, DAP will be holding a forum/dialogue session to obtain feedback from:
In addition, for students and scholars who are not able to make it for the forum (e.g., if you are overseas or if you live outstation, you are welcome to submit written submissions to the panel. Please write to: dapscholarship (at) rocketmail (dot) com.
Please forward details of the above forum to all parties concerned, especially those who have failed to secure scholarships despite outstanding results. We will be making a compilation of the complaints, appeals and suggestions made during the evening.
Well, in the light of the neverending controversy over the award of government scholarships by Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam (JPA) of the Prime Minister's Department, DAP will be holding a forum/dialogue session to obtain feedback from:
- aggrieved students
- current and former local and overseas scholars
- academics
- the general public
JPA Scholarships – Seeking A Fair & Equitable PolicyThe panelists will include:
Venue: KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall
Date: 19th May 2009 (Tuesday)
Time: 8.00 pm
- Lim Kit Siang, DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for Ipoh Timor,
- Anthony Loke Siew Fook, MP for Rasah and DAPSY Chief,
- Tony Pua, MP for Petaling Jaya Utara,
- Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad, PAS Research Centre Director and MP for Kuala Selangor
- Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, Selangor ADUN for Seri Setia
In addition, for students and scholars who are not able to make it for the forum (e.g., if you are overseas or if you live outstation, you are welcome to submit written submissions to the panel. Please write to: dapscholarship (at) rocketmail (dot) com.
Please forward details of the above forum to all parties concerned, especially those who have failed to secure scholarships despite outstanding results. We will be making a compilation of the complaints, appeals and suggestions made during the evening.
Never ending JPA scholarship 'controversies'
The latest JPA scholarship results have been announced and not surprisingly, it has been met with howls of protests among the usual quarters, starting with the MCA.
Here are a few links to some newspaper reports that document these protests as well as the JPA's response to these protests. You can access them here, here and here.
Protests and appeals should not be surprising given the limited number of scholarships and the higher number of 'deserving' candidates. But the JPA is not helpless in trying to quell some of these protests.
What the JPA needs to do is the following:
(i) Clarify the objectives of the JPA scholarship
- Is it to give an opportunity for academically excellent Malaysian students to study abroad?
- Is it to create a pool of talented workers who would come back to serve the country in the civil service?
- Is it to reward students from academically disadvantaged backgrounds e.g. from rural areas, from lower class families, from Sabah and Sarawak etc... an opportunity to study abroad?
- Does awarding the local versus the foreign JPA scholarship fulfill different objectives e.g. are those who are academically more gifted awarded the foreign JPA scholarship?
- How important is the racial 'quota' in determining who ultimately gets this scholarship?
Right now, my impression is that the JPA is trying to be all things to all people and trying to fulfill too many fast changing objectives with the awarding of these scholarships.
(ii) Make the criterion for obtaining these scholarships transparent to the public
- Hopefully what this will do is to quell some of the protests. At least if the public knows what these criterion are e.g. to reward students from rural areas, they will understand even if they might not agree with these criteria.
I always feel that more information and transparency is better.
(iii) Have some sort of tracking mechanism to see if these objectives have been met
- For example, JPA could easily track the statistics of different scholarship recipients e.g. % of scholars obtaining places to study in the top universities in the UK or US, graduation rates of scholars with different academic abilities based on their SPM results, % of scholars who return to Malaysia after graduation, % of scholars who return to Malaysia and work for the civil service, etc...
- Using these statistics, the JPA as well as their political masters can decide on whether their objectives have been fulfilled and if not, how the criteria for selection needs to be changed to fulfill these objectives
Right now, most JPA scholars who go abroad either don't come back to Malaysia or if they do, end up working in the private sector which is what they would have done anyways, without the JPA scholarship. Hence, it is a waste of taxpayers money.
My sense is that for this year's JPA scholarship, many more students who did not achieve academically stellar SPM results and who were from rural areas were awarded a disproportionate share of the scholarships while many students who were more academically superior but who are from the urban areas were rejected.
We've blogged about the JPA scholarships many, many times in this blog. I will summarize some of the recommendations which have been put forth here:
(i) Award these scholarships only after these students have applied to and obtained places in foreign universities
(ii) Give priority to those students who have obtained places in some of the top schools in foreign universities based on a pre-approved list of universities
(iii) Bond these students so that they have to return to Malaysia to serve in the civil service
If I were advising the Malaysian government on this matter, I would recommend the following steps:
(i) Refer to the JPA foreign scholarships as the JPA scholarships. Call the local scholarships something else since most of the attention is paid to the places for foreign universities.
(ii) Restrict the number of JPA foreign scholarships so that you can be more selective about who you pick to received these scholarships.
(iii) Create an administrative layer within the civil service that is specifically in charge of 'taking in' these JPA scholars as civil servants so that their skills and expertise can be utilized for the public good
(iv) Allow other GLCs to recruit these JPA scholars but with the caveat that these GLCs have to pay back a certain value of the scholarships (but with a discount) so that the taxpayers' money is accounted for
I would make it absolutely clear that the JPA foreign scholarships will be awarded to the best and the brightest who are willing to come back to serve their country. This way, the JPA scholarships will have a focus instead of trying to be all things to all people.
And hopefully, end some of these always occurring 'controversies' about who is or is not deserving of a JPA foreign scholarship.
Here are a few links to some newspaper reports that document these protests as well as the JPA's response to these protests. You can access them here, here and here.
Protests and appeals should not be surprising given the limited number of scholarships and the higher number of 'deserving' candidates. But the JPA is not helpless in trying to quell some of these protests.
What the JPA needs to do is the following:
(i) Clarify the objectives of the JPA scholarship
- Is it to give an opportunity for academically excellent Malaysian students to study abroad?
- Is it to create a pool of talented workers who would come back to serve the country in the civil service?
- Is it to reward students from academically disadvantaged backgrounds e.g. from rural areas, from lower class families, from Sabah and Sarawak etc... an opportunity to study abroad?
- Does awarding the local versus the foreign JPA scholarship fulfill different objectives e.g. are those who are academically more gifted awarded the foreign JPA scholarship?
- How important is the racial 'quota' in determining who ultimately gets this scholarship?
Right now, my impression is that the JPA is trying to be all things to all people and trying to fulfill too many fast changing objectives with the awarding of these scholarships.
(ii) Make the criterion for obtaining these scholarships transparent to the public
- Hopefully what this will do is to quell some of the protests. At least if the public knows what these criterion are e.g. to reward students from rural areas, they will understand even if they might not agree with these criteria.
I always feel that more information and transparency is better.
(iii) Have some sort of tracking mechanism to see if these objectives have been met
- For example, JPA could easily track the statistics of different scholarship recipients e.g. % of scholars obtaining places to study in the top universities in the UK or US, graduation rates of scholars with different academic abilities based on their SPM results, % of scholars who return to Malaysia after graduation, % of scholars who return to Malaysia and work for the civil service, etc...
- Using these statistics, the JPA as well as their political masters can decide on whether their objectives have been fulfilled and if not, how the criteria for selection needs to be changed to fulfill these objectives
Right now, most JPA scholars who go abroad either don't come back to Malaysia or if they do, end up working in the private sector which is what they would have done anyways, without the JPA scholarship. Hence, it is a waste of taxpayers money.
My sense is that for this year's JPA scholarship, many more students who did not achieve academically stellar SPM results and who were from rural areas were awarded a disproportionate share of the scholarships while many students who were more academically superior but who are from the urban areas were rejected.
We've blogged about the JPA scholarships many, many times in this blog. I will summarize some of the recommendations which have been put forth here:
(i) Award these scholarships only after these students have applied to and obtained places in foreign universities
(ii) Give priority to those students who have obtained places in some of the top schools in foreign universities based on a pre-approved list of universities
(iii) Bond these students so that they have to return to Malaysia to serve in the civil service
If I were advising the Malaysian government on this matter, I would recommend the following steps:
(i) Refer to the JPA foreign scholarships as the JPA scholarships. Call the local scholarships something else since most of the attention is paid to the places for foreign universities.
(ii) Restrict the number of JPA foreign scholarships so that you can be more selective about who you pick to received these scholarships.
