Bogus PhDs No More?

I took the opportunity to ask the Minister of Higher Education as to the steps being taken to prevent academics with dubious qualifications from being hired by our local universities during the Budget debate 2 days ago. The following was the relevant exchange:

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Yang Berhormat Menteri, penjelasan. Minta maaf, topik tadi berkenaan mengenai PhD yang diambil oleh universiti-universiti tempatan. Saya ingin tahu, kita memang perlu meningkatkan jumlah pemegang PhD dalam universiti kita, tetapi saya mendapati bahawa memang ada juga yang pemegang PhD itu tidak mempunyai PhD dari universiti yang dikatakan sebagai recognized iaitu ada pemegang PhD di dalam universiti kita dan saya ada nama di mana mereka mendapat PhD mereka melalui correspondence course.

Pihak yang mengambil PhD memang tidak ada PhD yang credible boleh didapat di
correspondence course. So, apakah langkah yang diambil oleh kementerian supaya pemegang PhD seperti ini tidak dilantik dalam universiti kita.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Pertamanya kementerian sedang dalam peringkat untuk memperketatkan lagi peruntukan yang ada dalam undang-undang khususnya
undang-undang Akta Institut Pengajian Tinggi Swasta (Akta 555) untuk tentukan kita berkuasa untuk mengambil tindakan terhadap kes-kes yang sedemikian. Keduanya seperti kata Yang Berhormat ada tenaga akademik yang mungkin mempunyai PhD yang sedemikian tetapi kehadiran mereka dalam IPT atau pun universiti mereka masing-masing mungkin berasaskan Ijazah yang lain sama ada masters dan sebagainya.

Oleh kerana sesuatu PhD itu tidak diiktiraf, ia tidak di ambil kira. Saya percaya kalau pun ada nama dan saya juga mengalu-alukan kalau nama itu dapat diberi, kita boleh menyiasat dengan lebih teliti mengenai kedudukan pensyarah yang sebegini. Akan tetapi daripada laporan yang saya dimaklumkan, kalau pun ada pensyarah yang memiliki ijazah dan juga sarjana dan sebagainya, mereka juga membuat dan mendapat PhD mungkin melalui correspondence sebahagian daripada khususnya universiti awam, kalau PhD itu tidak diiktiraf, memang ia tidak diiktiraf dan mereka tidak mendapat apa-apa tambahan atau kebaikan daripada kedudukan mereka sebagai anggota tenaga akademik.

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Akan tetapi dalam resume mereka, dalam laman web, semua letak Doktor. So ini agak mengelirukan dan tidak baik untuk penuntut kita di universiti juga. Terima kasih.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Saya akan memberi nasihat dan makluman kepada semua dalam kes yang mana boleh guna profesor, boleh mengguna nama Doktor dan
sebagainya. Jika Yang Berhormat boleh bekerjasama dengan kementerian memberikan saya
nama-nama itu, kita akan follow up dengan pihak universiti dan kerana kita tidak kompromi dalam soal-soal yang boleh menyentuh kesan penjanaan tenaga akademik dalam universiti kita.

Minister's Reply on Action Against Students at UM

The issue of students being called up by the Disciplinary Board of various universities for offences such as inviting prominent politicians to be judges at a debating competition was raised during the recent budget debate, and the Minister of Higher Education 2 days ago.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nor: Untuk makluman Ahli Yang Berhormat di bawah aspek perundangan, Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti (AUKU) yang dikuatkuasakan pada 1 Februari 2009 telah membuat perubahan besar kepada sistem tadbir urus, kebajikan pekerja, dan juga hak pelajar universiti merangkumi juga kebebasan akademik.

AUKU sebenarnya tidak menyekat kebebasan berfikir dan kreativiti tenaga akademik dan pelajar universiti. Malahan mereka diberikan kebebasan untuk melahirkan pandangan, pendapat, cadangan dan sebagainya Akan tetapi mesti mengikut saluran-saluran tertentu demi mewujudkan suasana kondusif dan sihat dalam melaksanakan aktiviti pembelajaran dan pengajaran yang berkualiti.

Berkenaan dengan tindakan Universiti Malaya membawa lapan orang pelajar ke prosiding tatatertib. Untuk makluman Ahli Yang Berhormat yang telah mengemukakan mengenai perkara ini iaitu Yang Berhormat Padang Terap dan juga Yang Berhormat Serdang, tindakan yang diambil oleh pengurusan Universiti Malaya merupakan prosedur biasa bagi mendapatkan maklumat di atas beberapa tindakan pelajar tersebut.

Ini adalah disebabkan oleh tindakan mereka yang menjemput VIP di dalam majlis mereka tanpa mendapatkan kelulusan pihak pengurusan universiti. Kementerian akan sentiasa memantau secara dekat setiap kes yang berlaku di IPT. Namun berkeyakinan kes ini akan dapat diselesaikan oleh pengurusan Universiti Malaya dengan baik berdasarkan peruntukan perundangan dan peraturan sedia ada.

Puan Teo Nie Ching [Serdang]: Minta penjelasan. Terima kasih Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Terima kasih Yang Berhormat Menteri. Saya hendak bertanya sedikit. Sekiranya prosiding tatatertib ini adalah satu prosiding yang biasa untuk mendapatkan maklumat daripada kelapan-lapan pelajar ini. Jadi soalan saya, kenapakah prosiding ini ditangguhkan sebanyak dua kali?

Sekiranya memangl pihak universiti mereka hendak mendapatkan maklumat, informasi daripada pelajar-pelajar ini, prosiding ini boleh diteruskan. Akan tetapi nampaknya hari ini mereka memanggil pelajar-pelajar untuk datang menghadirkan diri dalam prosiding tetapi selepas pelajar-pelajar itu menunggu sehingga dua jam, prosiding ini ditangguhkan.

Ini bukan berlaku kali pertama, ini berlaku sebanyak dua kali. Jadi saya hendak meminta penjelasan daripada Menteri, adakah ini satu cara sebagai sesuatu penyeksaan mental kepada pelajar-pelajar ini. dan saya mengharapkan bahawa pihak universiti mestil lebih profesional dalam mengendalikan peristiwa seperti ini.

[...]

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Tan Sri Yang di-Pertua, soalan saya senang sahaja. Penambahan ke atas apa yang telah disebutkan oleh Yang Berhormat Serdang. Saya ingin hendak bertanya Lembaga Tatatertib, kerjanya adakah mengadakan satu hearing untuk mendapatkan maklumat? Saya rasa itu agak ekstrem. Hendak mendapatkan maklumat, panggil sahaja penuntut-penuntut tersebut, datang ke bilik dan jelaskan. Tidak perlu panggil satu hearing tatatertib untuk mendapatkan maklumat. Jadi saya agak yang penjelasan itu seperti tidak berapa elok. [Ketawa] Terima kasih.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin [Pasir Gudang]: Beliau... Tan Sri Yang di-Pertua...

Tuan Mohd. Nasir bin Zakaria [Padang Terap]: Yang Berhormat Menteri. Isu yang sama. Terima kasih Yang Berhormat Menteri, Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Saya membangkitkan isu berkaitan dengan AUKU ini. Kita telah menyatakan kebimbangan kita semasa pindaan dibuat dalam Dewan ini dalam dua sesi yang lepas. Menteri memberikan jaminan kepada kita mengenai dasar kita mengamalkan maklumat bersuara dan sebagainya.

Isunya ialah bagaimana pelajar-pelajar ini atau mahasiswa-mahasiswa ini ingin mendengar pandangan balas yang kedua daripada pihak yang lain untuk memantapkan pemikiran mereka.

Pada masa yang sama kita melihat berlaku ketidakadilan apabila yang datang itu adalah daripada pandangan yang berbeza, maka pelajar-pelajar ini dipanggil untuk berdepan dengan lembaga tatatertib. Pada masa yang sama sehari ataupun dua hari sebelum daripada itu, ada daripada UMNO masuk, daripada parti pemerintah masuk dan tidak ada apa-apa tindakan. Pada masa yang sama tidak silap saya, ketika di tangguh buat kali yang pertama, ia bertepatan dengan lawatan daripada seorang pemimpin politik masuk ke dalam Universiti Malaya dan kemungkinan itu menyebabkan protes untuk hearing itu ditangguhkan. Adakah benar dan bagaimana dengan janji yang dilafazkan dahulu ketika tuan masih lagi sekarang menjadi Menteri Pengajian Tinggi?

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Tuan Yang di-Pertua, terima kasih kepada perkara-perkara yang dibangkitkan. Isu yang timbul mengenai kes kelapan-lapan pelajar ini ialah, walaupun program yang dianjurkan itu diluluskan oleh universiti, tetapi permohonan oleh persatuan pelajar ini tidak menyebut siapa yang mereka hendak jemput dan itu sebenarnya yang menjadi isu kepada kes ini. Ini kerana setelah diluluskan permohonan menganjurkan program itu, maka didapati ...bahawa mereka telah membawa ataupun menjemput VIP yang tidak pun dimaklumkan kepada pihak universiti. Maka atas sebab itulah prosiding ini diadakan oleh pihak universiti untuk mendapat maklumat... ataupun laporan yang lebih lanjut daripada pelajar-pelajar yang sedemikian dan penangguhan prosiding ini saya difahamkan, bahawa oleh kerana buat ketika ini pelajar-pelajar sedang melalui peperiksaan. Maka atas sebab itulah prosiding ini telah ditangguhkan.

