Ed.: The following is an article we received written by a former student of law at Universiti Teknologi Mara.
When Najib proposed to open scholarship opportunities to all top scorers, particularly 9A’s and above, I saluted the move and thought nothing more of the matter. A politician buckling to popular tit-bits is nothing new and at least he’s heading in the right direction.
However, it irked me as the usual Malay-rights groups, the Perkasa-led Malay Consultative Council (MPM) responded to it with “constructive” criticisms, claiming that it should instead reflect 67% of the Malay community in Malaysia.
My response to this is this: firstly, Professor Datuk Dr Kamarudin Kachar, not all 67% are Malaysian Malays. Some of them are actually assimilated Indonesians whose parents holds red MyKads.
Many Malaysians are denied opportunities on the fallacy that they are of the wrong ethnicity and that they are less likely to be “loyal” to Malaysia. Instead, as long as you are a “Malay,” “imported” or not, you are entitled to a scholarship, and admittance to heavily subsidised boarding schools.
I am not saying that despite Malaysian-born students of Indonesian parentage are intelligent enough, they do not deserve scholarships by virtue of their parents being immigrants. Quite the contrary, hard work and diligence should always be rewarded. I know some of these kids – they’ve studied hard and they should be awarded where deserved. I am simply pointing out how our education system discriminates Malaysians.
I think it ridiculous that descendants of immigrants are awarded privileges denied to generations born and raised Malaysians by basis of race and religion. The argument that affirmative action policies are meant to help the Malays falls here. Right to education of citizens of Malaysia distributed on basis of race and religion is sanctioned by the State on no moral or ethical grounds, but on purely the in-group and out-group mentality.
Why develop descendants of immigrants while neglecting and disparaging our own purely because they are different from the acceptable “original” settlers of Malaya?
Secondly, many people view further education as the only way to break the cycle of poverty and as a means to social mobility. In short, education is the only way to help provide for your parents and your siblings.
It is the only way you can protect the rights of your family and your properties against bad people. It is that golden gateway to a better life. The cycle of poverty is not specifically restricted to the Malays in the rural areas.
There are the rural and urban poor, and despite the differences in skin colour, private religious beliefs, and dietary preferences, they are no less human than your average Muhammad. Everyone is the same; we worry about grades, food, shelter, girlfriend/boyfriend, parents, allowances, and etc.
It is our political parties that continuously indoctrinate us into thinking in terms of “Malay” and “non-Malay” as “human” and “less human,” or “us” and “them.” There is no reason whatsoever for racial quotas for scholarships to be sanctioned as we are all homo sapiens, humans who are essentially the same.
Thirdly, as I have observed before Malays as a community celebrates mediocrity. The concept of fear, self-guilt, insecurity and excessive emotional response is propagated through the most dangerous of tools: religion.
Even places of worship; such as the surau and mosques are not exempt from political intrigue. I am sick and tired of watching and listening to beautiful scriptures of the Holy Quran literally taken out of context and manipulated to suit the purposes of the elite, wealthy, and privileged to maintain their power base. I know I shouldn’t be surprised, the scripts are all written and approved by the state’s religious body, but it does make it more questionable, does it not?
It is no secret that as a collective, humans are fairly obtuse. The common sense of the pacifist few often escapes them, and therefore the masterful skill of the other few who promulgates hatred, suspicion, and utter ignorance carries more conviction as truth than the message of universal love and harmony.
How Malays love their drama enam petang. The ever present threat of imaginary enemies was created to divert blame and responsibility from themselves.
Fourthly, I do not see this as a point of conflict for anyone affected by the change of policies. The way I see it, the Malay boys and girls will instead be told that they actually deserve the grades that they acquired through their own sweat and midnight candle-burning, being told to have self-esteem and that they can do whatever they set their mind to, and being told that they do not need crutches at all to achieve their dreams and help their families.
The only people, who dramatise an otherwise positive move for all youths in this country alike, are people who feel threatened by the lack of dependence and growing confidence of the previously trodden majority, those who feels that to keep being relevant, they needed to bully and put others down in their places so that they could feel better about themselves.
Finally, I recommend several criteria as a basis of Federal Scholarships. Scholarships should only be dealt out to members of the lower-middle to poverty level students who exhibited excellent co-curicular achievements as well as reasonably good grades. A well-balanced individual is the best product that could be produced by only the best of institutions.
Students from these demographic tend to appreciate their education more, as well as the public knowledge of taxpayer monies well spent. Furthermore, the upper-middle class and above should be completely disqualified from eligibility to these scholarships, and should instead be encouraged to take up PTPTN or consider other financial options.
Most of them can afford private education, anyway. Another favourite suggestion by a friend of mine is to completely do away with overseas scholarships and force everyone to study in local universities.
This is due to the fact that once given an opportunity to go abroad, the precious few brainy ones upon considering the socio-political circumstances in Malaysia, choose not to return. Our education coffers shall also be saved, and can be channeled to improve dilapidated Tamil and Orang Asli primary or secondary schools or increase salaries of long-suffering teachers.
For the record, I turned down scholarships because I genuinely believe that it should go to people who really need them. I find it unfair that students who can afford original Guess, DKNY and Chanel were also awarded scholarships when they obviously need it not.