(iii) Create an administrative layer within the civil service that is specifically in charge of 'taking in' these JPA scholars as civil servants so that their skills and expertise can be utilized for the public good
(iv) Allow other GLCs to recruit these JPA scholars but with the caveat that these GLCs have to pay back a certain value of the scholarships (but with a discount) so that the taxpayers' money is accounted for
I would make it absolutely clear that the JPA foreign scholarships will be awarded to the best and the brightest who are willing to come back to serve their country. This way, the JPA scholarships will have a focus instead of trying to be all things to all people.
And hopefully, end some of these always occurring 'controversies' about who is or is not deserving of a JPA foreign scholarship.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Allocation of JPA scholarships
Read this Bernama piece in the Star today about 20% of PSD scholarships being set aside for bumiputra students in Sabah and Sarawak. The Minster in question, Bernard Dompok, Minister in the PM's office said that "under the new PSD scholarship scheme, 20 percent or 400 of the 2,000 scholarships offered this year were for excellent students and 60 per cent or 1,200 scholarships were for bumiputra and non-bumiputra SPM leavers nationwide. He said the remaining 10 percent were for disabled students who excelled in their studies." Not really sure how the 20% of 'excellent' students are different from the other SPM students elsewhere except perhaps to say that these 'excellent' students may have better extra curricular records and activities than those who scored better academically. Let me dig up more information on the changes in the JPA scholarships policy and write another lengthier post later.
Friday, July 25, 2008
JPA doctors don't want to come back
Yet another example of how JPA scholars are blatantly flouting their bonds. The Star reported that '236 medical graduates studying overseas under Public Service Department scholarships refused to return home to work.'
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Another take on the JPA policy change
This letter was written by a friend of mine, the astute Neil Khor. Many good points raised by him.
Have merit-based system for scholarships
Neil Khor | Jun 9, 08 2:48pm
I refer to the Malaysiakini report PSD scholarships: Publish names, results.
There are many reasons why everyone should be given a scholarship. A student with 11As, who comes from a poor family living in rural Malaysia is definitely someone who deserves support. The government or charitable organisation that supports such a student is uplifting not only an individual but also his family, helping them out of poverty. That is what a government scholarship should ultimately do - better all lives not just the individual.
Which brings us back to the issue of the contentious 45% quota for non-Malays, an increase from 10%. Here is a case of knee-jerk reaction. If urban, mostly non-Malay constituents have rejected the BN, the government - with its great compensatory power - now wants to buy back their votes by giving more non-Malays scholarships. At the same time, this creates an opposite reaction from certain Malay groups, losing them Malay voters.
If the government really wants to take the wind out of the opposition’s sail, they should simply do away with race-based quotas all together. The criteria should be purely merit-based. There must be clear and objective methods of measuring how disadvantaged a student really is. If he or she comes from the rural area, it must be ascertained that the individual deserves the scholarship because of the lack of resources, not merely financial but also infrastructural - lack of good teachers, library etc.
However, if the individual lives in the big city but is the son of a hawker and has to help out in his/her parents, then the individual also needs to be assisted because urban poverty has denied him/her access to the library or facilities at school. Here again, a merit-based system can be implemented. The level of rural or urban poverty can be indexed.
Luckily, Malaysian men are such poor academic achievers and we may not need to provide similar handicaps for Malaysian women, although many deserve such extra help because we still live in a patriarchal society. Attitudes toward female education has changed and here the government can really take some credit for improving the lot of women.
But most importantly of all is quality of distinctions. The education ministry might want to make examinations more stringent to avoid giving the impression that all students are deserving of a scholarship. This does not mean that everyone has to fail but rather the award of a distinction must be of the same quality through time. An STPM distinction in 1992, for example, was regarded as much more valuable than a distinction in the A-Level Examinations in the UK at the time. Similarly, a UM degree of 1996 was acceptable to the Cambridge University for entry into its postgraduate degree programmes.
As for extra-curricular activities, they make for a more rounded individual. But one must be careful not to push people into activities they would otherwise not join simply to earn merit points. Extra-curricular activities give us an impression, particularly at the interview session, of the candidate's maturity and commitment to excellence. The scholarship board can then judge for themselves whether or not the candidate has the right qualities that will ensure he/she actually finishes the degree course.
The BN has to take bold steps to reform Malaysia. No body or organisation will deny a Malaysian a scholarship if he/she has the grades, comes from a disadvantaged background, is an all-rounder and has the track-record of delivery. We are now entering a period of belt- tightening, with less money to spend on development or education as all our resources are channeled to combating inflation. It might be wise for the government to implement a merit-based system that does justice to this new generation of Malaysians.
As for all the various race-based organisations and their detractors, they can still go about promoting race-based scholarships. All they need to do is to set up their own scholarship funds and finance worthy students through those funds. Now that the government has limited resources, it is time to ask ‘what you can do for the nation’ rather than demand for primordial rights. For ‘nothing comes of nothing’ thus by demanding without actually deserving or giving, does more harm than good. There is nothing wrong in wanting to help but it is not right to take away from others just because of the colour of their skin.
Have merit-based system for scholarships
Neil Khor | Jun 9, 08 2:48pm
I refer to the Malaysiakini report PSD scholarships: Publish names, results.
There are many reasons why everyone should be given a scholarship. A student with 11As, who comes from a poor family living in rural Malaysia is definitely someone who deserves support. The government or charitable organisation that supports such a student is uplifting not only an individual but also his family, helping them out of poverty. That is what a government scholarship should ultimately do - better all lives not just the individual.
Which brings us back to the issue of the contentious 45% quota for non-Malays, an increase from 10%. Here is a case of knee-jerk reaction. If urban, mostly non-Malay constituents have rejected the BN, the government - with its great compensatory power - now wants to buy back their votes by giving more non-Malays scholarships. At the same time, this creates an opposite reaction from certain Malay groups, losing them Malay voters.
If the government really wants to take the wind out of the opposition’s sail, they should simply do away with race-based quotas all together. The criteria should be purely merit-based. There must be clear and objective methods of measuring how disadvantaged a student really is. If he or she comes from the rural area, it must be ascertained that the individual deserves the scholarship because of the lack of resources, not merely financial but also infrastructural - lack of good teachers, library etc.
However, if the individual lives in the big city but is the son of a hawker and has to help out in his/her parents, then the individual also needs to be assisted because urban poverty has denied him/her access to the library or facilities at school. Here again, a merit-based system can be implemented. The level of rural or urban poverty can be indexed.
Luckily, Malaysian men are such poor academic achievers and we may not need to provide similar handicaps for Malaysian women, although many deserve such extra help because we still live in a patriarchal society. Attitudes toward female education has changed and here the government can really take some credit for improving the lot of women.
But most importantly of all is quality of distinctions. The education ministry might want to make examinations more stringent to avoid giving the impression that all students are deserving of a scholarship. This does not mean that everyone has to fail but rather the award of a distinction must be of the same quality through time. An STPM distinction in 1992, for example, was regarded as much more valuable than a distinction in the A-Level Examinations in the UK at the time. Similarly, a UM degree of 1996 was acceptable to the Cambridge University for entry into its postgraduate degree programmes.
As for extra-curricular activities, they make for a more rounded individual. But one must be careful not to push people into activities they would otherwise not join simply to earn merit points. Extra-curricular activities give us an impression, particularly at the interview session, of the candidate's maturity and commitment to excellence. The scholarship board can then judge for themselves whether or not the candidate has the right qualities that will ensure he/she actually finishes the degree course.
The BN has to take bold steps to reform Malaysia. No body or organisation will deny a Malaysian a scholarship if he/she has the grades, comes from a disadvantaged background, is an all-rounder and has the track-record of delivery. We are now entering a period of belt- tightening, with less money to spend on development or education as all our resources are channeled to combating inflation. It might be wise for the government to implement a merit-based system that does justice to this new generation of Malaysians.
As for all the various race-based organisations and their detractors, they can still go about promoting race-based scholarships. All they need to do is to set up their own scholarship funds and finance worthy students through those funds. Now that the government has limited resources, it is time to ask ‘what you can do for the nation’ rather than demand for primordial rights. For ‘nothing comes of nothing’ thus by demanding without actually deserving or giving, does more harm than good. There is nothing wrong in wanting to help but it is not right to take away from others just because of the colour of their skin.