Puan Teresa Kok Suh Sim [Seputeh]: Minta penjelasan.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Okey.

Puan Teresa Kok Suh Sim [Seputeh]: Terima kasih Yang Berhormat Menteri. Tadi kes yang dibangkitkan oleh Yang Berhormat Serdang itu, sebenarnya dalam perbahasan itu saya dijemput pergi sana. Saya difahamkan, kerana kehadiran saya di kampus Universiti Malaya itu yang menyebabkan semua pelajar menghadapi masalah. Akan tetapi, saya bukan ahli politik sahaja. Saya pergi sana menjadi seorang hakim untuk perbahasan bekas-bekas debater dahulu dan saya juga bekas graduan Universiti Malaya. Saya dapat Master saya di sana.

Jadi, saya seharusnya diangkat sebagai seorang bekas graduan Universiti Malaya. Kalau ini pun menyebabkan Persatuan Tionghoa itu menghadapi masalah, macam mana kita boleh mengharapkan yang pelajar kita di universiti ini boleh mempunyai minda yang lebih terbuka? Ini kerana universiti memang masih melayan mereka seperti budak kecil, macam kindergarten student. Saya juga hendak tanya yang pindaan UCA, University and Colleges Act itu. Bukankah kita telah pun memberi lebih ruang kepada para pelajar untuk menganjurkan aktiviti, menyertai aktiviti dan sebagainya? Kenapa hanya kerana saya hadir dalam kampus Universiti Malaya, selepas itu persatuan itu menghadapi masalah, pelajar-pelajar semua dipanggil untuk ke disciplinary board?

Jadi, saya hendak minta Menteri boleh tolong merekakah? Kerana saya rasa ini bukan tujuan yang kita hendak shape mindset pelajar kita di universiti. Terima kasih.

Tuan Loke Siew Fook [Rasah]: Terima kasih Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Terima kasih
Menteri. Semasa kita membahaskan pindaan kepada AUKU pada tahun lepas, pihak
kementerian telah memberikan jaminan bahawa pemimpin-pemimpin politik walaupun daripada pembangkang akan dibenarkan untuk masuk ke dalam kampus untuk memberikan ucapan dan sebagainya kalau dipelawa oleh pelajar.

Soalan saya ialah, mungkin saya rasa dalam hal ini pihak kementerian memang tidak
ada masalah untuk memberikan pemimpin-pemimpin pembangkang untuk masuk ke kampus. Adakah dalam hal ini kemungkinan pihak pengurusan universiti yang go against dasar pihak kementerian. Ini kerana saya rasa ini perkara yang remeh-temeh. Hanya menjadi pengadil.

Adakah perlu persatuan pelajar setiap permohonan itu ataupun pelawaan itu harus mendapatkan kelulusan daripada pihak universiti? Saya rasa ini mungkin pihak pengurusan universiti yang telah bertindak di luar dasar yang telah ditetapkan oleh pihak kementerian. Terima kasih.

Puan Teo Nie Ching [Serdang]: Saya hendak tambah sedikit sahaja kerana saya hendak membuat satu pembetulan. Saya difahami daripada pelajar-pelajar, memanglah pihak universiti telah mengeluarkan satu surat kepada mereka yang dalam surat itu syarat-syarat yang dinyatakan adalah bahawa pelajar-pelajar di universiti dan juga orang-orang luar boleh dilibat ataupun melibatkan diri dalam debat pada hari itu.

Jadi saya rasa memanglah itu satu kebenaran dari pihak universiti. Ini kerana dalam
surat itu juga tidak nyata bahawa pelajar-pelajar ini tidak boleh mengajak Yang Berhormat Seputehkah atau ajak siapa-siapa pemimpin-pemimpin parti politik. Jadi saya rasalah alasan yang diberi daripada universiti ini memanglah langsung tidak munasabah dan saya memang harap bahawa Menteri bolehlah campur tangan supaya kita boleh tahu, kita boleh dapat satu jaminan, bahawa selepas peperiksaan pelajar-pelajar ini, mereka juga tidak akan dipecat dan diberi amaran keras kerana saya rasa tindakan mereka adalah langsung tidak ada salah.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Okey, Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Memanglah setiap universiti akan menetapkan prosedur bagaimana soal-soal aktiviti yang dibuat oleh pelajar, oleh persatuan dan sebagainya. Semua persatuan di universiti perlu melalui prosedur yang telah ditetapkan oleh universiti tersebut termasuklah kes yang sedang kita bahaskan pada hari ini.

Sebagaimana yang telah dinyatakan bahawa semua pihak termasuklah pemimpin daripada parti pembangkang boleh dijemput sekiranya sesuatu majlis itu berkisar kepada soal-soal yang ada hubung kait dengan hal-hal akademik... Soal-soal, syarat dan segala perkara yang perlu bagi menjayakan sesuatu aktiviti oleh persatuan ataupun pelajar akan ditentukan oleh pihak universiti mengenai peraturan dan sebagainya. Mana-mana pemimpin parti politik, sememangnya dibenarkan untuk menyertai sekiranya ia melibatkan hal-hal yang ada hubung kait dengan soal-soal akademik.

Akan tetapi dalam kes ini malangnya, tidak dimaklumkan kerana Yang Berhormat yang terlibat adalah merupakan pemimpin bagi sesebuah parti politik sepatutnya saya difahamkan, saya dilaporkan begitu, persatuan pelajar itu memaklumkan siapa yang dia hendak jemput dan sebagainya. Jadi di situ masalahnya timbul, kerana tidak dimaklumkan terlebih awal dan jika universiti tidak mempunyai peraturan sebegitu, maka mungkin universiti berpendapat ia akan hilang kawalan sekiranya kes yang sama berlaku, berulang bukan sahaja oleh persatuan ini, tetapi juga oleh persatuan-persatuan yang lain.

Jadi atas sebab itulah pelajar-pelajar ini telah dipanggil oleh pihak universiti untuk menentukan mengapa perkara yang sedemikian boleh berlaku dan kita tunggu apa keputusan yang akan dibuat oleh pihak universiti dan seperti yang telah saya nyatakan kementerian akan sentiasa memantau secara dekat kes-kes yang berlaku di IPT seperti ini.

Namun, kita yakin kes ini akan dapat diselesaikan oleh pengurusan universiti termasuk UM dalam kes ini dengan baik berdasarkan peruntukkan perundangan, peraturan dan juga semangat AUKU yang telah pun kita pinda. Jadi, saya percaya setakat itu yang hendak saya nyatakan mengenai kes ini dan penangguhan kes ini adalah kerana pelajar-pelajar sedang menghadapi peperiksaan buat ketika ini.

Pakatan's Education and Higher Education Cabinet Committee

Hot off the press. The following opposition MPs have been put on the cabinet committee for the Education portfolio: Yusmadi Yusoff (PKR), Che Uda Che Nik (PAS), Chong Eng (DAP) and for the Higher Education portfolio: Zulkifli Nordin (PKR), Salahuddin Ayub (PAS), Tony Pua (DAP).

I think it's high time that the Pakatan coalition formed its own version of a shadow 'cabinet'. Hopefully this will mean a more structured focus on the part of these MPs, especially those which have been allocated the Education and Higher Education portfolios.

These six MPs are an interesting and mixed bunch. Yusmadi Yusoff is a young, idealistic PKR MP for Balik Pulau in Penang and I've had the opportunity to interact with him a few times. He was a Hubert Humphrey fellow for a year here in the US and is a lawyer by vocation. I'm sure he'll bring fresh ideas and perspectives to his portfolio. Chong Eng, an experienced MP from Bukit Mertajam, is a fiery and passionate DAP MP. She's been very outspoken on women's issues as an MP. I hope that she will do more than just highlight the plight of Chinese and Indian schools but look at how the Education Ministry can do a better job, perhaps in examining how some of their policies may effect girls and boys differently. The gender gap is becoming more significant at the university level (in favor of women) and I think there must be some steps which can be taken at the pre-university level which can arrest this trend. I don't know much about Che Uda Che Nik from PAS except to say that he's the PAS MP for Sik, Kedah.

We're all familiar with Tony's work as the MP for PJ Utara and on this blog. Hopefully, being allocated this portfolio will free up some time for Tony to put forth some of his ideas on Higher Education in Malaysia. I'm sure he'll have an interesting time working with Zulkifli Nordin of PKR, MP for Kulim, who is more well known for his tirades against Sisters in Islam and for protesting the Bar Council forum on religious conversions, than for his view on Higher Education in Malaysia. Salahuddin Ayub, PAS MP for Kubang Kerian, was the former PAS Youth chief and is a seasoned politician. It will be interesting to hear his views on the state of Higher Education in Malaysia since I've not heard him speak on this before.

Hopefully, having these cabinet committees will increase the quality and level of debate in parliament especially when it comes to the Education and Higher Education portfolios. Congrats and all the best to Tony!

Thoughts on the university admissions process

A friend of mine, Rajan Rishyakaran, has written a good blog post critiquing the Malaysian university admissions process. While I don't know enough about local universities to comment on many things he raises, there are a couple of points which I think are worth emphasising: the difference between policy in theory and policy in reality, and the importance of decentralising some decisions.

There are many illustrations of the difference between something in theory and something in practice, but Rajan's example of coursework is as good as any. In principle, adding coursework to the evaluation process for university admissions would be a good thing.