My, what a long rant in reply to one man’s few sentences. Well, I have said my two cents. In conclusion, I truly believe on Federal Scholarships for those who deserve it by merit and based on their family’s financial background. Any thoughts, anyone?
In her own words – Azira Aziz is a mongrel Malaysian who hopes to have “Malay” and “non-Malay” relegated as a relic of the past sometime in the future. A graduate from UiTM, and is currently undergoing training to become a lawyer.
Showing posts with label UiTM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UiTM. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
UiTM student on the BBC
I'm not asking this question rhetorically. Is it possible for a university that restricts its student to intake to members of one community be compatible with the ideals and even a definition of a university? Can such a university aspire to be a 'world-class' university? Will opening 10% of places in such a university to students of other races change the underlying structure and founding philosophy of such a university? In many ways, I don't blame this UiTM student leader featured in this BBC video for speaking his views. My sense is that he is a produce of the environment in which he is studying in (perhaps aided by his VC who is a regular BTN speaker). But it is a sad indictment on what some students in Malaysia think universities are for - an instrument of social policy rather than a place for expanding one's mind and learning new ideas.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Congrats to Datin Seri Rosmah for her Honorary PhD!
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the wife of our 6th Prime Minister, Datin Seri Rosmah, for receiving an Honorary Doctorate from UiTM in recognition of her contribution towards early education.
"In his speech, vice-chancellor Datuk Seri Prof Dr Ibrahim Abu Shah said Rosmah’s diligence towards propagating early education had resulted in the formulation and formalisation of policies in the area.
He said Rosmah had launched the Permata Project to raise the quality of early education programmes and to make it available to more children, especially those in the rural areas, through the setting-up of Permata centres nationwide."
"In his speech, vice-chancellor Datuk Seri Prof Dr Ibrahim Abu Shah said Rosmah’s diligence towards propagating early education had resulted in the formulation and formalisation of policies in the area.
He said Rosmah had launched the Permata Project to raise the quality of early education programmes and to make it available to more children, especially those in the rural areas, through the setting-up of Permata centres nationwide."
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Unfair attacks on UiTM?
Since the posts on UiTM have been mostly negative, actually all negative, I thought that we should have an alternative view for the sake of balance. The following is a letter / email sent from one of our readers. I'm sure that some of our readers will be tempted to 'flame' the writer for his views but I'd like to make an appeal. Please try to write informed comments / criticisms rather than just lash out with knee jerk reactions. For example, the writer says that affirmative action is needed in the Malaysian context. But does the policy of affirmative action require a publicly funded university to be 100% Malay / Bumiputra? Does allowing a quota of 10% of non-Malays mean that affirmative action is no longer practiced in UiTM? I leave our readers to judge.
Following the public demonstration by the UiTM students, we have been bombarded with popular assumptions made by people from all walks of life concerning their idea of what education is, the evil of isolationism and the importance of English. Let us list down all of these popular assumptions with a special reference to UiTM, the favourite punching bag of the day:
Firstly, UiTM is the only university in which the culture of racial chauvinism thrives. In other universities, both public and private, both local and abroad, there is a cosmopolitanism atmosphere in which differences are tolerated, and the multiracial students and faculty members are oh-so-very friendly with each other.
Secondly, the UiTM students are so unfriendly to other people, particularly to those of different races. In contrast, the students from other universities are very warm, jovial and extremely helpful and friendly with everyone.
Thirdly, the UiTM students and graduates are the only ones whose command of English is putrid and atrocious. On the other hand, all the students from other universities could speak English like the native speakers. Why, listening to them, it is very difficult to believe that they are not British, Americans or even Australians. To take this even further, the command of English of all foreign graduates is impeccable and flawless.
Fourthly, the most important commodity that a university student must acquire out of his student life is the ability to communicate well in English, since success in life is solely determined by how well you could express yourself in English.
Most people have never thought of the concept of structural inequality, at the same time they have also chosen to disregard the multitude of elitism producing factors in the society. Most of these critics still believe fervently in the simplistic assumption that if you work hard, success will be in your way. When challenged, these same high priests of meritocracy would point out to some individual examples of successes and hence the conclusion: “you see! without any crutches, only with hard work, you would and could succeed” . This view automatically assumes that the poor are poor because of their own inability and weakness. While this could normally be harmlessly allowed in an academic discourse, to firmly juxtapose this assertion on the predominantly poor malay and bumiputra communities is nothing else other than racism. Hence it is funny to notice how some people tried to portray themselves as liberals yet end up on the dung heap of racism.
The next point of attack concerns the time frame of this policy of protectionism, that is to say, how much longer should UiTM enjoy its special malay/bumiputra nature vis-a vis the affirmative action policy. Well-intentioned critics would see this as a numbers game , that taxpayers have given enough time for UiTM to enjoy its special nature and that the Malay/bumiputra sectors have considerably improved their lot in life, thereby the status quo should be changed. This writer has no qualms in accepting the imperatives of helping the poor. However this must be viewed from a particular context.