Monday, June 9, 2008
JPA scholarships - an update
Saw this update on the Star. 161 Indian students received the JPA overseas scholarship, up from 120 last year, an increase of 34% which less than the 400% increase in the quota for non-Bumi students. (from 10% to 45%)
I found the 120 number a little strange. If the previous quota was 10% and only 2000 scholarships were given out, this means that non-Bumi students should have gotten only 200 scholarships. If 120 were given out to Indian students, then presumably only 80 were given out to Chinese students.
The reason I find this hard to believe is that my encounters with JPA students have always led me to conclude that there were more scholarships given to Chinese compared to Indian students. That there would be more scholarships given to Indian students doesn't make sense from an observation standpoint nor does it make sense from a political standpoint. MCA's lobbying power is presumably greater than that of MIC's and as such, it doesn't make sense that there would be more Indian JPA scholars than Chinese JPA scholars.
Please note that I am not making any claims as to who 'deserves' these scholarships more. I'm just trying to look at the figures from a rational standpoint and they don't make sense.
One possibility is that the MIC Minister, S Subramaniam, got his figures for the previous year wrong. Another is that JPA was already awarding more than 10% of the JPA scholarships to non-Bumis. I'm not sure which possibility is more likely.
But if the JPA policy change was implemented this year, then this must mean that most of the balance of the 900 scholarships should have been allocated to Chinese students which is approximately 740 scholarships (taking away the 160 allocated to the Indians). This means that Chinese students are probably the biggest beneficiary of this policy change. If we assume that there were about 150 scholarships allocated to Chinese students before this policy change, this would represent close to a five fold increase!
Remember what I said in this earlier post about some people ignoring the intra ethnic distributional consequences of the JPA scholarship such as the fact that most Malay recipients would be from middle class families? I think that we may also ignore the intra non-Bumi distributional consequences.
It is no surprise to me that the freeing up of this quota system would benefit the Chinese more than the Indians. Not only are there more Chinese in this country, a larger proportion of Chinese are in the middle class, which following the above logic, would be in prime position to capture gains from policy liberalization. Again, this is not an argument for the superiority of one race over another. It's making conclusions based on sound logic.
This story also tells me that we need to be clear about what the JPA scholarships hope to achieve. Is it just to award the top scholars who disproportionately come from the middle classes? Or is it to give a leg up to scholars from the lower classes? There is a trade off between these two objectives. Of course, they can be straddled someone - such as having a proportion of the scholarships means tested - but this trade off will continue to exist.
I'm not jumping up and down just because more Chinese and Indians will receive the JPA overseas scholarship. My thoughts on this topic is well documented in this blog. Most of these scholars won't come back to Malaysia and even if they do, won't serve the government in any way, shape or form. It's still money wasted, in my opinion but since JPA scholarships are not going to go away or be revamped anytime soon, I need to keep writing about it.
I found the 120 number a little strange. If the previous quota was 10% and only 2000 scholarships were given out, this means that non-Bumi students should have gotten only 200 scholarships. If 120 were given out to Indian students, then presumably only 80 were given out to Chinese students.
The reason I find this hard to believe is that my encounters with JPA students have always led me to conclude that there were more scholarships given to Chinese compared to Indian students. That there would be more scholarships given to Indian students doesn't make sense from an observation standpoint nor does it make sense from a political standpoint. MCA's lobbying power is presumably greater than that of MIC's and as such, it doesn't make sense that there would be more Indian JPA scholars than Chinese JPA scholars.
Please note that I am not making any claims as to who 'deserves' these scholarships more. I'm just trying to look at the figures from a rational standpoint and they don't make sense.
One possibility is that the MIC Minister, S Subramaniam, got his figures for the previous year wrong. Another is that JPA was already awarding more than 10% of the JPA scholarships to non-Bumis. I'm not sure which possibility is more likely.
But if the JPA policy change was implemented this year, then this must mean that most of the balance of the 900 scholarships should have been allocated to Chinese students which is approximately 740 scholarships (taking away the 160 allocated to the Indians). This means that Chinese students are probably the biggest beneficiary of this policy change. If we assume that there were about 150 scholarships allocated to Chinese students before this policy change, this would represent close to a five fold increase!
Remember what I said in this earlier post about some people ignoring the intra ethnic distributional consequences of the JPA scholarship such as the fact that most Malay recipients would be from middle class families? I think that we may also ignore the intra non-Bumi distributional consequences.
It is no surprise to me that the freeing up of this quota system would benefit the Chinese more than the Indians. Not only are there more Chinese in this country, a larger proportion of Chinese are in the middle class, which following the above logic, would be in prime position to capture gains from policy liberalization. Again, this is not an argument for the superiority of one race over another. It's making conclusions based on sound logic.
This story also tells me that we need to be clear about what the JPA scholarships hope to achieve. Is it just to award the top scholars who disproportionately come from the middle classes? Or is it to give a leg up to scholars from the lower classes? There is a trade off between these two objectives. Of course, they can be straddled someone - such as having a proportion of the scholarships means tested - but this trade off will continue to exist.
I'm not jumping up and down just because more Chinese and Indians will receive the JPA overseas scholarship. My thoughts on this topic is well documented in this blog. Most of these scholars won't come back to Malaysia and even if they do, won't serve the government in any way, shape or form. It's still money wasted, in my opinion but since JPA scholarships are not going to go away or be revamped anytime soon, I need to keep writing about it.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
JPA Scholarships - Beyond Racial Quotas
As promised, part 2.
JPA scholarships - beyond racial quotas
Ong Kian Ming and Oon Yeoh | Jun 7, 08 11:44am
Previously, we discussed the political implications of the change in the racial quota for the JPA overseas scholarship allocation. In this article, we want to bring up certain weaknesses in regards to this scholarship which many politicians and NGO representatives do not bring up when supporting or criticizing the latest policy change.
These weaknesses cut across racial lines which should tell us that often, we have to take off our racial lens and look beyond them in discussing issues of this nature.
JPA offers two types of scholarships. They offer approximately 2,000 overseas scholarships and 10,000 local scholarships. The overseas scholarship is obviously the more prestigious scholarship and garners most of the public press and dissatisfaction.
Most of the public is unaware of the cost of the overseas scholarships. A conservative estimate is that one overseas scholarship costs roughly RM200,000. A degree in a university in London or in a top private university in the US would cost more, perhaps between RM300,000 to RM400,000. Using the lower and more conservative estimate, one cohort of JPA scholars would cost the taxpayers roughly RM400 million. While this pales in comparison to the billions of ringgit spent on oil subsidies, it is still no laughing matter.
So if Umno Youth proposes an increase in the number of overseas scholarships from 2000 to 3000, we are talking about an additional allocation of RM200 million, not an insignificant amount.
In addition, the public is probably unaware of the fact that the return on investment, so to speak, from the JPA overseas scholarship is almost non-existent. Almost ALL overseas JPA scholars do not end up working for the JPA or the government. Many of them choose to stay overseas. Those who come back to Malaysia often end up working for the private sector which provides better pay, working conditions and promotion prospects. (Those who are sponsored to do medicine may be the only exception)
Furthermore, almost ALL of these scholars who break their JPA bonds do not pay a single cent back. It is a standing joke among some JPA scholars that when they go back home, they notify JPA that they are back, submit an application form to the JPA and then wait for them to ‘lose’ these forms and release these scholars from their JPA obligations.
In other words, these scholarships are given away, more or less, for FREE to these scholars.
No structure
One may ask – why doesn’t the JPA ask these scholars to work for them or to work for another government department or ministry? The sad fact of the matter is that there is currently no structure within the public service that can fully utilize the skills and smarts of JPA scholars. Unlike the Singapore PSC, the equivalent to the JPA, scholars are not rotated and fast tracked within the different ministries that they might be allocated to.
rais yatim akademi seni convocation 211206 students In addition, there is probably very little appetite among some in the public service who do not want to see smart and capable JPA scholars coming in to ‘shake things up’ and possibly outshine them. Hence the current ‘close one eye’ policy of not forcing these scholars to work for the government or to ask them to pay the bond back in any form or fashion. Again, breaking the JPA bond cuts across racial lines which is not surprising given the current state of our policies.