After all, a major problem with our education system is that it focuses a lot on examinations which only assess students at one point in time, and often encourage rote memorisation instead of actual learning. If you fall sick during exam period, it can dramatically change your life's course, because you might not get into the university you otherwise could, or not pursue the degree you otherwise would attain. And because the format and style of exams is so predictable, all you need to do is practice with enough exam papers from previous years to be prepared -- you don't necessarily need to understand anything on the exam (I have found that understanding too much can actually be detrimental to your marks in some Malaysian exams).

If we emphasised coursework more, then one-off incidents which might negatively impact your exam performance would matter less: you have a substantial amount of time to do your coursework. Because the key element of your coursework is usually a report on something you have researched, you actually learn something useful: you learn how to write academically, and you learn some basic research or factfinding skills.

That's the theory; the practical reality is something else altogether. When I was in school, nobody took coursework seriously. Or rather, they took it the same way they took an exam: they figured out the best way to game the system, and they did it. Everyone would Google their topic, and instead of writing up a report about it, they would plagarise the most relevant websites. If they were too lazy to do this, they would plagiarise from one another very openly -- there was no stigma to copying or cheating off someone else's work.

It's not that they were lazy; it's that they knew this was the most efficient way to get things done. Teachers don't really care if the material is obviously plagiarised -- to them the coursework system is often a burdensome imposition on them because they have to read through dozens, if not hundreds of reports. Students know this, so they intentionally put a lot of work into making their reports more burdensome on teachers. One teacher's son told me that he intentionally put lots of irrelevant diagrams and photos in his coursework because this would discourage the teacher from looking too hard at his work -- she would see he had obviously worked hard on the report, and give him high marks.

The problem with coursework is that it is an arbitrary, artificial system of evaluation imposed by the central government with little thought as to what the schools and teachers can do, and little thought for what universities want to see. As Rajan notes, our university admissions process is extremely centralised -- everything is boiled down to a couple of numbers, which are then fed into the government's system. The government then tells you what university you will attend, and what degree you will pursue.

Likewise, with coursework, the government tells schools how to grade students' work, and it tells universities how these grades must translate into admissions decisions. There is no room for a teacher to assess students in his or her own way, to try something different. Neither is there room for a university to assess students in a different way, such as through tailored interviews or personal statements.

Obviously, there are pitfalls to granting educators more autonomy. But I don't think there is any question that at the moment we err far too heavily on the side of ridiculous centralisation. The government has attempted to standardise the education system to an extreme, and the result is something easily gamed by the pretence of ability, instead of actual demonstrable results. The government needs to grant universities more leeway in making their admissions decisions, and at the same time experiment with giving schools more freedom in coming up with alternative methods of assessment.

'Cosmestic' changes to the UUCA criticized

We've been anticipating the proposed changes to the UUCA for some time now. Both Tony and I have blogged about this in the past - here, here and here - and we both agree that the UUCA is too restrictive and needs to be reformed. But according to this latest Mkini report, the proposed changes to the UUCA are purely 'cosmetic'.

I haven't read the proposed bill which details the changes in the UUCA but according to the Malaysiakini report reproduced below, it still bars students in public universities from joining political parties and allows the VCs and the Minister for Higher Education way too much latitude in deciding which organizations students were banned from joining.

Firstly, I think this kind of ban borders on being unconstitutional. What ever happened to freedom of association? Secondly, with this kind of suppression of political activities among university students, is it surprising that we have about 5 million unregistered voters in the country, a majority of whom are below 35 years of age?

Students slam 'cosmetic' changes to UUCA
Tarani Palani and Rahmah Ghazali | Jul 18, 08 1:21pm
Student leaders have described the proposed amendments to the Universities and University Colleges Act (UCCA), the law which regulates their participation in political activities, as “cosmetic”.

"We do not agree with the amendments, and as we have suspected, the suggested amendments do not solve the difficulties faced by students (in political activities),” said Faridzul Nasarudin, a researcher for University Students’ Movement to Abolish UUCA (GMMA).

“The amendments are superficial and politically cosmetic."

He said the proposed changes to section 15 and 16 of the bill, which are made by the Higher Education Ministry, did not amount to much.

"The language used does not give students any concrete freedom. We can see that the decisive power still very much lies in the hands of the university administration and the minister."

Under the existing Act, students in Malaysian universities are not allowed to participate in any organisation that is political in nature.

Section 15(1) in the amended bill stipulates that students must still abstain from political activities, despite the provision allowing them to participate in “general organisations”. Even in this, the final say is with the higher education minister and university administrators.

According the amended section, university students “may become members of any society and organisation in or outside Malaysia”. But it bans student participation in “political parties, any unlawful organisation, and any organisation which the minister has specified in writing to vice-chancellors as unsuitable to the interests and well-being of the students or the university”.

Faridzul lamented that the proposed changes continue to restrict student activitism.

“Although some of the amendments open the door for greater student freedom, the limitations set are against human rights.”

Student leaders make suggestions

GMMA representatives yesterday handed a ‘suggestion paper’ on the organisation’s views regarding the amendments to Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah in Parliament.

Co-coordinator Ridzuan Mohammad stressed that students are capable of critical thinking and have followed the law by submitting their suggestions and not taking to the streets to voice their dissatisfaction.

"We have not acted rashly. We have the capability to think intellectually and thus we are submitting this suggestion paper. At least, we have not organised demonstrations."

raja petra court case 060508 nurul izzahNurul Izzah (right) backed the students and argued that the proposed amendments fail to reflect the demands and aspirations of students.

Meanwhile, Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng, when asked, stated “the amendments still have a lot of restrictions, with an ambiguous section 15."

Batu Gajah MP Fong Po Kuan - a law graduate of the International Islamic University - added that the much-awaited amendments are “disappointing as it still restricts student involvement in politics”.

However both parliamentarians conceded that there are improvements in the proposed amendments.

According to Lim, those who breach the UCCA will now face a ‘disciplinary action committee’ instead of being charged in court.

Fong said that previously anyone found guilty would be subjected to immediate suspension but now the decision lies with the discretion of the vice-chancellor.

GMMA has also presented its suggestion paper to Backbenchers Club (BBC) chairperson Tiong King Sing on Tuesday.

According to Ridzuan, the backbenchers chief said he was not in favour of abolishing the UCCA but was willing to support amending or removal of certain sections opposed by students.

The ministry has tabled the amended bill on Wednesday night.

However, the higher education deputy minister requested debate on the bill be put off to the next sitting of parliament in August.

Parliament ended its current session yesterday.

Vice-Chancellor Selection Committee

Hi guys, yes, I've been posting only sporadically on this blog in recent weeks but I've certainly not forgotten about it. Thanks to Kian Ming for keeping the blog going. I've been posting several education related articles, but due to some of the political nature, I've placed them on my personal blog. The latest being the controversy of the ADUN of Subang Jaya, Hannah Yeoh being banned from attend her own alumni's prefects reunion(!).

I've also paid special attention to education issues in parliament, hoping to eke out answers from the Ministers on the various issues which has been raised by the bloggers and readers here. Unfortunately I still have to fight for attention in the Dewan to get a chance to question the Ministers, I did managed to do so on a handful of occasions.

Of interest is the on-off-on-off vague issue of a vice-chancellor selection committee which has been the subject of discussion on this blog for the past 2 years already.

Over the past 2 sessions, the Minister of Higher Education, Datuk Khaled Nordin has stated that there will be a vice-chancellor selection committee being set up without providing any details. I pursued the matter, as recorded in the Hansard on the 9th July:

Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Terima kasih Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Tadi
menteri telah membangkitkan satu Jawatankuasa Pemilihan bagi naib canselor. Saya hendak minta penjelasan sedikit, adakah shortlist yang dibuat oleh jawatankuasa ini akan diberikan daripada kementerian ataupun shortlist akan dicari ataupun disediakan oleh jawatankuasa ini dan apakah kuasa yang diberi kepada jawatankuasa ini?

Adakah ia akan diberikan kuasa supaya dapat membuat advertisement di suratkhabar-
suratkhabar seluruh dunia untuk mencari calon-calon yang terbaik untuk menjadi naib canselor universiti kita? Terima kasih.

Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Ia boleh dilakukan melalui kedua-dua cara.
Satu daripada top down daripada kementerian dan satu lagi daripada Select Committee dan dari segi tatacara dan sebagainya, kita belum lagi memikirkan secara mendalam sama ada ingin membuat pengiklanan seluruh dunia dan sebagainya ataupun tidak, kerana semua itu akan mula dilakukan setelah kita buat pindaan kepada Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti yang mempunyai ataupun yang akan menyentuh mengenai perkara tersebut.

In short, that means that there's still no authoritative details on how this committee will work, whether there will be strong interference from the Ministry, on the process of recruitment and just about everything else about the selection committee. Its a little unfortunately that despite this committee being talked about since the previous 2 higher education ministers, we still have to wait for the next parliamentary session before we hear new developments.

At the speed the Ministry is moving, its not surprising that our institutions of higher education isn't going to get any better any time soon.

Vice-Chancellor Selection

Finally I had my question on the status of the Universiti Malaya vice-chancellor and the Ministry's selection process answered today in writing by the Ministry of Higher Education.

My question to the Minister was

...bagaimana kedudukan kontrak Naib Canselor Universiti Malaya. Adakah seorang Naib Canselor baru akan dilantik, dan apakah cara pemilihan yang akan digunakan untuk mengenal pasti seorang akademik yang bertaraf "world class" untuk memulihkan mutu pengajian tinggi di Malaysia.