Have the malay/bumiputra improved their economic standing? A knee-jerk answer would be in the affirmative, with the ASLI’s findings thrown in to bolster such claims. Unfortunately, there exists considerable ambiguity in such findings since we still are in the dark as to whether the so-called wealth has been spread around the community as opposed to it being in the hands of a few elites. Some would argue that this would not be relevant since if it is shown on paper that the Malays have achieved the specified percentage, then theoretically, the Malays as a whole are now richer. Another argument would be it is every man for himself , and this would be an incentive to spark and sustain future growth, whereby if a man gets RM1 million, it is his alone since it is a reward for his effort and he alone has the absolute share over the spoils. This would then be an incentive for others to work as hard as him, if not harder, and the others would surely obtain similar success . All of these so-called libertarian arguments strategically disregard the power of monopoly, historical and structural inequality of the community together with the greed factor in economics. Justice also has a social dimension to it, whereby it is unjust if the wealth of the community is in the hands of a few elites. There is no problem in supporting the move for wealth to be spread around equitably, that the use of taxpayers’ money should be done in a just manner, that there should be transparency and accountability in the policies of the government. Any reasonable person would be ready to champion such clarion call.
Historical amnesia is always deployed in trying to argue that the history of this country started in 1957/1963 and that every community was born in the said period, with no community having precedence over the other. It is also assumed that the natives of this land had no qualms in accepting any person to be part of the community without any conditions. Hence it has been bandied around that the idea of Malay/bumiputra special positions/rights/privileges is just a constitutional fiction, that the Malays readily accepted the immigrants to be the citizens of this country, embracing them with open arms even, with no prior conditions whatsoever. Some have even gone the extra mile by asserting that the Malays are not the true indigenous people of this country vis-à-vis the Orang Asli, hoping to prove that the Melakan empire together with the pre-islamic malay kingdoms were just a myth. Some of these critics have not even bothered to analyze the British colonial policy papers on the Malays, particularly on the Malay system of education. All of these ridiculous assertions could not hide the inevitable conclusion that the contention that there was absolutely no social contract made between the different races in this nation upon independence is certainly unacceptable.
This writer supports equality and also the call for the affirmative action policies for the malay/bumiputra to be reexamined , which is similarly contained in the Reid Commission’s report. But to do so by disregarding the social and economic disparities of the malay/bumiputra is truly a tad too fanciful.
The main purpose of a tertiary education is not to produce graduates whose command of English is fantastic. It is to educate the student so that he could be a better person and to be instilled with good values such as empathy, trustworthiness and honesty. It is hoped that he would leave the university with a supreme conviction to do good for his family, society and the nation. This is certainly not to deny the importance of the English language. It is however a tool, rather than be seen as an end in itself. Sadly, there are numerous examples of people who got to where they are right now simply on the basis of their command of English. It does not matter if they have no work ethics, it also does not matter if they cannot be trusted to handle the key organizational issues. To the guilty employers, image is everything. As long as the “English factor” could be used to prop up the company’s image, then, why not. It has also been assumed that a good command of English would ipso facto instill some good values in the individual. This is as absurd as the assumption that a good command of Arabic would transform the person into a rabid terrorist. Our society still has an unhealthy obsession with image. As long as the person dresses well and speaks English well, preferably with a genuine sounding accent, then everything is fine although the person might be devoid of ethics altogether. We still have a long way to go in trying to get rid off this “sarong party girls” mentality from our society.
Concerning UiTM itself, many pointed out to the alleged highest unemployment rate of its graduates. What many have conveniently forgotten is that the bulk of the graduates of UiTM are made up of diploma holders. So, what would a good diploma holder do? Why, enroll in a degree course, that’s what. Hence many of these diploma holders then enroll further in degree programmes not just in UiTM, but in other universities as well , thereby earning them the title, “unemployed graduates”. This baseless criticism also assumes that all the graduates of other universities have no problems in the job market, and that they are truly in demand like hot cakes. This is again another nonsensical assumption. This view further assumes that all of the employed graduates are employed based only on merit, not on some other criteria eg, nepotism, cronyism, family connections, etc, etc, which is far from being the case as the job market is rife with such practices. As for the command of English, most Malaysian graduates suffer from this malady as a result of the education system in the schools. Even if you were to walk into the Law Faculty of UM or the law departments of any of the private colleges, you could still find some students with a poor command of English and it goes without saying that not all foreign graduates have a good command of English.
As for unfriendliness and/or racial chauvinism, this writer would be the first to say that not every one is a friendly person. With different personalities and different levels of reasoning and feeling, there would always be people who are different than us. But to simply label ALL UiTM students and graduates as unfriendly and chauvinist and at the same time to assume that all the students and graduates from other universities are virtuous role models and perfect citizens is nonsensical, beyond comprehension. In fact, to say that all of the above problems are uniquely “UiTM” or even worse, “malay/bumiputra” is definitely racism by any other name and therefore inexcusable.
This writer implores all commentators to use logic and good faith in dealing with this subject. Otherwise what is intrinsically an imperative discourse would turn out to be a just a mundane arena in which we display our true persona.