Can Malaysia really afford this kind of policy? Even Singapore, by far a richer country than Malaysia, is not so generous in giving out scholarships to its citizens without having them to work for it or to pay it back. The Singapore government is infamous for chasing down bond breakers and forcing them to pay back the value of their scholarships, often at punitive interest rates.
There is a school of thought which says that the social benefits of sponsoring these scholars to go abroad and then releasing them to work for the private sector is more beneficial to the country compared to forcing them to work for the government. This argument is flawed in many ways.
Firstly, it ignores the fact that many JPA scholars do not even come back to work in Malaysia. Given that JPA does not release figures of where these JPA scholars end up working (one doubts if they even know), we cannot even be sure of the percentage of scholars who come back to work in Malaysia.
Secondly, it assumes that these scholars would not have been able to obtain other scholarships either from Malaysia or from overseas if the JPA scholarship did not exist. There are many other organisations in Malaysia which provides overseas scholarships such as Bank Negara, Petronas, Telekom and Tenaga, just to name a few. Some, especially Petronas, have much better track records of keeping their scholars or asking those who break their bonds to pay it back.
Thirdly, it assumes that the social benefits accruing from these scholars going overseas to study is somehow higher than if they had remained in Malaysia and did their degree in a public university. This is hard to justify since a smart and motivated citizen would be able to contribute to society whether he or she studies abroad or at home. In fact, one can make the argument that the social benefit of a scholar staying at home would be greater than going overseas since this would increase the overall quality of students in our public universities.
Look beyond racial quota
The social benefits argument clearly does not hold water.
Some of the other criticisms of this policy change also fail to look beyond the racial quota. An example of this is the statement made by ABIM addressing its concern over this policy change on the grounds that the poverty level among Malays is higher than the other communities and indirectly arguing that Malays should be given the larger share of these scholarships.
students protest campus election suhakam 240807 playcardWhat these critics conveniently ignore is the distribution of these scholarships among the Malays. In most countries where affirmative action is practiced, it is usually the middle and upper middle class of the targeted community that benefits from these policies. This is certainly the case in the US where minority students (Black and Hispanic) who are in the top universities come disproportionately from middle and upper middle class families. We would not be surprised if the same is found in the Malaysian context – that the JPA scholars, including the Malays, come disproportionately from middle and upper middle class families. Hence the argument that the previous racial quota should be maintained on the grounds of helping poor Malays is not a sound one.
It is a little saddening that ABIM, a well respected Muslim NGO, would want to deal with this issue that does not directly deal with the issue of Islam. Even from the perspective of justice, it seems that they like other Malay organizations, only care about the issue when changes in racial quotas are involved and totally ignore the distributional impact of policies within the Malay community.
Such arguments also ignore another related change in the JPA policy which is to automatically provide a scholarship to those with 10A1s and above and whose families earn less than RM1,500 a month, regardless of race. Surely such a means tested policy is more just than a blind racial quota from a progressive and an Islamic perspective.
More information is always better than less especially for those interested in researching this area. If the JPA were to collect and then release relevant data on the allocation of these scholarships – race, SPM results, family income, university, whether they return to Malaysia, where they end up working, etc… - then perhaps some of the doubts surrounding the JPA scholarship could be quelled. More importantly, it could guide us towards making better policies in regards to the JPA scholarship.
To summarize, there are more important issues surrounding the JPA scholarship other than the racial quota. Most important is the fact that the returns on investment from these scholarships is almost non-existent since these scholars don’t return to work for the government (if they do come back at all) nor do they pay back their bonds. Given the high cost associated with these scholarships, this situation is not tenable in the long run.
JPA scholarships - beyond racial quotas
Ong Kian Ming and Oon Yeoh | Jun 7, 08 11:44am
Previously, we discussed the political implications of the change in the racial quota for the JPA overseas scholarship allocation. In this article, we want to bring up certain weaknesses in regards to this scholarship which many politicians and NGO representatives do not bring up when supporting or criticizing the latest policy change.
These weaknesses cut across racial lines which should tell us that often, we have to take off our racial lens and look beyond them in discussing issues of this nature.
JPA offers two types of scholarships. They offer approximately 2,000 overseas scholarships and 10,000 local scholarships. The overseas scholarship is obviously the more prestigious scholarship and garners most of the public press and dissatisfaction.
Most of the public is unaware of the cost of the overseas scholarships. A conservative estimate is that one overseas scholarship costs roughly RM200,000. A degree in a university in London or in a top private university in the US would cost more, perhaps between RM300,000 to RM400,000. Using the lower and more conservative estimate, one cohort of JPA scholars would cost the taxpayers roughly RM400 million. While this pales in comparison to the billions of ringgit spent on oil subsidies, it is still no laughing matter.
So if Umno Youth proposes an increase in the number of overseas scholarships from 2000 to 3000, we are talking about an additional allocation of RM200 million, not an insignificant amount.
In addition, the public is probably unaware of the fact that the return on investment, so to speak, from the JPA overseas scholarship is almost non-existent. Almost ALL overseas JPA scholars do not end up working for the JPA or the government. Many of them choose to stay overseas. Those who come back to Malaysia often end up working for the private sector which provides better pay, working conditions and promotion prospects. (Those who are sponsored to do medicine may be the only exception)
Furthermore, almost ALL of these scholars who break their JPA bonds do not pay a single cent back. It is a standing joke among some JPA scholars that when they go back home, they notify JPA that they are back, submit an application form to the JPA and then wait for them to ‘lose’ these forms and release these scholars from their JPA obligations.
In other words, these scholarships are given away, more or less, for FREE to these scholars.
No structure
One may ask – why doesn’t the JPA ask these scholars to work for them or to work for another government department or ministry? The sad fact of the matter is that there is currently no structure within the public service that can fully utilize the skills and smarts of JPA scholars. Unlike the Singapore PSC, the equivalent to the JPA, scholars are not rotated and fast tracked within the different ministries that they might be allocated to.
rais yatim akademi seni convocation 211206 students In addition, there is probably very little appetite among some in the public service who do not want to see smart and capable JPA scholars coming in to ‘shake things up’ and possibly outshine them. Hence the current ‘close one eye’ policy of not forcing these scholars to work for the government or to ask them to pay the bond back in any form or fashion. Again, breaking the JPA bond cuts across racial lines which is not surprising given the current state of our policies.
Can Malaysia really afford this kind of policy? Even Singapore, by far a richer country than Malaysia, is not so generous in giving out scholarships to its citizens without having them to work for it or to pay it back. The Singapore government is infamous for chasing down bond breakers and forcing them to pay back the value of their scholarships, often at punitive interest rates.
There is a school of thought which says that the social benefits of sponsoring these scholars to go abroad and then releasing them to work for the private sector is more beneficial to the country compared to forcing them to work for the government. This argument is flawed in many ways.
Firstly, it ignores the fact that many JPA scholars do not even come back to work in Malaysia. Given that JPA does not release figures of where these JPA scholars end up working (one doubts if they even know), we cannot even be sure of the percentage of scholars who come back to work in Malaysia.
Secondly, it assumes that these scholars would not have been able to obtain other scholarships either from Malaysia or from overseas if the JPA scholarship did not exist. There are many other organisations in Malaysia which provides overseas scholarships such as Bank Negara, Petronas, Telekom and Tenaga, just to name a few. Some, especially Petronas, have much better track records of keeping their scholars or asking those who break their bonds to pay it back.
Thirdly, it assumes that the social benefits accruing from these scholars going overseas to study is somehow higher than if they had remained in Malaysia and did their degree in a public university. This is hard to justify since a smart and motivated citizen would be able to contribute to society whether he or she studies abroad or at home. In fact, one can make the argument that the social benefit of a scholar staying at home would be greater than going overseas since this would increase the overall quality of students in our public universities.
Look beyond racial quota
The social benefits argument clearly does not hold water.