We have already received news blogged here earlier via the media that the UM vice-chancellor's contract has been extended by 6 months to 7th November 2008. Hence, the focus was on the Ministry's reply towards and its ability to shed light on its selection mechanism.

Cara pemilihan Naib Canselor yang dilaksanakan oleh Kementerian ialah membentuk satu Jawatankuasa Semakan/Carian bagi menilai prestasi Naib Canselor berdasarkan petunjuk prestasi utama (KPI) yang ditetapkan.

Sekiranya Jawatankuasa berpuas hati dengan prestasi Naib Canselor sedia ada, maka Jawatankuasa akan mengesyorkan kepada YB Menteri supaya perkhidmatan Naib Canselor sedia ada disambung.

Sekiranya Jawatankuasa tidak berpuas hati, maka proses carian calon-calon yang berkelayakan akan dibuat. Calon-calon tersebut kemudiannya akan ditemuduga dan dinilai berdasarkan kriteria-kriteria tertentu separti nilai dan sikap yang positif, pencapaian akademik, kepimpinan dan pengurusan, pengiktirafan di peringkat tempatan dan antarabangsa, artikulasi visi dan misi, kemahiran komunikasi dan jauga keperibadian yang unggul. Calon-calon yang berjaya akan disyorkan kepada YB Menteri untuk pertimbangan dan persetujuan.

I don't know about you, but I thought it was an answer that was as good as a "no answer".

In other words, the Minister was saying, if the evaluation committee is happy with the vice-chancellor's performance, his or her contract will be renewed, and if not, then a new candidate will be sought according to certain (but unspecified) criteria.

What type of answer is that? Are we more "enlightened" thanks to the highly informative answer given by the Minister?

What criteria is used to evaluate the vice-chancellor? How will the search/evaluation committee be set up? What are the criteria for VC selection? How are the candidates nominated and shortlisted? Will there be worldwide invitation for application? And I could go on and on, especially on how all of the answers to the above questions will priortise on the need for a 'world class' vice-chancellor as the first step towards stopping the continued deterioration of our higher education system.

The reply given by the Minister clearly showed two things.

1. Firstly, he is not serious about the Parliamentary question and answer session for not having given an answer which shed any light on the issues raised.
   
   
2. Secondly and more importantly, the new Minister of Higher Education, Datuk Khaled Nordin is not serious at all about reforms to our higher education system to narrow the quality gap of between our universities with that of those overseas, and clearly do not have the political will to achieve the goal of a world class university.

Having been following these issues relating to the quality of higher education in Malaysia closely for the past 3 years over 3 different Higher Education Ministers, I'd like to express my complete disappointment with the total lack of progress made by the Ministry in reversing the decline of our local universities.

Will We See UUCA Reforms?

The University and University Colleges Act (1971), and its much awaited amendments is one of the few questions which has been asked frequently by parliamentarians in the current sitting. Off my head, I remember reading the standard answers received by Sdri Fong Po Kuan of Batu Gajah as well as Nurul Izzah Anwar of Lembah Pantai.

The question by BATU GAJAH was to asking the Minister of Higher Education

...mengapakah pindaan kepada Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti masih enggan dibentangkan di Parlimen untuk memberi kelonggaran kepaad para pelajar Universiti melibatkan diri di dalam politik.

The reply by the Minister was

...deraf kajian cadangan pindaan Akta Universiti dan Kolej Unviersiti 1971 (AUKU) telah memasuki fasa akhir. Kementerian menjangkakan akan membentangkan deraf tersebut di Mesyarat Parlimen yang akan datang.
Memandangkan AUKU 1971 adalah suatu Akta yang amat sensitif sifatnya dan mendapat perhatian semua pihak sama ada parti politik, pelajar, pensyarah, ibubapa atau masyarakat amnya, maka proses pindaan AUKU sudah pasti akan mengambil masa yang agak lama. Maka adalah tidak tepat jika dikatakan Kementerian enggan membentangkan pindaan AUKU di Parlimen.

Pindaan AUKU mesti diperhalusi dengan mengambil kira setiap sudut penilaian dan kependingan 'stakeholders'. Kementerian tidak mahu nanti apabila AUKU dipinda akan timbul ketidakpuasan hati ibubapa yang pada hemat Kementerian lebih mengharapkan anak mereka menimba ilmu dan tidak terlibat dengan parti politik atau sebagainya yang boleh mengakibatkan kegagalan dalam pengajian universiti.

While reforms to the AUKU (UUCA) has been mooted since 2 years ago, the progress of the proposed amendments has been painstakingly slow. There has been requests in the Parliment to first review what the Ministry plans to change before tabling the amended bill, but this has been rejected by the Minister on the basis that consultation has already been conducted.

It is also obvious from the tone of the answer above that political participation will remain a no-go for students, and likely academics. The funny bit however, is with the excuse that it's the parents who are objecting to their participation as it may cause the students to fail their studies.

The excuse is however, almost laughable because:

1. Just because there are parents objecting to certain activities in school does not mean that they should be forcibly outlawed (we are not talking about immoral activities here)
   
   
2. If these students will fail in their studies, it doesn't take political activities to do so, it can very well be anything else from sports, to lepaking, to boy-girl relationships etc.

As Dr Azmi Sharom mentioned in his earlier articles, allowing for political participation isn't going to create a huge demand for such events in schools. Malaysian students today are apathetic enough as it is without the need for laws to make them so.

What increased freedom will create however is a more aware set of students who will understand better what is happening in their society and country, increasing their civic mindedness and ultimately being more attached to the idea of making Malaysia a better place for everyone.

Well, the next parliamentary session starts at the end of June, so we wouldn't have to wait too long to hear what the Higher Education Minister have got to say ;-)

World Class Vice-Chancellor Needed for UM

Datuk Rafiah Salim was appointed as the vice-chancellor of Malaysia's premier university, Universiti Malaya for 2 years ago to replace the disgraced Kapten Datuk Professor Dr Hashim Yaacob, to reverse the rapidly failing standards and her contract ends this month.

While not many persons will dispute the fact that she was likely to have been a better vice-chancellor than her predecessor, her performance to date has been at best mediocre.

Under Datuk Rafiah's tenure:

• Universiti Malaya continued to decline in terms of global rankings by the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) dropping from 169th in 2005 before she took over, to 192nd in 2006 and 245th in 2007. The university remains unranked in the other respected Top 500 global universities ranking table compiled by Shanghai Jiaotung University.
  
  
• Instead of taking the necessary steps to rectify the declining quality, Datuk Rafiah chose to comfort Malaysians with the fact that UM was ranked 13th among nations belonging to the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC).
  
  
• She also hauled up a university academic after he wrote an article that criticised the nature in which the university student elections was held which appeared in a local daily last year. He was ‘advised’ by the vice-chancellor not to write on matters related to the university, clearly perpetuating the limited room for critical thought and constructive dissent within our academic institutions. Despite that, Datuk Rafiah had the temerity of suggesting that "public university students had the freedom to express their thoughts and ideas" at a student forum held in August last year.

Therefore, I call upon the new Minister of Higher Education, Datuk Khaled Nordin to take the all important step that no other ministers had the courage to do - open the search for a new vice-chancellor for Universiti Malaya, not only to all Malaysians, regardless of race or religion, but also for all qualified top academics around the world in order to revive the fortunes of our premier university.

The Higher Education Ministry needs to:

1. Establish the independence of the search and evaluation committee to ensure that the only criteria used for selection is the candidates' ability to improve the quality and standard of education at the relevant university, and not instead, the candidates' political links or connections.
   
   
2. The quality of the committee members should be improved over time with greater emphasis on prominent and high-achieving academics. There's no reason why foreign “world class” academics could not be appointed to identify quality academics with sufficient intellectual prowess and administrative experience to lead our local universities.
   
   
3. The shortlist of candidates should not be provided by the Ministry of Higher Education. We should not limit the candidates to civil servants who rose up the ranks or the deputy vice-chancellors who are part of the current malaise. The shortlist should instead be derived from the applications which are sourced from advertisements made globally in search for the best available candidate.

Only when a world-class academic cum administrator is selected to lead and given the free hand to reform and transform our universities, who won't be shackled by denial syndromes and political interference, then we can reverse the fortunes of the declining standards at our local institutions of higher learning.

And only when the standards of our institutions are raised, will we be able to provide the best quality education to our future generation, without which they will not be able to achieve their full potential. Correspondingly, Malaysia's ability to compete and progress in the competitive global environment would otherwise be impaired.

The end of Datuk Rafiah Salim's tenure provides the new Higher Education Minister the golden opportunity to execute what's best for Malaysia's future.

5 Priorities on Higher Education Issues

With a stronger opposition in the parliament and hopefully a more reform minded PM　moving ahead, I want to list out what I think are 5 priorities on higher education issues which the opposition as well as the government should move on. I want to emphasize that these priorities cannot be achieved by opposition pressure alone or by the BN.

1) Revamping the UUCA

- It is ludicrous that students in public universities, a majority of which are over 21, could have voted in the recently concluded elections but cannot join a political party or be involved in political campaigns.
- This law is especially ludicrous to me given that so many college students who were formerly politically apathetic have been galvanized into political action by Barack Obama's campaign here in the US.
- The demobilization of the public universities have led to a decrease in voter registration among the young people. Revamping the UUCA would be a step in arresting this trend.
- I'm pretty optimistic that something can be done in regards to the UUCA for two reasons. The first is that there had already been indications during Tok Pa's time as Minister for Higher Education that the government was looking at revamping the UUCA, albeit probably in not a very radical fashion. The second is that the opposition, together with civil society, is more capable of pressuring the government to revamp the UUCA. Imagine a Bersih type rally but of university students! Now that would be something.