-MOHD NAZIM BIN GANTI SHAARI
Following the public demonstration by the UiTM students, we have been bombarded with popular assumptions made by people from all walks of life concerning their idea of what education is, the evil of isolationism and the importance of English. Let us list down all of these popular assumptions with a special reference to UiTM, the favourite punching bag of the day:
Firstly, UiTM is the only university in which the culture of racial chauvinism thrives. In other universities, both public and private, both local and abroad, there is a cosmopolitanism atmosphere in which differences are tolerated, and the multiracial students and faculty members are oh-so-very friendly with each other.
Secondly, the UiTM students are so unfriendly to other people, particularly to those of different races. In contrast, the students from other universities are very warm, jovial and extremely helpful and friendly with everyone.
Thirdly, the UiTM students and graduates are the only ones whose command of English is putrid and atrocious. On the other hand, all the students from other universities could speak English like the native speakers. Why, listening to them, it is very difficult to believe that they are not British, Americans or even Australians. To take this even further, the command of English of all foreign graduates is impeccable and flawless.
Fourthly, the most important commodity that a university student must acquire out of his student life is the ability to communicate well in English, since success in life is solely determined by how well you could express yourself in English.
Most people have never thought of the concept of structural inequality, at the same time they have also chosen to disregard the multitude of elitism producing factors in the society. Most of these critics still believe fervently in the simplistic assumption that if you work hard, success will be in your way. When challenged, these same high priests of meritocracy would point out to some individual examples of successes and hence the conclusion: “you see! without any crutches, only with hard work, you would and could succeed” . This view automatically assumes that the poor are poor because of their own inability and weakness. While this could normally be harmlessly allowed in an academic discourse, to firmly juxtapose this assertion on the predominantly poor malay and bumiputra communities is nothing else other than racism. Hence it is funny to notice how some people tried to portray themselves as liberals yet end up on the dung heap of racism.
The next point of attack concerns the time frame of this policy of protectionism, that is to say, how much longer should UiTM enjoy its special malay/bumiputra nature vis-a vis the affirmative action policy. Well-intentioned critics would see this as a numbers game , that taxpayers have given enough time for UiTM to enjoy its special nature and that the Malay/bumiputra sectors have considerably improved their lot in life, thereby the status quo should be changed. This writer has no qualms in accepting the imperatives of helping the poor. However this must be viewed from a particular context.
Have the malay/bumiputra improved their economic standing? A knee-jerk answer would be in the affirmative, with the ASLI’s findings thrown in to bolster such claims. Unfortunately, there exists considerable ambiguity in such findings since we still are in the dark as to whether the so-called wealth has been spread around the community as opposed to it being in the hands of a few elites. Some would argue that this would not be relevant since if it is shown on paper that the Malays have achieved the specified percentage, then theoretically, the Malays as a whole are now richer. Another argument would be it is every man for himself , and this would be an incentive to spark and sustain future growth, whereby if a man gets RM1 million, it is his alone since it is a reward for his effort and he alone has the absolute share over the spoils. This would then be an incentive for others to work as hard as him, if not harder, and the others would surely obtain similar success . All of these so-called libertarian arguments strategically disregard the power of monopoly, historical and structural inequality of the community together with the greed factor in economics. Justice also has a social dimension to it, whereby it is unjust if the wealth of the community is in the hands of a few elites. There is no problem in supporting the move for wealth to be spread around equitably, that the use of taxpayers’ money should be done in a just manner, that there should be transparency and accountability in the policies of the government. Any reasonable person would be ready to champion such clarion call.
Historical amnesia is always deployed in trying to argue that the history of this country started in 1957/1963 and that every community was born in the said period, with no community having precedence over the other. It is also assumed that the natives of this land had no qualms in accepting any person to be part of the community without any conditions. Hence it has been bandied around that the idea of Malay/bumiputra special positions/rights/privileges is just a constitutional fiction, that the Malays readily accepted the immigrants to be the citizens of this country, embracing them with open arms even, with no prior conditions whatsoever. Some have even gone the extra mile by asserting that the Malays are not the true indigenous people of this country vis-à-vis the Orang Asli, hoping to prove that the Melakan empire together with the pre-islamic malay kingdoms were just a myth. Some of these critics have not even bothered to analyze the British colonial policy papers on the Malays, particularly on the Malay system of education. All of these ridiculous assertions could not hide the inevitable conclusion that the contention that there was absolutely no social contract made between the different races in this nation upon independence is certainly unacceptable.
This writer supports equality and also the call for the affirmative action policies for the malay/bumiputra to be reexamined , which is similarly contained in the Reid Commission’s report. But to do so by disregarding the social and economic disparities of the malay/bumiputra is truly a tad too fanciful.
The main purpose of a tertiary education is not to produce graduates whose command of English is fantastic. It is to educate the student so that he could be a better person and to be instilled with good values such as empathy, trustworthiness and honesty. It is hoped that he would leave the university with a supreme conviction to do good for his family, society and the nation. This is certainly not to deny the importance of the English language. It is however a tool, rather than be seen as an end in itself. Sadly, there are numerous examples of people who got to where they are right now simply on the basis of their command of English. It does not matter if they have no work ethics, it also does not matter if they cannot be trusted to handle the key organizational issues. To the guilty employers, image is everything. As long as the “English factor” could be used to prop up the company’s image, then, why not. It has also been assumed that a good command of English would ipso facto instill some good values in the individual. This is as absurd as the assumption that a good command of Arabic would transform the person into a rabid terrorist. Our society still has an unhealthy obsession with image. As long as the person dresses well and speaks English well, preferably with a genuine sounding accent, then everything is fine although the person might be devoid of ethics altogether. We still have a long way to go in trying to get rid off this “sarong party girls” mentality from our society.