Some of the other criticisms of this policy change also fail to look beyond the racial quota. An example of this is the statement made by ABIM addressing its concern over this policy change on the grounds that the poverty level among Malays is higher than the other communities and indirectly arguing that Malays should be given the larger share of these scholarships.
students protest campus election suhakam 240807 playcardWhat these critics conveniently ignore is the distribution of these scholarships among the Malays. In most countries where affirmative action is practiced, it is usually the middle and upper middle class of the targeted community that benefits from these policies. This is certainly the case in the US where minority students (Black and Hispanic) who are in the top universities come disproportionately from middle and upper middle class families. We would not be surprised if the same is found in the Malaysian context – that the JPA scholars, including the Malays, come disproportionately from middle and upper middle class families. Hence the argument that the previous racial quota should be maintained on the grounds of helping poor Malays is not a sound one.
It is a little saddening that ABIM, a well respected Muslim NGO, would want to deal with this issue that does not directly deal with the issue of Islam. Even from the perspective of justice, it seems that they like other Malay organizations, only care about the issue when changes in racial quotas are involved and totally ignore the distributional impact of policies within the Malay community.
Such arguments also ignore another related change in the JPA policy which is to automatically provide a scholarship to those with 10A1s and above and whose families earn less than RM1,500 a month, regardless of race. Surely such a means tested policy is more just than a blind racial quota from a progressive and an Islamic perspective.
More information is always better than less especially for those interested in researching this area. If the JPA were to collect and then release relevant data on the allocation of these scholarships – race, SPM results, family income, university, whether they return to Malaysia, where they end up working, etc… - then perhaps some of the doubts surrounding the JPA scholarship could be quelled. More importantly, it could guide us towards making better policies in regards to the JPA scholarship.
To summarize, there are more important issues surrounding the JPA scholarship other than the racial quota. Most important is the fact that the returns on investment from these scholarships is almost non-existent since these scholars don’t return to work for the government (if they do come back at all) nor do they pay back their bonds. Given the high cost associated with these scholarships, this situation is not tenable in the long run.
JPA scholarships - who wins, who loses
Since some of our readers are not Mkini subscribers, I'll post my two articles in full here. Hope that Mkini doesn't mind. This is part 1. Part 2 will follow.
JPA scholarships - who loses, who wins?
Ong Kian Ming and Oon Yeoh | Jun 6, 08 12:59pm
Why this sudden increase in the non-Malay scholarship quota? What are some of the political implications arising from this policy change?
Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, announced last week that the JPA (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam or Public Service Department) overseas scholarships allocation would be changed from a bumiputera-non-bumiputera ratio of 90/10 to 55/45.
This is a subject which is close to the heart of Kian Ming, who runs a blog covering education issues, together with PJ Utara MP Tony Pua. In this first article, we discuss the political rationale underlying such a move and what the political impact might be. In the next article, we move beyond the racial and political rhetoric and discuss certain shortcomings of this scholarship, none of which have been brought up by those who are supportive or protesting against this policy change.
The allocation of the JPA overseas scholarship is of symbolic importance for the Chinese and Indian Malysians, since year after year, complaints about top SPM scorers who are of Chinese and Indian descent failing to obtain the JPA scholarships are always featured in our newspapers. Indeed, Malaysiakini has seen a deluge of such letters from disappointed students and parents in the past month or so. (The actual number of non-Malays affected by this particular policy is actually quite small when considering the number of SPM students in one cohort).
tunku abdul rahman tar college 290307 studentsThis is not the first time that the BN has shifted its policy on the racial allocation of the JPA overseas scholarship. It was widely speculated that after the 1999 general elections, the number of JPA overseas scholarships given to non-Malays were increased. But that was never publicised in the same manner as this policy change and the more than four-fold increase in the number of scholarships given to non-Malays took many people by surprise, including Kian Ming, who has been following issues to do with education in Malaysia for some time.
Why this sudden increase in the non-Malay scholarship quota? What are some of the political implications arising from this policy change?
A charitable view of this policy change is that the government finally succumbed to public pressure and to rejecting the large number of otherwise qualified non-Malays and listening to their appeals, time and again.
Of course, one can also see this as a political move to appease the non-Malay voter base which abandoned the BN in large number in the previous election. By changing a policy which has symbolic value in the eyes of the non-Malays, the BN is hoping to win back the hearts and minds and votes among members of these communities.
A more cynical and perhaps nefarious view of this policy change is that it is a subtle political strategy by BN, more specifically Umno, to create a climate of fear among the Malays that their rights are slowly being eroded because of the rise in the power of Pakatan. Of course, this would require a lot of subtle maneuvering on the part of the BN since they are the ones who actually approved this policy change and not Pakatan.
Protests from the usual suspects
To be fair to the government, there actually has been a subtle shift in the language used in defining education policy over the past decade or so. While we may debate the comparability of the matriculation course which is largely taken by Malays, and the STPM course which is largely taken by non-Malays as the entry requirements to our public universities, the word used to define the entry process has been ‘meritocracy’ in the past few years.
This despite the initial protests by Umno Youth which still surfaces from time to time. One does not anticipate that the meritocracy process for entering our public universities will be changed in the near future. Similarly, one does not anticipate this JPA scholarship policy change to be reversed any time soon despite the protests from some of the usual suspects including Umno Youth, Abim and GPMS, just to name a few.
But even the reservations expressed by Umno Youth were couched in terms that were more ‘flexible’, in a manner of speaking. Their representative did not ask for the quotas to go back to the 90/10 allocation but instead proposed that the total number of scholarships should be increased and the allocation quota revised to 70/30 so that no scholarships would be taken away from the Malays while giving an additional allocation to the non-Malays.
school students 220606 01Do we expect the non-Malays to respond to this policy change by swinging their support back to the BN? We think not.
It would take more than just one policy measure of this nature to win back the hearts and minds of the non-Malays. While this may have worked in the aftermath of previous elections when the non-Malay opposition parties performed well, we are in living in a different political environment. Pakatan can always respond to this by promising the non-Malays that they would implement a more equitable allocation policy across the board and not just for the JPA overseas scholarship.
One strategy used by PAS in past elections has been to ask voters and its supporters to take whatever goodies which the BN offers them, including free rice and the like, and then vote for PAS in the voting booth. It is not hard to imagine the non-Malays behaving in a similar fashion.
The reaction among the Malay grassroots has been harder to judge. Kian Ming senses a subtle and gradual shift in the Malay ground in terms of coming to terms with the eventuality of competing on a more level-playing field with the non-Malays beginning with the education realm. The fact that there has been a noticeable increase in the number of Malays performing well at the SPM level has perhaps helped assuage the fears among Malays that they cannot compete with the non-Malays.
The noticeable silence among the Pakatan parties will probably help in not making this issue one which the BN can capitalise on. DAP has not made any statements either in support of this policy perhaps because they do not want to give undue credit to the government, and PAS, not wanting to incite the Malay ground, has not made any statements critical of this policy.
Pakatan has also been helped by the fact that this issue has been overshadowed by other more demanding and headline grabbing issues such as the petrol price hike and the on-going speculation of political crossovers. Under more normal political circumstances, this policy change would have had much more political coverage.
Even more changes to come?
Is this a sign of the things to come, that there will be similar liberalisations in racial quotas in other areas be it in the education or the economic realm?
We are more guarded in this respect. As mentioned before, the push for more ‘meritocracy’ has been an ongoing initiative in the education realm. It would be a stretch to extend this to the business and economic realm, for example, at least in the near future. One would not expect government contracts or top government positions to be suddenly allocated in a more equitable fashion, many of them which currently are not even distributed according to a 90/10 ratio.
One also cannot discount the role of government agency here. Nazri has been consistently unpredictable in his policy statements and decisions but one thing that has been consistent about him is his desire for publicity. He could have pushed for this policy change not only because he felt that it might have been the expedient thing to do but that it would also garner him positive publicity, especially from the non-Malays. Other Umno politicians, who might not want to stick their necks out on the chopping block, would likely not do the same in other policy areas.
To summarise, the significance of this policy change should not be discounted, even if it is limited to one small area of education policy in this country. It is part of a more gradual shift in defining the terms of competition, at least in the education realm. Whether this will translate into the business and economic realms is harder to predict.
While the non-Malays would welcome this policy, the political circumstances of the day will limit the swing in their support back to the BN. The effect on the Malay ground is harder to judge but so far, the grassroot reaction seems slightly muted. It probably helps that the hike in petrol prices quickly knocked this particular issue of the front pages and minds of voters.