2) Ensuring at least one VC appointment process that involves a respected committee
- Tony has blogged about this in the past on numerous occasions. I'm not sure which VC from one of the major public universities (UKM, UM, USM, UPM) will come up for renewal first but when it does, I hope that there will be a stringent and open process by which their performance is evaluated.
- If a new VC needs to be appointed, hopefully a well respected committee can be established to oversee this process.

3) Ensure that the process of selecting government sponsored PhD students is open and and transparent
- As mentioned in this blog many times in previous postings, the government is on an aggressive campaign to increase the number of PhDs in the local universities and is spending tons of money sending students overseas to obtain their PhDs.
- This process has been less than transparent in the past and qualified candidates have been denied this opportunity in favor of less qualified candidates because of racial quotas. Given the new political environment, one hopes that this practice can be cut down if not totally eradicated and students can be sent overseas based on merit.

4) Ensure that the key initiatives started by Tok Pa in the Higher Education Strategic Masterplan is followed through
- I've been generally positive about the MOHE Higher Education Action and Strategic Plans in previous posts. I hope that the new Minister, Khaled Norin, will be able to see through these key initiatives instead of taking the path of the Minister of Education which had a new Education Blueprint written after he became the Minister. I think continuity is important and the opposition should support this initiative where possible.

5) Ensure that the process of tendering contracts by public universities are transparent

- This is an issue which I've not written about that much but have heard a lot of anecdotal evidence on. Many academics and insiders have complained that VCs and other administrators in public universities sometimes 'benefit' from the allocation of certain projects or contracts in the public universities.
- I'm not sure how this can be done but perhaps the opposition or the government can seek 'whistleblowers' who can notify the authorities if they hear of such wrongdoing. Or the board of governors, which is supposed to be revamped under the Higher Education Strategic and Action Plan, can have a bigger advisory role.

I'm not sure if Tony agrees with any or all of these priorities in regards to Higher education in Malaysia but I'm sure he'll chime in when he has a bit of time on his hands.

Saudi University Appoints Singaporean President

This blogger has been preaching that Malaysian universities, to achieve any form of "greatness" has to first start by recognising that we need world-class leaders (as opposed to jaguh kampungs labelled as "world-class").

I've called not only for local vice-chancellor position to be "opened" up to competition from non-bumiputeras, but also to widen our search for talent globally. Only then, can our academia take their blinkers off, increase competitiveness and see the chasm separating our local institutions from top-notch colleges.

Well, Saudi Arabia's brand new university has already taken such a step. The King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (Kaust) has appointed its first President, and gasps, Mr Shih Choon Fong, who is currently the President of National University of Singapore. As reported by The Chronicle (news on Higher Education):

Mr. Shih, who received his Ph.D. from Harvard University and is a former professor of engineering at Brown University, has also led a research group for the General Electric Company and has served as a consultant for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. He is the author of almost 150 scholarly publications, making him among the world’s most highly cited engineering researchers, according to the Institute for Scientific Information, and he has received numerous awards.

As far as I'm aware, Mr Shih is certainly not an Arab, neither is he a Muslim and he probably doesn't speak much Arabic, if at all. However, Saudi Arabia, a country which Malaysia often seeks to emulate in many ways, has boldly taken the step that for the university to have a chance of reaching greatness, besides spending billions in funds, you need world-class leadership.

And Mr Shih certainly started on the right note, emphasizing strictly on "outstanding ability.

“This community will be international, encompassing people from all faiths, from all over the world,” he said. “This openness to talented individuals of outstanding ability will be the hallmark of this new university and the best guarantee it offers for achieving its remarkable goals.”

And certainly the Saudi authorities accepts, unlike our local Malaysian counterparts, that we have much to learn the world's top universities, some of which are just right across the border.

Kaust hopes that Mr. Shih can replicate in Saudi Arabia his experience in Singapore, where he was able to transform the National University into one of the world’s top 50 universities by building global networks for the university and links between academe and industry. His support for commercially lucrative research and his work with the Singaporean government on economic development will be helpful in accomplishing one of the new university’s stated goals of helping to diversify the Saudi economy away from dependence on oil revenue, as well as creating new jobs for the 30 percent of Saudi young people who are currently unemployed.

Hence the million dollar question is whether the Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia can summon the necessary political courage to do the same for the local higher education system or will it choose to ignore international academic leadership which can bring real positive changes in place of a parochial race and nationality pride.

Or will it choose to establish another new university with much fanfare, a la Malaysia University of Science & Technology (MUST), and burn away another RM100 million?

Thanks to Ron for the heads up ;-)

Hanky Panky Lecturers?

A very comprehensive letter in Malaysiakini on the issue of sending scholars to do their PhDs overseas, reproduced below.

Thankfully I'm not funded by the Malaysian government (not even a dime) so I can't say that I'm leeching off the Malaysian taxpayer. I've been advocating that MOHE send its PhD candidates to more cost effective places such as Australia (shorter completion time, more favorable exchange rates) instead of the US or the UK. I've also advocated that MOHE sends its scholars based on merit and not on any racial quotas. Finally, there are some good points in regards to the incentives and disincentives provided to these scholars to complete their PhDs.

I don't think all of the scholars which MOHE sends abroad to do their PhDs are in the 'Mercedez' category which he / she refers to. Many of them are serious, full-time students. But some of the loopholes need to be closed, nonetheless.

Cut hanky-panky by lecturers on scholarship
A Malaysian Taxpayer | Jan 11, 08 2:38pm

In its drive to fulfil the target of 70% PhD holders among lecturers across local government-funded universities, the Higher Education Ministry has been aggressively sending lecturers overseas to pursue their PhDs. These lecturers need to fulfil only two general conditions - obtaining a band of 6.5 in the International English Language Testing Service (IELTS) conducted by the British Council and second, be offered a place by a foreign university.

Given the government’s move (as announced in the 2008 Budget) to double the cost of living allowances for students in countries like the UK, US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, this suggests that our economy is good at the moment (Alhamdullilah!) and that the government has lots of taxpayers’ money at its disposal to send these lecturers overseas.

Nevertheless, the ministry is not spending taxpayers’ money wisely by sending many of these lecturers overseas. Firstly, it is a fact, from the past records, that many lecturers who were sent overseas came home without a PhD (even though most of them proudly came home with a Mercedes). As such, the Higher Education Ministry should learn from their past mistake of sending the wrong candidates. Lecturers must prove their academic competency before they are funded by taxpayers’ money to go overseas.

They must have published at least one journal article in English on their own accord and not on a ‘Ali Baba’ hitchhiking basis. Our taxpayers’ money will definitely go down the drain if these lecturers have problems in writing their theses in English and subsequently come home empty- handed (I mean, without a PhD). Just for public awareness, the Higher Education Ministry spends at least RM500,000 on a lecturer to do his/her PhD overseas.

Secondly, it is a fact that almost all of these lecturers find themselves a job (or even jobs) while studying despite the two-fold or even ten-fold increase in their cost of living allowance. I know a few lecturers who are currently working in the UK, some part-time while others even full-time. They told me that it is perfectly fine to not complete their studies within the stipulated three-year period as the Higher Education Ministry will surely grant them a full-salary, six-month extension and more subsequent extensions.

Aren’t these lecturers taking advantage of taxpayers’ money? Just look around and compare – self-funded PhD candidates will try to complete their studies within the shortest time possible while government-funded (or rather, taxpayers-funded) candidates will try to complete theirs in the longest possible time!

Thirdly, why must the Higher Education Ministry send so many of these lecturers overseas when they can pursue similar courses at our local higher institutions at a fraction of the cost? Is it that our local universities have no ‘class’ at all ?

May I suggest that the Higher Education Ministry spend taxpayers’ money wisely by not sending any Tom, Dick and Harry overseas when they do not have the aptitude to succeed. It is unfair to send the academically incompetent lecturers when many young, talented and academically bright Malaysians can be groomed to be future first-class lecturers who will in turn, transform the universities in which they serve into world-class universities.

The current scenario is dismal where substandard local universities grant double awards - by giving the PhD students a full salary, a full scholarship and then a double bonus (eg. a three-fold increment in their salary and a promotion from DS45 to DS520 without even considering whether or not these lecturers possess that ‘mutu istimewa’ (special quality) as stipulated in the promotion circular.

Lecturers were promoted despite their poor academic ability and a no-substance curriculum vitae, not even publishing in any national or regional journal articles, let alone international ones. Only substandard universities would consider promoting lecturers on the basis of one’s contribution in a managerial position and a few conference proceedings (these were not even peer reviewed and many lecturers share conference proceedings!).

It is also an irony that despite the ‘40-years-old ruling’, our universities are still sending their academic staff who have already passed the 40-year-old age limit to pursue their studies locally or overseas on a full-pay full-scholarship. While taxpayers do support the advocated lifelong learning programme among Malaysians, it should not be at the expense of the taxpayer. It is not a good investment considering the huge cost and the number of years they are able to contribute upon their return from the three-year doctoral venture.