Concerning UiTM itself, many pointed out to the alleged highest unemployment rate of its graduates. What many have conveniently forgotten is that the bulk of the graduates of UiTM are made up of diploma holders. So, what would a good diploma holder do? Why, enroll in a degree course, that’s what. Hence many of these diploma holders then enroll further in degree programmes not just in UiTM, but in other universities as well , thereby earning them the title, “unemployed graduates”. This baseless criticism also assumes that all the graduates of other universities have no problems in the job market, and that they are truly in demand like hot cakes. This is again another nonsensical assumption. This view further assumes that all of the employed graduates are employed based only on merit, not on some other criteria eg, nepotism, cronyism, family connections, etc, etc, which is far from being the case as the job market is rife with such practices. As for the command of English, most Malaysian graduates suffer from this malady as a result of the education system in the schools. Even if you were to walk into the Law Faculty of UM or the law departments of any of the private colleges, you could still find some students with a poor command of English and it goes without saying that not all foreign graduates have a good command of English.
As for unfriendliness and/or racial chauvinism, this writer would be the first to say that not every one is a friendly person. With different personalities and different levels of reasoning and feeling, there would always be people who are different than us. But to simply label ALL UiTM students and graduates as unfriendly and chauvinist and at the same time to assume that all the students and graduates from other universities are virtuous role models and perfect citizens is nonsensical, beyond comprehension. In fact, to say that all of the above problems are uniquely “UiTM” or even worse, “malay/bumiputra” is definitely racism by any other name and therefore inexcusable.
This writer implores all commentators to use logic and good faith in dealing with this subject. Otherwise what is intrinsically an imperative discourse would turn out to be a just a mundane arena in which we display our true persona.
-MOHD NAZIM BIN GANTI SHAARI
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Why do we go to university
I know that I said that I'll lay of the UiTM issue for a while but I can't help but publish this insightful letter written by Oon Yeoh, my partner in crime for our Malaysiakini Realpolitik podcasts. I've reproduced the letter in full below.
Why do we go to university?
Oon Yeoh | Aug 19, 08 5:08pm
University life seems like an eternity ago and I barely remember any of my professors or the subjects they taught me. There was, however, one memorable lesson given by a guest lecturer whose name I cannot recall but whose message still resonates with me until today.
In light of the controversy that followed Selangor MB Khalid Ibrahim's suggestion that UiTM open itself to some non-Malays, I would like to share what I learned from that guest lecturer who was invited to give a talk in the sports journalism class I was taking.
He was a baseball expert but when he took to the podium, he told us that he was not going to talk about America's favourite pastime.
Instead, he had a question for all of us: "Why are you all in college?"
That seemed like an easy enough question to answer. Several students quickly put up their hands.
"So we can get a good job one day and make lots of money!" said one student, to loud laughter.
The lecturer smiled and said, "Come on, we all know that there are many people who never went to college and are rich beyond imagination."
"To get an education," said another student.
"You don't necessarily have to go to college to do that," the lecturer said. "Many people get their education through the school of hard knocks."
Another student said, "To get a degree. You can't get that unless you go to university."
To that, the lecturer replied, "That's not true. You can take correspondence courses."
At that point, everybody seemed stumped so the lecturer finally said, "The main reason you go to college is to learn to socialise" and he proceeded to elaborate.
When you graduate and enter the work force, you will be surrounded by generally like-minded people with roughly the same educational background and social status.
If you are in banking, the people around you would have probably studied finance. If you are in the medical field, the people you mingle with will be fellow doctors and nurses. And if you are in architecture, your network of friends and associates will inevitably be those in the building and construction industry.
Unless you happen to have a very unique job that requires you to mingle with a broad range of people, the harsh reality is that your world will be constrained by your career choices.
College is the only time in your life when you are exposed to all kinds of people from all walks of life and from very different backgrounds – unless of course you go to UiTM.
While preparing to do a podcast on the controversy surrounding Khalid's comments, my podcasting partner, Ong Kian Ming, said something remarkably similar to what the guest lecturer had said. "The whole idea of a university is for different people to get together and interact."
He's spot on, just as the guest lecturer was. If you don't learn how to deal with a myriad of people and expose yourself to different worldviews when you are in the spring time of your life – when you are young and carefree – how will you ever be able to do so when you enter the "real world" and have to cope with the challenges and insecurities of carving out a career and struggling to make ends meet every month?
As mentioned earlier, your world will naturally constrained by the career track that you choose. But if you've had exposure to diversity early on, you would have a better chance of broadening your network beyond what would normally be the case – because you learned how to do so when you were young.
I was very lucky to have attended a cosmopolitan American university which had students from all over the US and indeed, the world. I had classmates from every continent. Some were rich, some poor; some were from developed countries, some from the third world. But in college, all of us were equals - we attended class together, we did assignments together, we played together.