JPA scholarships - who loses, who wins?
Ong Kian Ming and Oon Yeoh | Jun 6, 08 12:59pm
Why this sudden increase in the non-Malay scholarship quota? What are some of the political implications arising from this policy change?
Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, announced last week that the JPA (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam or Public Service Department) overseas scholarships allocation would be changed from a bumiputera-non-bumiputera ratio of 90/10 to 55/45.
This is a subject which is close to the heart of Kian Ming, who runs a blog covering education issues, together with PJ Utara MP Tony Pua. In this first article, we discuss the political rationale underlying such a move and what the political impact might be. In the next article, we move beyond the racial and political rhetoric and discuss certain shortcomings of this scholarship, none of which have been brought up by those who are supportive or protesting against this policy change.
The allocation of the JPA overseas scholarship is of symbolic importance for the Chinese and Indian Malysians, since year after year, complaints about top SPM scorers who are of Chinese and Indian descent failing to obtain the JPA scholarships are always featured in our newspapers. Indeed, Malaysiakini has seen a deluge of such letters from disappointed students and parents in the past month or so. (The actual number of non-Malays affected by this particular policy is actually quite small when considering the number of SPM students in one cohort).
tunku abdul rahman tar college 290307 studentsThis is not the first time that the BN has shifted its policy on the racial allocation of the JPA overseas scholarship. It was widely speculated that after the 1999 general elections, the number of JPA overseas scholarships given to non-Malays were increased. But that was never publicised in the same manner as this policy change and the more than four-fold increase in the number of scholarships given to non-Malays took many people by surprise, including Kian Ming, who has been following issues to do with education in Malaysia for some time.
Why this sudden increase in the non-Malay scholarship quota? What are some of the political implications arising from this policy change?
A charitable view of this policy change is that the government finally succumbed to public pressure and to rejecting the large number of otherwise qualified non-Malays and listening to their appeals, time and again.
Of course, one can also see this as a political move to appease the non-Malay voter base which abandoned the BN in large number in the previous election. By changing a policy which has symbolic value in the eyes of the non-Malays, the BN is hoping to win back the hearts and minds and votes among members of these communities.
A more cynical and perhaps nefarious view of this policy change is that it is a subtle political strategy by BN, more specifically Umno, to create a climate of fear among the Malays that their rights are slowly being eroded because of the rise in the power of Pakatan. Of course, this would require a lot of subtle maneuvering on the part of the BN since they are the ones who actually approved this policy change and not Pakatan.
Protests from the usual suspects
To be fair to the government, there actually has been a subtle shift in the language used in defining education policy over the past decade or so. While we may debate the comparability of the matriculation course which is largely taken by Malays, and the STPM course which is largely taken by non-Malays as the entry requirements to our public universities, the word used to define the entry process has been ‘meritocracy’ in the past few years.
This despite the initial protests by Umno Youth which still surfaces from time to time. One does not anticipate that the meritocracy process for entering our public universities will be changed in the near future. Similarly, one does not anticipate this JPA scholarship policy change to be reversed any time soon despite the protests from some of the usual suspects including Umno Youth, Abim and GPMS, just to name a few.
But even the reservations expressed by Umno Youth were couched in terms that were more ‘flexible’, in a manner of speaking. Their representative did not ask for the quotas to go back to the 90/10 allocation but instead proposed that the total number of scholarships should be increased and the allocation quota revised to 70/30 so that no scholarships would be taken away from the Malays while giving an additional allocation to the non-Malays.
school students 220606 01Do we expect the non-Malays to respond to this policy change by swinging their support back to the BN? We think not.
It would take more than just one policy measure of this nature to win back the hearts and minds of the non-Malays. While this may have worked in the aftermath of previous elections when the non-Malay opposition parties performed well, we are in living in a different political environment. Pakatan can always respond to this by promising the non-Malays that they would implement a more equitable allocation policy across the board and not just for the JPA overseas scholarship.
One strategy used by PAS in past elections has been to ask voters and its supporters to take whatever goodies which the BN offers them, including free rice and the like, and then vote for PAS in the voting booth. It is not hard to imagine the non-Malays behaving in a similar fashion.
The reaction among the Malay grassroots has been harder to judge. Kian Ming senses a subtle and gradual shift in the Malay ground in terms of coming to terms with the eventuality of competing on a more level-playing field with the non-Malays beginning with the education realm. The fact that there has been a noticeable increase in the number of Malays performing well at the SPM level has perhaps helped assuage the fears among Malays that they cannot compete with the non-Malays.
The noticeable silence among the Pakatan parties will probably help in not making this issue one which the BN can capitalise on. DAP has not made any statements either in support of this policy perhaps because they do not want to give undue credit to the government, and PAS, not wanting to incite the Malay ground, has not made any statements critical of this policy.
Pakatan has also been helped by the fact that this issue has been overshadowed by other more demanding and headline grabbing issues such as the petrol price hike and the on-going speculation of political crossovers. Under more normal political circumstances, this policy change would have had much more political coverage.
Even more changes to come?
Is this a sign of the things to come, that there will be similar liberalisations in racial quotas in other areas be it in the education or the economic realm?
We are more guarded in this respect. As mentioned before, the push for more ‘meritocracy’ has been an ongoing initiative in the education realm. It would be a stretch to extend this to the business and economic realm, for example, at least in the near future. One would not expect government contracts or top government positions to be suddenly allocated in a more equitable fashion, many of them which currently are not even distributed according to a 90/10 ratio.
One also cannot discount the role of government agency here. Nazri has been consistently unpredictable in his policy statements and decisions but one thing that has been consistent about him is his desire for publicity. He could have pushed for this policy change not only because he felt that it might have been the expedient thing to do but that it would also garner him positive publicity, especially from the non-Malays. Other Umno politicians, who might not want to stick their necks out on the chopping block, would likely not do the same in other policy areas.
To summarise, the significance of this policy change should not be discounted, even if it is limited to one small area of education policy in this country. It is part of a more gradual shift in defining the terms of competition, at least in the education realm. Whether this will translate into the business and economic realms is harder to predict.
While the non-Malays would welcome this policy, the political circumstances of the day will limit the swing in their support back to the BN. The effect on the Malay ground is harder to judge but so far, the grassroot reaction seems slightly muted. It probably helps that the hike in petrol prices quickly knocked this particular issue of the front pages and minds of voters.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Further thoughts on the JPA policy
Monday, June 2, 2008
JPA Quota Revised
This is pretty big news. I'm sure many of your readers would have read about how the JPA ethnic quota has been changed from 90% Bumi / 10% Non-Bumi to 55% Bumi and 45% Non-Bumi. It was announced by Nazri Aziz, Minister in the PM's department sometime last week. The responses have been coming in thick and fast. I'm sure that this will not be the first time we will tackle this issue on this blog. Tony would have other insights and opinions. But let me fire off the first salvo.
First of all, I'm not exactly elated or jumping for joy at this news, contrary to expectations. Why? I've said many times in this blog that I think that as long as JPA doesn't effectively bond the overseas JPA scholars to Malaysia, I would prefer to JPA overseas scholarship component to be scrapped altogether. It costs Malaysia a few hundred million ringgit a year without any guarantee of returns. Singapore, a far richer country than Malaysia, would never throw hard earned tax dollars at such a scheme which promises very low returns to investment. You can read my previous posts here and here.
So, even if the distribution of this scholarship has become more 'meritocratic' (which I think it will given the new ethnic quota), there is little reason to celebrate if one looks at how our tax dollars are spent in this regard.
That being said, I never thought that I'd see the day when there would be a policy change in such as sensitive area i.e. JPA overseas scholarships. This is a major shift in the thinking of the policy makers, even if it is in one small area of policymaking. For now, I want to avoid the political strategy behind this move (I'll save that for one of my Realpolitik podcasts and Malaysiakini writeu-ps).
If this is an indication that the government is willing to shift the way it make policy especially in the area of higher education and our public universities, then I would certain welcome it.
My underlying assumption here is that the changing of the ethnic quota parallels a move towards moving to a more meritocratic way of policymaking and of promotions and hiring practices, for example. One can argue that this may not necessarily be the case since it is possible that certain Bumis who have better results and so on might lose out to non-Bumis with poorer results. But I think history has shown that most of the time, it was largely qualified non-Bumis who were denied the JPA scholarships rather than the other way round (if not, why have a quota in the first place?).