Stop the rhetoric of ‘internal breeding’ as an excuse to send lecturers elsewhere for a PhD. They can always do a PhD in their respective universities under the supervision of an academically-capable supervisor.

The Higher Education Ministry should monitor these ‘privileged lecturers’ while they are overseas to ensure that they fully concentrate on their studies rather than working and make some money on the side (possibly to buy a Mercedes). If they are unable to complete their studies within the stipulated three-year period, direct them to come home and not waste any more taxpayers’ money.

In order to be at par with world-class universities, terms for Higher Education Ministry scholarships should be as firm and stringent as other prestigious scholarships. Then there will be no hanky-panky where a lecturer deliberately delays his/her thesis submission so as to gain extra mileage in getting full-pay full-scholarship extension.

Finally, I have heard about lecturers who bring their family members overseas (of course, their whole family’s flight tickets are bought on taxpayers’ money) and then send their family members home secretly so that they can continue to enjoy or receive the full family allowances.

The Higher Education Ministry should take disciplinary action against lecturers who claim family allowances when their families are actually residing in Malaysia. This is blatant cheating of the taxpayer as Higher Education Ministry staff are incompetent in their monitoring of such lecturers. Maybe the ACA can swing into action to bring these lecturers to justice.

Bakri Musa on 'Yet another Report'

I reproduce Bakri Musa's excellent column on the latest MOHE sponsored World Bank report on higher education in Malaysia. While I'm less pessimistic about the value of such reports, I agree with many of the general points he raises.

Among the points he raises - the fact that less than half of faculty in Malaysian universities have PhDs compared to almost 100% in Canadian universities, the fact that we shouldn't be comparing ourselves with basket cases like Zimbabwe, the need for greater autonomy (especially from political interference) among the universities, the need to increases fees at public universities (and scholarships as well).

The only minor quibble I have with Bakri is that I think Chinese drop outs are as likely to become VCD sellers and car mechanics as they are to help out their parents in mom and pop retail and hawker stalls.

Higher education: Yet another report
M Bakri Musa | Dec 21, 07 12:19pm

It is a sure sign that local leaders are way over their heads (or refuse to make the tough decisions) when they start calling in expensive international consultants. This is the case with Higher Education Minister Mustapa Mohamad’s commissioning (together with the Economic Planning Unit of the Prime Minister’s Department) the World Bank that resulted in its report: Malaysia and the World Economy: Building a World-Class Higher Education System.

You can be certain that the report, 18 months in the making, was not cheap. That would be just the beginning. Consultants have a knack of making themselves indispensable, so expect even greater expenses when they are called in to help implement their recommendations.

Yet for all the expertise, wealth of data, and impressive comparative statistics presented in this 285-page report, its recommendations are nothing new or original. These include, among others, granting greater autonomy, meritocracy both in admitting students and recruiting faculty, rationalising the role of the private sector, and emphasis on science, technology, and research.

What we lack is the political will to make the tough necessary decisions to implement them. Unfortunately no foreign experts no matter how skillful their powers of persuasion are can help in this arena. My only hope is that as those recommendations now carry the World Bank’s imprimatur, the natives are more likely to listen.

World Bank’s Report

The Report is conveniently divided into two parts. The first addresses or “diagnoses” the various issues like governance and financing, quality matters, graduate unemployment, and the integration of universities with the national innovation system. It begins by “benchmarking” Malaysia against selected OECD and East Asian countries. No marks for guessing where we stand; we are not even in the same league. For example, less than half the faculty at the University of Malaya, supposedly the nation’s premier, has terminal qualifications as compared to over 98 percent at Canada’s McGill.

The only point I see in making such obviously glaring comparisons is to wake up our leaders who are smugly satisfied as they are forever comparing Malaysia with the likes of Zimbabwe.

The specific recommendations are in the second part of the report.

The Report rightly highlights the universal dilemma of quality versus quantity with the democratisation of higher education. One solution, which I recommend in my book An Education System Worthy of Malaysia would be to emulate California’s tiered model. Malaysia has adopted some aspects of this by designating selected institutions as “research universities.” Designating alone is not enough and would be counterproductive unless accompanied by other changes, like much greater autonomy and considerably increased funding.

The beauty of the Californian system is that there are enough commonalities and clearly defined channels to enable student to switch from one system to the other. This flexibility is necessary to accommodate changes in students’ plans.

Also notable with the Californian system is that each campus enjoys considerable autonomy, including choosing its own students and faculty. The central office serves only administrative functions like dealing with the legislature and managing the faculty’s pension plans.

In Malaysia, the ministry micromanages every campus, right down to choosing the color of the faculty lounge drapes. I wish the Report would emphasise this point. As University of Malaya Law Professor Azmi Sharom observed, if we really love our universities, we must free them. I would further suggest that Higher Education Minister Mustapa should listen more to professors like Azmi Sharom and less to Umno Youth leaders, or even World Bank’s experts.

Problems with International data

The report is inundated with cross-national statistics. While it is good to compare ourselves against others, we must first however be assured that we are using the same measuring stick. This is easier said than done.

Take the apparently straightforward data on years of schooling. This seemingly objective criterion is anything but. One does not have to be particularly perceptive to note that nine years of schooling in South Korea would produce a far superior graduate as compared to someone with many more years spent at an American inner city school. Likewise with comparing nominal figures on expenditures per student; a dollar at the University of Malaya would go a long way as compared to at the University of California.

If we are not careful we could be easily misled; we would then be better off without those statistics. At least a dead clock tells the right time twice a day; a malfunctioning clock never. Likewise with data; bad data is more damaging than no data. A bad compass is worse than no compass. With the latter you would not be misled, and you learn to use your senses.

Studies done on OECD countries indicate that it is not so much the years of schooling that matter with respect to labor productivity rather the workers’ actual language and mathematical skills. Harvard’s Robert Barro shows that it is not just any education system that enhances economic development rather one that emphasizes the sciences, technology and mathematics that is crucial.

This is clearly demonstrated in Malaysia. The government’s oft stated goal of 60:40 ratio favoring students in the science stream remains just that: a goal. More important than focusing on this thus far unattainable objective would be to raise the mathematical skills and science literacy of all our students. Most American universities require all their students to take a year of science and mathematics.

Malaysian data indicate that Malays have more years of schooling and fewer dropouts than non-Malays, in particular the Chinese. Yet the economic performance of Malays lags that of Chinese. The reason is obvious. The education of Malays is heavy on arts and religion; Chinese, science and technology. When Chinese students drop out, they work for their parents’ enterprises, be they mom-and-pop retail stores or roadside hawker stalls, where they learn important lessons of economics and life generally far more effectively than at school. Malay students would hang around waiting for government jobs. The only lesson they would learn in such an environment is that the world owes them a living.

There is however one comparative statistics worth noting: tuition fees differential between public and private institutions. In Malaysia it is about ten-fold whereas in America it is about a 3 to 5- fold difference. I would narrow this by increasing tuition at public universities, coupled with more generous students aid. This would generate more revenue as well as reduce the subsidy for rich students.

Timid report

The Report soft-pedals two separate but interrelated crucial issues: one, the dangerous racial segregation of educational institutions at all levels; and two, the intrusive as well as destructive role of politics, in particular language nationalism.

The Bank advocates the giving of scholarships for students to attend private institutions as one way of making them reflect the greater Malaysian society. I would go further and make it a condition for granting of permits. I agree with the Bank that we should treat private and pubic institutions equally with regard to awarding research funds and other grants. If these institutions are doing good research and performing useful societal functions, what difference does it make whether they are public or private?

Politics underlie most if not all the problems of our education system. While it is impossible to divorce politics (institutions ultimately must respond to the political realities) nonetheless once certain objectives are agreed upon by the body politic, then let the professionals take over in implementing them.

Take the teaching of science and mathematics in English and the general need to enhance the English proficiency of our students. This decision was made at the highest political level, yet at the slightest obstacle in implementing, an otherwise sensible policy was reversed. It is such a flip-flopping that is so destructive.

The World Bank should have been more forceful in presenting its recommendations and in highlighting what ails our education system. Had the Bank done so it would have encouraged the many voices for reform from within. That might just nudge these politicians and bureaucrats to take the necessary bold steps.

More on Malaysian Higher Education

The standards of our universities are of greatest concern to all Malaysians who care for the country. And certainly, Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, arguably the most respected amongst the UMNO Ministers and MPs, despair at the state of "continued decline of Malaysian universities in the world rankings" as per his recent published letter in Malaysiakini.com.

He's probably even less optimistic about its future than I am, if I were to take his comments at face value:

Even Indonesian and Thai universities appear to have faired much better than the universities here in Malaysia, once the pride of this region. By this time next year, we may have to resign ourselves to having all these universities out of the first 500.

He blames the current predicament on several factors.

1. The English Medium

Thirty years of trying to re-engineer the educational medium of instruction has brought us to this. Almost every major textbook, citation and publication is in English.

The minister must be pragmatic and muster the administrative and political will to enforce the usage of English if we are not to be left behind by countries like Laos, Vietnam and Indonesia. Even newsreaders from China today appear to be able to present news better than our local newsreaders.

2. Student quality

The minister may be stuck with the quota system for his own political survival, but surely he can help improve standards here by trying to keep at least good bumiputera students at our universities. Currently, the good ones are shipped off to very expensive overseas universities and the less capable ones are placed in local universities. Common sense indicates that this is a recipe for disaster in terms of trying to maintain or improve the standards of our local universities.