Not to denigrate the value of academic lessons – they are important, of course – but my experiences in dealing with and socialising with classmates who were very different from me played a bigger role in my personal growth and development than any specific subjects I learned.
Granted, there are no universities in Malaysia that can offer the diversity you could find in popular American universities, which make it a point to take in students from all over the world.
But Malaysia does have a pretty diverse population. Even without the benefit of foreign students, there's a lot that our young people can learn from schoolmates of different ethnicity, religions and backgrounds. What a shame if we don't give them a chance to do that.
In our most recent podcast article, Kian Ming and I asked: "Can UiTM really aspire to be a world-class university if all the students there are of one particular race?" The people who are protesting Khalid's suggestion would do well to ponder upon this rhetorical question.
Why do we go to university?
Oon Yeoh | Aug 19, 08 5:08pm
University life seems like an eternity ago and I barely remember any of my professors or the subjects they taught me. There was, however, one memorable lesson given by a guest lecturer whose name I cannot recall but whose message still resonates with me until today.
In light of the controversy that followed Selangor MB Khalid Ibrahim's suggestion that UiTM open itself to some non-Malays, I would like to share what I learned from that guest lecturer who was invited to give a talk in the sports journalism class I was taking.
He was a baseball expert but when he took to the podium, he told us that he was not going to talk about America's favourite pastime.
Instead, he had a question for all of us: "Why are you all in college?"
That seemed like an easy enough question to answer. Several students quickly put up their hands.
"So we can get a good job one day and make lots of money!" said one student, to loud laughter.
The lecturer smiled and said, "Come on, we all know that there are many people who never went to college and are rich beyond imagination."
"To get an education," said another student.
"You don't necessarily have to go to college to do that," the lecturer said. "Many people get their education through the school of hard knocks."
Another student said, "To get a degree. You can't get that unless you go to university."
To that, the lecturer replied, "That's not true. You can take correspondence courses."
At that point, everybody seemed stumped so the lecturer finally said, "The main reason you go to college is to learn to socialise" and he proceeded to elaborate.
When you graduate and enter the work force, you will be surrounded by generally like-minded people with roughly the same educational background and social status.
If you are in banking, the people around you would have probably studied finance. If you are in the medical field, the people you mingle with will be fellow doctors and nurses. And if you are in architecture, your network of friends and associates will inevitably be those in the building and construction industry.
Unless you happen to have a very unique job that requires you to mingle with a broad range of people, the harsh reality is that your world will be constrained by your career choices.
College is the only time in your life when you are exposed to all kinds of people from all walks of life and from very different backgrounds – unless of course you go to UiTM.
While preparing to do a podcast on the controversy surrounding Khalid's comments, my podcasting partner, Ong Kian Ming, said something remarkably similar to what the guest lecturer had said. "The whole idea of a university is for different people to get together and interact."
He's spot on, just as the guest lecturer was. If you don't learn how to deal with a myriad of people and expose yourself to different worldviews when you are in the spring time of your life – when you are young and carefree – how will you ever be able to do so when you enter the "real world" and have to cope with the challenges and insecurities of carving out a career and struggling to make ends meet every month?
As mentioned earlier, your world will naturally constrained by the career track that you choose. But if you've had exposure to diversity early on, you would have a better chance of broadening your network beyond what would normally be the case – because you learned how to do so when you were young.
I was very lucky to have attended a cosmopolitan American university which had students from all over the US and indeed, the world. I had classmates from every continent. Some were rich, some poor; some were from developed countries, some from the third world. But in college, all of us were equals - we attended class together, we did assignments together, we played together.
Not to denigrate the value of academic lessons – they are important, of course – but my experiences in dealing with and socialising with classmates who were very different from me played a bigger role in my personal growth and development than any specific subjects I learned.
Granted, there are no universities in Malaysia that can offer the diversity you could find in popular American universities, which make it a point to take in students from all over the world.
But Malaysia does have a pretty diverse population. Even without the benefit of foreign students, there's a lot that our young people can learn from schoolmates of different ethnicity, religions and backgrounds. What a shame if we don't give them a chance to do that.
In our most recent podcast article, Kian Ming and I asked: "Can UiTM really aspire to be a world-class university if all the students there are of one particular race?" The people who are protesting Khalid's suggestion would do well to ponder upon this rhetorical question.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
UiTM - The Political Angle
This will be the last post I will make on the UiTM issue unless something new crops up. In a piece written by myself and Oon Yeoh in Malaysiakini, as part of our regular Realpolitik podcasts, we examine the political angle of Khalid's statements.
Selangor MB's unnecessary honesty
Ong Kian Ming & Oon Yeoh | Aug 16, 08 10:39am
Sometimes, politicians make remarks which are calculated to win over certain political constituencies. At other times, politicians make remarks without much regard to the political impact of their statements.
Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim's statement on opening up UiTM to non-Malays clearly falls in the latter category. While those statements were made in good faith, Khalid's political inexperience showed when he made those remarks, which does not win him additional non-Malay support and probably lost him some Malay support at a crucial time for PKR and for Pakatan Rakyat.