Hence, there are good reasons to support this policy on meritocratic grounds. Since JPA overseas scholarships won't be abolished anytime soon, I think that this is the best situation one can hope for. (Of course, my preferred solution would be to abolish ethnic quotas completely and offer scholarships on a purely merit base system but this is politically infeasible)
In addition, there is a means tested component now for the JPA overseas scholarships. From what I understand, those scholars who have been shortlisted and whose parents earn less than RM1,500 a month would automatically be awarded the scholarship regardless of race. This is certainly in line with the component of the NEP which is supposed to help the poor in Malaysia, regardless of race. Again, I think that this is something positive.
But one has to recognize that there may be potential costs when one practices means testing. It's something which many people don't want to say because it is not politically correct. Which is if one shortlists top SPM scorers from low income families, the probability of these scholars getting into a top university in the UK or the US is lower than if a top scorer from a middle or upper middle income family were to have been selected.
Before you guys start throwing barbs at me, recognize that I'm stating a well known finding. I'm not saying that someone from a low income family cannot get into a top ranked US or UK university. What I'm saying that the proportion of students who get into these schools who come from middle and upper middle income families is usually higher. If you look at the top schools in the US, even some of the need blind ones and those with very generous financial aid schemes, you'll find that the middle and upper middle income kids form the largest proportion of students. There are many reasons for this - exposure, support from parents, networking effects - which I won't go into but it's something that we should recognize as one of the by products of 'means testing'. Of course, this doesn't mean that many of these kids can't get into a perfectly respectable university. It all depends on what you want the JPA to achieve and who you want it to reward.
I'm flagging this to show the complexity and consequences of different policy decisions. For example, Tony, in a much earlier post, suggested that instead of awarding JPA scholarships after SPM, we should award JPA scholarships after the students have applied to and gotten into a list of pre-approved top ranked universities. This would certainly be much more meritocratic and would award students based on a more explicitly laid out terms and conditions but again, it would be regressive in that it would probably be advantageous to those from middle or upper middle class families. Those who can afford to spend money on books to prepare a student for the SAT not to mention the expensive application process to many of these universities.
Being someone who likes more information rather than less, I think that many of these questions can be partly answered if more information were revealed to researchers, politicians, activists and the public at large. For example, I would love to see the grade distribution of those who obtained the JPA prior to this change in the quota and after the change in the quota. Did the standards for the non-Bumis fall after the quota was relaxed? Did the standards for the Bumis rise for the same reason? Did the means testing have anything to do with this?
What about the kinds of universities and courses which the respective JPA scholars were admitted to? What was the geographical distribution? How many got into top notch universities? Again, what was the correlation between the means tested students and the kinds of universities they got into?
I hope that I've illustrated the complexity involved in trying to evaluate the merits and demerits of such a policy change. The thing that I dislike about certain groups coming out to protest or to support such a policy change is that they only focus on the ethnicity quota issue without delving deeper into some of the other implications such as the poor return on investment, the implications of means testing, the kinds of schools which the scholars get into and the underlying rationale for the JPA (is it to reward good scholars who can get into top schools or those who come from lower income families?). I admit that I'm sometimes guilty of looking at things strictly from a racial lens but I do try not to. And I've certainly tried to in this particular instance.
First of all, I'm not exactly elated or jumping for joy at this news, contrary to expectations. Why? I've said many times in this blog that I think that as long as JPA doesn't effectively bond the overseas JPA scholars to Malaysia, I would prefer to JPA overseas scholarship component to be scrapped altogether. It costs Malaysia a few hundred million ringgit a year without any guarantee of returns. Singapore, a far richer country than Malaysia, would never throw hard earned tax dollars at such a scheme which promises very low returns to investment. You can read my previous posts here and here.
So, even if the distribution of this scholarship has become more 'meritocratic' (which I think it will given the new ethnic quota), there is little reason to celebrate if one looks at how our tax dollars are spent in this regard.
That being said, I never thought that I'd see the day when there would be a policy change in such as sensitive area i.e. JPA overseas scholarships. This is a major shift in the thinking of the policy makers, even if it is in one small area of policymaking. For now, I want to avoid the political strategy behind this move (I'll save that for one of my Realpolitik podcasts and Malaysiakini writeu-ps).
If this is an indication that the government is willing to shift the way it make policy especially in the area of higher education and our public universities, then I would certain welcome it.
My underlying assumption here is that the changing of the ethnic quota parallels a move towards moving to a more meritocratic way of policymaking and of promotions and hiring practices, for example. One can argue that this may not necessarily be the case since it is possible that certain Bumis who have better results and so on might lose out to non-Bumis with poorer results. But I think history has shown that most of the time, it was largely qualified non-Bumis who were denied the JPA scholarships rather than the other way round (if not, why have a quota in the first place?).
Hence, there are good reasons to support this policy on meritocratic grounds. Since JPA overseas scholarships won't be abolished anytime soon, I think that this is the best situation one can hope for. (Of course, my preferred solution would be to abolish ethnic quotas completely and offer scholarships on a purely merit base system but this is politically infeasible)
In addition, there is a means tested component now for the JPA overseas scholarships. From what I understand, those scholars who have been shortlisted and whose parents earn less than RM1,500 a month would automatically be awarded the scholarship regardless of race. This is certainly in line with the component of the NEP which is supposed to help the poor in Malaysia, regardless of race. Again, I think that this is something positive.
But one has to recognize that there may be potential costs when one practices means testing. It's something which many people don't want to say because it is not politically correct. Which is if one shortlists top SPM scorers from low income families, the probability of these scholars getting into a top university in the UK or the US is lower than if a top scorer from a middle or upper middle income family were to have been selected.
Before you guys start throwing barbs at me, recognize that I'm stating a well known finding. I'm not saying that someone from a low income family cannot get into a top ranked US or UK university. What I'm saying that the proportion of students who get into these schools who come from middle and upper middle income families is usually higher. If you look at the top schools in the US, even some of the need blind ones and those with very generous financial aid schemes, you'll find that the middle and upper middle income kids form the largest proportion of students. There are many reasons for this - exposure, support from parents, networking effects - which I won't go into but it's something that we should recognize as one of the by products of 'means testing'. Of course, this doesn't mean that many of these kids can't get into a perfectly respectable university. It all depends on what you want the JPA to achieve and who you want it to reward.
I'm flagging this to show the complexity and consequences of different policy decisions. For example, Tony, in a much earlier post, suggested that instead of awarding JPA scholarships after SPM, we should award JPA scholarships after the students have applied to and gotten into a list of pre-approved top ranked universities. This would certainly be much more meritocratic and would award students based on a more explicitly laid out terms and conditions but again, it would be regressive in that it would probably be advantageous to those from middle or upper middle class families. Those who can afford to spend money on books to prepare a student for the SAT not to mention the expensive application process to many of these universities.
Being someone who likes more information rather than less, I think that many of these questions can be partly answered if more information were revealed to researchers, politicians, activists and the public at large. For example, I would love to see the grade distribution of those who obtained the JPA prior to this change in the quota and after the change in the quota. Did the standards for the non-Bumis fall after the quota was relaxed? Did the standards for the Bumis rise for the same reason? Did the means testing have anything to do with this?
What about the kinds of universities and courses which the respective JPA scholars were admitted to? What was the geographical distribution? How many got into top notch universities? Again, what was the correlation between the means tested students and the kinds of universities they got into?
I hope that I've illustrated the complexity involved in trying to evaluate the merits and demerits of such a policy change. The thing that I dislike about certain groups coming out to protest or to support such a policy change is that they only focus on the ethnicity quota issue without delving deeper into some of the other implications such as the poor return on investment, the implications of means testing, the kinds of schools which the scholars get into and the underlying rationale for the JPA (is it to reward good scholars who can get into top schools or those who come from lower income families?). I admit that I'm sometimes guilty of looking at things strictly from a racial lens but I do try not to. And I've certainly tried to in this particular instance.