3. Appointment of lecturers

For far too long, the minister has been giving independence to our local universities to choose their lecturers. This policy must change. The dismal standards may require the ministry to step in directly to ensure that good lecturers are appointed.

4. Publications

The ministry must set up its own audit team to ensure continuous publications. Without this most important criteria, Malaysian universities cannot hope to climb the ladder again and may be stuck in the doldrums for years to come.

The publication culture even in an established university like Universiti Malaya is surprisingly absent. Publications are what make a university and this is seriously lacking in our universities. The minister must again ensure that those lecturers who publish are rewarded and not cold-storaged for being “too clever”.

Of the four points, I'm in total agreement with point (4) on publications. A university that doesn't publish, or one that only writes to lifestyle magazines, make sensationalist claims to local newspapers without peer review or prefers to take part in dog and pony shows in Europe to collect coloured medals doesn't deserve recognition, and is certainly not worth its salt. Without the necessary academic rigour, we become just a degree manufacturing facility without intellectual depth.

I'm in semi-agreement with points (1) and (3). I believe English is of prime importance but I'm not sure if it'll change the standards to drastically at our universities. The university academics will probably argue that because it's not their mother tongue, the standards will drop further after the switch to an English discourse. All hell will of course, break loose at the UMNO General Assembly. While I certainly hope that the standards of English will improve tremendously in the near term, I actually think that there are several other key policies which the Government can undertake to arrest the decline in standards.

With regards to point (3) where it was suggested that lecturers be appointed centrally by the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) - I would agree with the diagnosis that the culture of recruitment of quality lecturers at our local universities are abhorrent, but placing the recruitment process in the hands of the clueless civil servants at the MOHE, will certainly not change things too much.

I would start where I have always proposed vigourously - that is to open the selection and applications of Vice-Chancellors and senior academics to local universities. Have the resumes vetted by an independent senior panel, not inclined to sway to political pressures. Of course, once the "best" is selected, give them the necessary hand to overhaul the university administration to improve standards.

Finally, I'm disagreeable to the suggestion that scholars should not be sent overseas but instead retained in the local universities. I certainly believe that deserving students must be given scholarships to pursue their further education at the top universities overseas. However, the practice of sending mediocre students to 3rd rate universities overseas must be stopped for it's just a waste of the county's precious resources.

I am of the opinion that the standards of the local universities will improve significantly should there be the practice of enrolling the best students for each faculty and university, even without taking into consideration the "better" students who have been given scholarships to go overseas. Currently, it isn't transparent how students are allocated to the respective subjects and universities. There appears to be an unhealthy hidden hand behind the scenes in the above process.

Enrolling the best students for each university and course would also mean that the Government must scrap the unequal entry requirements for Malaysian students i.e., via the matriculation or the STPM system. Hence, the standards at our local universities can easily improve even if the Government continues to send students overseas. They just need to make sure that the remaining cohort of students are given an equal footing to compete for excellence. ;-)

Tok Pa Responds

The Minister of Higher Education, Datuk Mustapa Mohamed wrote on open letter to the press today, as published in The Star. It is one of the rare instances our Ministers attempt to respond to public dismay, and it should definitely be encouraged. I reproduce in full his letter responding to Malaysian universities crashing out of the Top 200 list here for all to read. We can only pray that he'll take real concrete actions to redeem our pride.

Plan to shape varsities of world class
By MUSTAPA MOHAMED

IT is that time of year again. The latest Times Higher Education Supplement - Quacquarelli-Symonds (THES-QS) World University Rankings were published on Nov 8 and, as in previous years, have drawn much attention in Malaysia.

More so perhaps, as the 2007 results do not include any Malaysian university in the list of top 200 universities.

As Ben Sowter, head of research at QS Quacquarelli Symonds Ltd, the British company that conducts the survey has said: “In many places our advice was taken and understood ? but in Malaysia, the reduced performance of Malaysian institutions became a source of great focus for both the media and politicians.”

The reaction this year is therefore inevitable as some have concluded that the performance of Malaysian universities has dropped further.

Some may also feel that the current rankings are the result of an egalitarian education policy. Still, massification of higher education was the right choice for a young, developing country that had to ensure its citizens access to education, and thus a brighter future.

Now, however, we have begun to direct our attention to enhancing the quality of our institutions and championing academic excellence.

As our Prime Minister has accurately pointed out, in order for Malaysia to become a hub of educational excellence, we need universities recognised as outstanding and of world-class quality.

The THES-QS rankings are based on six criteria: peer review (40%), citations per faculty (20%), student to faculty ratio (20%), recruiter review (10%), international faculty ratio (5%), and international students ratio (5%).

The citations per faculty criterion is particularly important as an increase in citations can lead to greater peer recognition and hence better peer review scores. These can also generate greater interest among scholars to teach at a given institution, thus raising international faculty ratio scores too.

I am, of course, concerned about the standing of our universities internationally.

Left unchecked, perceptions may form that our exclusion from the THES-QS top 200 reflects a low standard of education – even though Sowter goes on to report that “the drop (in rankings of Malaysian universities) is entirely attributable to the combination of methodological enhancements and improved response dynamics in the rankings themselves.”

Malaysia has made great strides in higher education but we have not yet produced world-class universities.

Malaysians therefore must gain an accurate sense of where we stand today, and the changes being driven by the Higher Education Ministry to bring us to the next level.

As I write this, I have just finished meeting with some Malaysians working and doing business in Vietnam. As with other such visits I have had elsewhere, I am reminded that Malaysians working abroad, most of whom have studied in our local universities, are able to do very well anywhere in the world.

Malaysian institutions have also begun to export our education abroad. This too is reflective of the advances we have made in the quality of our higher education.

So does this mean that we are doing all right and can ignore international university rankings?

No. We cannot be satisfied with present performance. As we are running, others may be running faster. The race is getting tougher and this notion must sink into all our institutions.

The ministry recognises that our universities are not yet world class, so there is still much to be done, and it must be done with the greatest possible sense of urgency.

While changes and improvements to education systems take time to mature, this does not mean that we can take our time to bring about change and improvement.

I am encouraged to note that in the last few years, vice-chancellors have come to accept international university rankings as important guides to performance and a gauge of their progress in building the human capital Malaysia needs to remain globally competitive.

Our universities must establish a strong academic reputation and the crux of the matter lies in having our academics recognised and cited as they publish their work in high-impact and refereed journals.

Four universities have been granted research university status to accelerate this. Universiti Malaya, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Universiti Putra Malaysia and Universiti Sains Malaysia have been given additional funding and revised terms of governance so that they can pursue research excellence.

Vice-chancellors must therefore ensure that their institutions uphold the academic tradition to “publish or perish”.

The rationale for the apex university initiative is to strive for excellence. The apex university concept is not about declaring an existing university world class. Rather, it is about identifying one or two institutions with the greatest potential of reaching such levels, and focusing resources for them to compete with the best in the world, and hence be recognised as world class.

It is for this reason that the ministry has launched its National Higher Education Strategic Plan and the corresponding National Higher Education Action Plan 2007-2010. The action plan is an initiative in the pursuit of excellence while improving quality all round.

The success we have with these plans lies in the quality of our delivery, and the vice-chancellors must lead their institutions to play their part in translating the action plan into reality.

This has to be done quickly and effectively.

# Datuk Mustapa Mohamed is the Higher Education Minister.

Top 200 No More

Many would have reluctantly been anticipating that no Malaysian universities will be ranked within the Top 200 by the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) World University rankings at some point in time. It didn't happen last year, although we came very close with Universiti Malaya (UM) ranked at 192 while Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) ranked a little better at 185.

Yes, in the just released rankings table by THES, no Malaysian universities are listed on it. Critics are obviously going to have a field day. But they are certainly not going to be raising many issues which we do not already know. The fact that our universities are not competitive, are not rigourous in nature, do not promote and encourage merit and the total lack of transparency in admission and recruitment exercises served the perfect recipe for continual decline in global recognition and quality.

For the latest summary rankings table, you can get it here.

What are our vice-chancellors and Ministers going to say next? (Click here to read what they said last year) That the rankings are irrelevant? That they are inaccurate? That they fail to take into consideration that our universities are laden with "national interest" concerns? That we will speed up the recruitment of foreign lecturers and students?

This new set of data of course makes a complete mockery of the maiden attempt to rank our local universities, as blogged by Kian Ming recently. While the effort to increase transparency is laudable, the sheer lack of rigour in the local university ranking analysis renders the result superficial at best, misleading at worst. Universiti Sains Malaysia was ranked "excellent" for example, in the local official rankings table, but is clearly no where to be found in the THES or the Shanghai Jiaotung University ranking tables. At the same time, 6 other local universities were ranked "good". Has this become the manner by which the Malaysian government define mediocrity? That being "mediocre" (or worse) can be translated as "excellent" or "good"?

This blog found its "kick" sometime in November 2005, almost exactly 2 years ago, when we exposed the laughable mistake made by the surveyors when UM and USM were ranked 89th and 111th respectively in 2004. The then vice-chancellor, who had to be removed ignorably, Datuk Professor Dr Kapten Hashim Yaakob, celebrated UM's achievement like he won the Nobel Prize. Since then, despite the declared of objective of improving the university's rankings by 5 places each year, UM tanked to 169th in 2005, 192 in 2006 and now out of the official 200 list.