Khalid Ibrahim's statements were not intended to win over non-Malay support, contrary to allegations by some, including the UiTM vice-chancellor, that they were made in view of the Permatang Pauh by-election.
Non-Malays were not clamouring to get into UiTM in the first place and in all likelihood, even if 10 percent of the places there were opened up to non-Malays, it would not be filled up easily. The opening up of the Mara colleges to non-Malays is a good example in point.
Much more salient to the non-Malay community are the issues of the allocation of JPA (Public Service Department) scholarships and the quotas in public universities rather than the opening up of UiTM to non-Malays.
Ironically, Khalid's statements were made in response to a question on how the education standards at UiTM could be improved for the benefit of the Malays. All this nuance was somehow lost in the clamour of protests by certain groups of UiTM students, the vice-chancellor and a litany of other Malay rights groups.
Khalid quickly found himself embroiled in a situation which economists or political scientists would term 'an asymmetry of preferences'. On the one hand, there was a group of highly motivated individuals who strongly objected to the spirit of Khalid's suggestion (and it was only that, a suggestion) and who were ready to mobilise support against Khalid.
On the other hand, there are also Malays who feel that opening up the UiTM to non-Malays might not be such a bad idea but who do not feel strongly enough to mount protests in support of Khalid's suggestion.
This comes at a time when the 'Malay' credentials of PKR and Pakatan is increasingly under attack.
PAS' commitment to Pakatan has been questioned on the grounds that Malay rights and Islam had been sidelined, Ezam Mohd Nor quitting PKR on the grounds that it was becoming a multiracial rather than a Malay-led (albeit multiracial) party and the accusations by Dr Mahathir Mohamad that the Malays were losing their rights in their own country are all examples of politicians playing up fears among the Malay community, a fear which PKR and Pakatan cannot afford to ignore. Khalid's remarks just added more fuel to this already combustible mixture.
Lost amidst of the political rhetoric surrounding Khalid's remarks, was the larger question which he was trying to address. Can UiTM aspire to be a 'world-class' university if all the students in this university was of one particular race? Is this a realistic goal, especially given that these students are not admitted on a particularly selective basis?
This is akin to saying that we want to be Harvard but we don't care about the quality of the students admitted as long as they are from one ethnic group. Do the UiTM students suffer in any way in the long term, in terms of their career and their outlook in life, because they studied in a mono-ethnic, mono-religious environment?
These are certainly issues which should be addressed and these are challenges that will long remain after the political rhetoric has died down.
Symbolic measures won’t help
Even those who support Khalid's suggestion need to question the basis of their support. Will opening up UiTM to non-Malays necessarily improve the education standards there?
Our top public universities such as UM, UKM and USM comprise of students from all ethnic groups but that has not prevented the quality and standard of education there to plummet over the past few decades?
Do they seriously think that there will be a sudden clamour among the non-Malays to try to get into UiTM if spaces are made available, especially given the many other choices available to them?
Will there be beneficial interaction between the Malays and non-Malays if spaces are opened up?
The sad truth is that our public university system cannot be revived with just a few symbolic measures here and there. It requires an overhaul that involves many structural changes that goes far beyond changing just the ethnic composition of the student body.
Khalid is powerless in his capacity as MB of Selangor to enact any changes within UiTM which is under the federal jurisdiction of Higher Education Ministry. He was well aware of this when he made his now controversial remarks.
In view of the aftermath, Khalid would surely think twice before he says something which could be interpreted as equally controversial and political damaging, for him, his party and Pakatan. Sometimes honesty might not be the best policy, especially when you have others ready to pounce upon and exploit your statements.
Selangor MB's unnecessary honesty
Ong Kian Ming & Oon Yeoh | Aug 16, 08 10:39am
Sometimes, politicians make remarks which are calculated to win over certain political constituencies. At other times, politicians make remarks without much regard to the political impact of their statements.
Selangor Menteri Besar Khalid Ibrahim's statement on opening up UiTM to non-Malays clearly falls in the latter category. While those statements were made in good faith, Khalid's political inexperience showed when he made those remarks, which does not win him additional non-Malay support and probably lost him some Malay support at a crucial time for PKR and for Pakatan Rakyat.
Khalid Ibrahim's statements were not intended to win over non-Malay support, contrary to allegations by some, including the UiTM vice-chancellor, that they were made in view of the Permatang Pauh by-election.
Non-Malays were not clamouring to get into UiTM in the first place and in all likelihood, even if 10 percent of the places there were opened up to non-Malays, it would not be filled up easily. The opening up of the Mara colleges to non-Malays is a good example in point.
Much more salient to the non-Malay community are the issues of the allocation of JPA (Public Service Department) scholarships and the quotas in public universities rather than the opening up of UiTM to non-Malays.
Ironically, Khalid's statements were made in response to a question on how the education standards at UiTM could be improved for the benefit of the Malays. All this nuance was somehow lost in the clamour of protests by certain groups of UiTM students, the vice-chancellor and a litany of other Malay rights groups.
Khalid quickly found himself embroiled in a situation which economists or political scientists would term 'an asymmetry of preferences'. On the one hand, there was a group of highly motivated individuals who strongly objected to the spirit of Khalid's suggestion (and it was only that, a suggestion) and who were ready to mobilise support against Khalid.