Monday, May 19, 2008
JPA scholarships not a right
It is not often that I would agree with the JPA in regard to its policies. But I have to agree with the recent statement by PSD Director-General Tan Sri Ismail Adam in a recent Star report. According to the DG, JPA scholarships are a privilege rather than a right and more and more competition should be expected as more and more students are taking 12 or more SPM subjects.
According to the figures given by the JPA, the number of overseas scholarships offered by the JPA has increased from 748 in 2000 to an estimated 2000 in 2008. The overall number of JPA scholarships have also increased from 4511 in 2000 to 12,000 in 2008 (including local scholarships).
I have already expressed my view that the overseas JPA scholarships give us too poor a return on investment. 2000 JPA overseas scholarships at a conservative 200,000RM a scholarship will cost us 400RM million per year. And I would guess that less than 5% of these students come back to work for the government proper (not including Petronas and the other GLCs).
In contrast, you could fund 5 local scholarships for every one overseas scholarship and these students are much more likely to stay and work in Malaysia compared to those with overseas scholarships.
I think there should be a scaling back of expectations which says that if you score 10A1s or more for your SPM, you should be guaranteed an overseas scholarship to do whatever course you want to do. It doesn't make financial sense. From a comparative perspective, it is also unprecedented. No where else in a developing country would you expect this kind of guarantee. Even in Singapore, there is no guarantee that if you score 4As and above in your A levels, you must be given an overseas scholarship by the Singapore government.
There are ample local scholarships which a student with good results can apply to including the JPA local scholarships which it guarantees will be given to students with 9As or more for their SPM as well as private colleges.
This is not to say that the process of awarding the JPA scholarships cannot be improved. While I don't agree with MIC secretary-general Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam, who is also the Human Resources Minister, that students scoring 10A1s or more in their SPM should be given a JPA overseas scholarship, I do agree with him that the process should be made more transparent including releasing information in regard to the quality of the students who receive these scholarships (as well as how many of them return back to Malaysia to work and where they work). This way, JPA can clear at least some doubts about how the scholarships are awarded. (BTW, I don't think that all JPA scholars score 13A1s and above as asserted by the JPA Director)
Some of our readers have brought up the issue of grade inflation and students being pressured to take additional SPM subjects. I think this issue should be examined as well including putting an upper limit as to how many SPM subjects a student can take.
In the meantime, we should try to contain our expectations about getting these scholarships just because we managed to score 10A1s or more in our SPM.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
JPA rejects 10A1 student
A student who scored 10A1s in the SPM exam was rejected for a JPA scholarship. To add insult to injury, she was also rejected for the matriculation program.
It is not unprecedented for a student with 10A1s to get rejected by JPA. I have a friend who obtained 11A1s and one A2 and was was rejected by the JPA as well. We are not sure if Kamine Devi was a straight A1 student or whether she had some A2s and B3s along with her 10A1s.
Neither is the option of studying medicine out of her reach, yet. She still can do her STPM and get into medicine via that route (although this too is challenging since she needs to score straight As in her STPM).
But what I am peeved by is the fact that she was rejected for the matriculation program. I won't go into the weaknesses of that program - which many have criticized as a back door creation for weaker Bumiputera students to get into our public universities - except to say that only 10% of the places in these programs are given to non-Bumis. I can understand, somewhat, if she was rejected by JPA because she didn't get straight A1s or that there might have been other students who had more straight A1s. But what I cannot understand is the fact that she got rejected by the matriculation program as well!
It's not as if top SPM scorers are making a beeline for the matriculation program or that non Bumis are inundating the matriculation program with their applications. What is the basis for her rejection from this program? That she scored TOO MANY A1s?
The matriculation program has come under some level of criticism. You can read letters in Malaysiakini to get a flavor of what these criticisms are - here, here and here.
I wish Kamine Devi all the best in her dream to become a doctor. I hope that these rejections will not demoralize her.
It is not unprecedented for a student with 10A1s to get rejected by JPA. I have a friend who obtained 11A1s and one A2 and was was rejected by the JPA as well. We are not sure if Kamine Devi was a straight A1 student or whether she had some A2s and B3s along with her 10A1s.
Neither is the option of studying medicine out of her reach, yet. She still can do her STPM and get into medicine via that route (although this too is challenging since she needs to score straight As in her STPM).
But what I am peeved by is the fact that she was rejected for the matriculation program. I won't go into the weaknesses of that program - which many have criticized as a back door creation for weaker Bumiputera students to get into our public universities - except to say that only 10% of the places in these programs are given to non-Bumis. I can understand, somewhat, if she was rejected by JPA because she didn't get straight A1s or that there might have been other students who had more straight A1s. But what I cannot understand is the fact that she got rejected by the matriculation program as well!
It's not as if top SPM scorers are making a beeline for the matriculation program or that non Bumis are inundating the matriculation program with their applications. What is the basis for her rejection from this program? That she scored TOO MANY A1s?
The matriculation program has come under some level of criticism. You can read letters in Malaysiakini to get a flavor of what these criticisms are - here, here and here.
I wish Kamine Devi all the best in her dream to become a doctor. I hope that these rejections will not demoralize her.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Scholarships for 9As SPM students
Read this in the Star today. JPA announced today that all SPM students who have scored 9As and above would be given scholarships to do their Form 6 and matriculation studies. The Chief Secretary to the Government also said that these students would also be sponsored for their undergraduate degree at a local university and if they managed to get a place in an Ivy league university or its equivalent, they would also be sponsored.
In principle, I think that this is a good move since it will solve the problem of having different criteria for different people when it comes to giving out JPA scholarships. I also think that it's a good move to channel potential JPA scholars to do their studies locally, since I think that this is much more cost effective, especially given JPA's poor track record at retaining foreign JPA scholars.
I'm not sure how effective this policy will be from the perspective of attracting 9A students to take the STPM exams since studying Form 6 is not prohibitively expensive in the first place and from what I know, neither is matriculation. I won't be surprised if most of the students who score 9As and above for their SPM and are in the matriculation stream already receive scholarships in some form or fashion.
Although studying in local public unis are also not very expensive (compared to studying in private unis / colleges or going overseas) and students can easily take out PTPN loans, these scholarships can definitely help those who come from less privileged backgrounds where even a few thousand RM would go a long way in helping alleviate the financial burden on them and their families.
This doesn't change my mind in regard to the need to abolish undergraduate scholarships to go overseas, even (or especially) if students get into Ivy league schools (or their equivalent).
But I think that channeling scholarships and funds in a race blind manner at the Form 6 / matriculation and local public uni levels is to be commended.
In principle, I think that this is a good move since it will solve the problem of having different criteria for different people when it comes to giving out JPA scholarships. I also think that it's a good move to channel potential JPA scholars to do their studies locally, since I think that this is much more cost effective, especially given JPA's poor track record at retaining foreign JPA scholars.
I'm not sure how effective this policy will be from the perspective of attracting 9A students to take the STPM exams since studying Form 6 is not prohibitively expensive in the first place and from what I know, neither is matriculation. I won't be surprised if most of the students who score 9As and above for their SPM and are in the matriculation stream already receive scholarships in some form or fashion.
Although studying in local public unis are also not very expensive (compared to studying in private unis / colleges or going overseas) and students can easily take out PTPN loans, these scholarships can definitely help those who come from less privileged backgrounds where even a few thousand RM would go a long way in helping alleviate the financial burden on them and their families.
This doesn't change my mind in regard to the need to abolish undergraduate scholarships to go overseas, even (or especially) if students get into Ivy league schools (or their equivalent).
But I think that channeling scholarships and funds in a race blind manner at the Form 6 / matriculation and local public uni levels is to be commended.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Got into Harvard, Rejected by JPA
Lee Jia Hui got into Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth and Cornell but got rejected by JPA and Bank Negara. He explains his rejections (for the scholarships) by his vocal nature. I'm not surprised that he was rejected. I can imagine the eyes of the interviewers bulging as he was discussing his interest in politics, sexuality and self-identity. But I'm glad that he was full funding from Harvard. Goes to show that if you're smart, if you want to do something out of the box and if you are willing to work hard at the application process, you can find funding sources to study overseas, especially in a place like the US. Maybe not everyone can get into Harvard but there are plenty of liberal arts colleges with generous funding opportunities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)