Prof Dr Nik Mustapha Raja Abdullah, vice-chancellor of UKM has also pledged in January 2006 when he was newly appointed that it will become a Top-80 university by 2010. I wonder if he'll make the same public announcement today.

Possibly, the vice-chancellor of UM will now use the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) university ranking table as the de facto rankings table, since she proudly declared in March this year that we are ranked 13th there.

"It is the first time they have come up with such rankings and the top 10 positions were taken up by Turkish universities. It is an honour that UM is in the 13th position while Universiti Sains Malaysia is at the 29th spot," she said.

Or for that matter, we might as well create a table where the world's top 500 universities are excluded, and possibly we might be ranked 1st. Or a table for the Malay archipelago ex-Singapore...

It is sad that our university administrators, our Ministry officials and the Government refuses to recognise the very simple and basic problems causing the decline in our local universities (as mentioned above). Even as the Minister of Higher Education, Dato' Mustapa Mohamed launched the much-hyped higher education action plan, the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi himself was quoted as saying that "student intake in these universities would not be based on race but the enrolment must reflect the country's ethnic diversity." (faints)

I'm certain others will pick up this thread and keep the "conversation" going even as I don't write as much these days. I should be able to get my hands on the full report sometime tomorrow and hopefully I'll get to provide a more in-depth review of the current situation. And you can be certain that Parliamentary Opposition leader, Sdr Lim Kit Siang will do the same in Parliament.

At a cursory glance, the biggest gainers this round appears to be universities from the United Kingdom, University College of London at 9th (2006: 25th), Kings College, London at 24th (46th), University of Edinburgh 23rd (33rd) as well as the 2 universitys from Hong Kong at 18th (33) and 38th (50) respectively. The universities from China and Singapore declined, but are well within the Top 100. Well, more later.

PMO office set up to implement Higher Education Plan

Most of us would probably say that the Malaysian government can come up with great blueprints and plans but fail at the implementation stage with regards to these plans. I have been pretty bullish on the Ministry of Higher Education in its ability to carry out its Higher Education Action Plan as indicated by my posts here and here (much to the displeasure of some of our readers). I admit that many of our readers are right to be skeptical given the track record of the Malaysian government to truly reform many or any area in the public sector. But the focus which the MOHE has demonstrated in wanting to reform Higher Education in Malaysia seems to be sustainable as indicated by the latest announcement of the setting up of the PMO to oversee the implementation of the Action Plan.

It was reported in the Star this week and last week, that a Programme Management Office (PMO) had been set up to 'drive the overall transformation and spearhead the development of the project management capability within the ministry.' The PMO would oversee the activities and actions of 13 project teams, each in charge of different areas of focus under the National Higher Education Strategic Plan and National Higher Education Action Plan 2007-2010. There project teams, according to the Minister of Higher Education, Tok Pa, would comprise of members from the academic, from the civil service as well as from the corporate sector.

In addition, the person selected to head of the PMO and its program director seems to have the right experience and qualifications, at least according to the report in the Star.

The chief executive officer of the PMO, Prof Datuk Dr Sahol Hamid Abu Bakar – whose fields of specialisation are civil engineering and economics – has been involved in many projects, including the planning and construction of nine Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) campuses. He was also formerly deputy vice-chancellor (academic affairs) at UiTM. PMO programme director Mohamad Nur Kamal, among other things, whose background is in finance and business administration, worked in the United States for 10 years in a global management consultancy as well as a financial corporation.

I like the fact that the PMO promised that it would update members of the public periodically in regards to the progress of the respective project teams. I also like the fact that these teams will have the expertise and experience of professionals from the corporate sector, who are less inclined to be hampered by 'conventional' ways of doing things within the public university setting in Malaysia.

While my optimism may be proven wrong, I do think that some good things can and will come out of the progressive and focused approach taken by the MOHE and its Minister, in regards to revamping the level of higher education in Malaysia. The road will be bumpy and there will be many challenges but at least it seems to be heading the right way.

Evaluating the Higher Education Action Plan (Part II)

I blogged about this issue earlier here, highlighting some of the positives on the Higher Education Action Plan. Now, I'd like to go into some of the details in particular 2 of the 5 'institutional pillars' of the action plan namely the pillars of 'governance' and 'leadership'.

On the issue of governance, the action plan discusses how, even though administrative power has been transferred to the respective public universities, this has not led to the desired outcomes in practice:

"With regard to university management reforms, the Government has implemented the legal framework to transfer administrative powers to universities. In the Universities and University Colleges Act (Amended 1996), the University Council was replaced by the respective university’s Board of Directors (BOD). However, the amendments have not as yet fulfilled their intended purposes."

As far as I know, the decentralization of powers was intended to make a more dynamic university administrative structure with the university's BOD playing an active role in guiding and helping to 'direct' the university towards a continued path of excellence and improvement. However,

"The current practice of centralised administration is neither practical nor strategic. The BOD continues to function as a university council and has neither the status nor authority to act as a true corporate board. Further legislative amendments may be necessary to properly redefine the roles of the BOD."

Corporate boards have also run into criticism in recent years because they have been seen as rubber stamps for the CEO of the respective companies since many of them were appointed by the CEO or the chairman.

A corporate board is supposed to play an oversight role and a check on the activities of the CEO of a company. If a university's BOD is supposed to play a similar role, then they should not be appointed by the sitting VC and should ideally consist of prominent and respectable members in the public sphere including ex-academics and alumni. I recall the days when the late Tan Chee Khoon was part of the UM's university council and seemed to have played a positive role in ensuring that the internal practices in the UM was fair and transparent. I can think of someone like Raja Nazrin who can play a similar role within the BOD.

In addition, the BOD should also be able to have some power in determining whether the term of the VC is extended or not. As far as I know, the contract of any VC of any public university is extended by the Minister of Higher Education. If the BOD can have at least as much power as the Minister, this will ensure that the BOD has actual 'teeth' and that the VC will be forced to take into account some of input of the BOD.

While the BOD should not have a say in the day to day running of a university, I think they should act as some sort of arbiter involving serious cases of university management including accusations that the management is involved in corruption, abuse of students, rigging of student elections, controversial promotion exercises and so forth. This way, we can ensure that the VC does not have absolute power to ride roughshod over the students, especially those who happen to disagree with the VC.

The issue of university governance in the Malaysian context is particularly complex. From the perspective of the Minister of Higher Education, he or she would want a high performing VC but also one who would listen and follow the orders of the Minister in question, especially on sensitive issues. A smart VC, would try to act to 'appease' or appeal to the Minister in question to ensure that his or her contract is renewed. A smart VC would also know that it's more important to appease the Minister than to make dramatic changes so that the university can move forward in the right direction. A pragmatic Minister would know that it's more important not to 'rock the boat' (for example, by firing 'deadwood' academics) than to make substantive changes for improvement.

With the current state of our public universities, we need visionary VCs who are willing to shake the boat to implement some substantive changes and equally willing Ministers who are willing to accommodate these changes. Having a BOD who can keep the VC on this path of progress and to shield the VC from the political pressures faced by the Minister can be very useful.

Without some of these changes, I don't see how the BOD is anything more than a rubber stamp body with little power, much as what was mentioned in the Action Plan.

On the issue of leadership, I was particularly impressed by the language used in this Action Plan. Here is what the plan said about the position of the VC, the most important leadership role in a public university:

"The selection process must ensure that Vice-Chancellors are drawn from the highest ranks of professionals. They must be fiercely competitive and must focus principally on achieving strategic objectives. They must possess the credentials and track records of proven leadership, and they must earn and command the respect of their key stakeholders.

The position of Vice-Chancellor will not necessarily be subject to internal promotion. It is an open post, which will ensure that the best candidate is chosen for the job. In consonance with this policy, a panel of independent interviewers will select and recommend candidates for these positions whenever the term of a Vice-
Chancellor approaches completion. It is envisioned that this practice will evolve into a selection process by way of public advertisement."

In addition:

"The BOD, along with the MOHE, will play a more active role in drawing up as well as monitoring appropriate Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the Vice-Chancellors and senior management of universities.

If leaders fail to achieve predetermined targets, they need to be prepared to make way for a renewal process to happen. It matters not if they were asked to do more than their peers, their institutions will still need to complete their transformational journey.

The overall leadership process can only be executed smoothly if proper succession planning is conducted. Future leaders must be identified early and introduced to AKePT’s leadership development programme. Proven leaders will enter a leadership channel, and, should the need arise, will undertake greater challenges at other HEIs."

Bold words indeed. We hope that the process of appointing any new VCs in our public universities (and the renewal of existing contracts) in the future will follow these recommendations. Tony has written on this issue here and here and we can only hope that the Ministry will keep to the bold words issued here in the Education Action Plan.

I can already sense that the Ministry is facing some pressure in regards to the appointment of senior positions in the public universities (such as the appointment of two women VCs in UM and UKM and the more recent appointments of a few non-Malays to the positions of deputy VCs). One can only hope that we are heading towards the direction where the best candidate regardless of race, religion and even nationality can be appointed to the position of the VC of our public universities.

In the longer term, I hope that our public universities can move increasingly towards the direction of taking the politics out of our education system. This way, we can ensure that less and less 'compromises' which sacrifice the quality of our public universities are made. One way to do this is to decrease the level of dependence on public finances to run and expand our universities, which is the model that most public universities in the UK and in Australia are taking, and which many public universities in the US have already taken. But this is a subject for another post.

In the meantime, let's hope that the Action Plan items on better governance and leadership can be implemented in the near term.