On the other hand, there are also Malays who feel that opening up the UiTM to non-Malays might not be such a bad idea but who do not feel strongly enough to mount protests in support of Khalid's suggestion.
This comes at a time when the 'Malay' credentials of PKR and Pakatan is increasingly under attack.
PAS' commitment to Pakatan has been questioned on the grounds that Malay rights and Islam had been sidelined, Ezam Mohd Nor quitting PKR on the grounds that it was becoming a multiracial rather than a Malay-led (albeit multiracial) party and the accusations by Dr Mahathir Mohamad that the Malays were losing their rights in their own country are all examples of politicians playing up fears among the Malay community, a fear which PKR and Pakatan cannot afford to ignore. Khalid's remarks just added more fuel to this already combustible mixture.
Lost amidst of the political rhetoric surrounding Khalid's remarks, was the larger question which he was trying to address. Can UiTM aspire to be a 'world-class' university if all the students in this university was of one particular race? Is this a realistic goal, especially given that these students are not admitted on a particularly selective basis?
This is akin to saying that we want to be Harvard but we don't care about the quality of the students admitted as long as they are from one ethnic group. Do the UiTM students suffer in any way in the long term, in terms of their career and their outlook in life, because they studied in a mono-ethnic, mono-religious environment?
These are certainly issues which should be addressed and these are challenges that will long remain after the political rhetoric has died down.
Symbolic measures won’t help
Even those who support Khalid's suggestion need to question the basis of their support. Will opening up UiTM to non-Malays necessarily improve the education standards there?
Our top public universities such as UM, UKM and USM comprise of students from all ethnic groups but that has not prevented the quality and standard of education there to plummet over the past few decades?
Do they seriously think that there will be a sudden clamour among the non-Malays to try to get into UiTM if spaces are made available, especially given the many other choices available to them?
Will there be beneficial interaction between the Malays and non-Malays if spaces are opened up?
The sad truth is that our public university system cannot be revived with just a few symbolic measures here and there. It requires an overhaul that involves many structural changes that goes far beyond changing just the ethnic composition of the student body.
Khalid is powerless in his capacity as MB of Selangor to enact any changes within UiTM which is under the federal jurisdiction of Higher Education Ministry. He was well aware of this when he made his now controversial remarks.
In view of the aftermath, Khalid would surely think twice before he says something which could be interpreted as equally controversial and political damaging, for him, his party and Pakatan. Sometimes honesty might not be the best policy, especially when you have others ready to pounce upon and exploit your statements.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Spotlight on UiTM - The Issues
After focusing on the UiTM VC previously, I want to touch on the issues highlighted by this recent controversy.
Let's step away from the politics of the statement and examine the its implications. If the VC and some of the UiTM students want to maintain UiTM as a mono-ethnic institution, then they have to consider the following. They should abandon any pretense of trying to achieve a 'world class' status university. Not that this was achievable in the first place anyways. But there is no university in the world that comprise of only one ethnic group and can be considered anywhere close to first class. Furthermore, it's not as if UiTM selects the best and the brightest among the Malays / Bumiputeras in the first place. My understanding is that it's pretty easy to get in, as long as you are a Malay / Bumi. Being mono-ethnic and being non selective, this VC and others following in his footsteps should just give up the pretense of trying to build a 'world class' university.
I've not thought about this issue from this angle since I always assumed that one of the main pillars surrounding university life was the pursuit of scholarship in the midst of diversity, not just in terms of ideas but also amidst people of different ethnic groups, income levels, etc... The idea that a university can call itself as such but reserve its places totally for students of one ethnic group just belies belief in some sense. We've always had ethnic quotas in our public universities but there was always ethnic diversity. Walk into any university in the US, from the best like Harvard to some which have never been heard of in Malaysia, or go to any university in any developed country, you'll see students of different ethnicities and nationality.
For our Malay / Bumi readers who disagree with Khalid's suggestion, try to answer this question - Name me one other university in any country, developed or developing, where the students are of only one ethnicity. If you want to argue semantics in that UiTM comprises more than one ethnic group (Malays and the different Bumiputera groups in Sabah and Sarawak), then do this - name me one other university in any country, developed or developing, which does not allow members of a certain race entry into that university.
You had this kind of policy in the American South before desegregation and you had this kind of policy in apartheid South Africa. But now in South Africa, the only other country in the world that practices affirmative action for the majority population, universities are totally desegregated and there are no universities which are reserved only for the black population.
In other words, Malaysia is probably the only country in the world which restricts citizens of a certain race (in this care, more than one race) from applying and gaining entry into one of its universities (or in effect, the entire UiTM system).
In this light, one might even say that UiTM does not even fulfill the conventional understanding of what a university is, at least not by international standards.
Let's take this a step further. Let's say that 10% of the places in UiTM are opened up to non-Malays. What is the likelihood that these places will be snapped up in a hurry? My sense is that they will not. 10% of the places in the MARA colleges were opened up to non-Malays a few years back and indications are that this quota is nowhere near being filled. There are just too many options for non-Malays out there these days. The many public unis, the private colleges, the many twinning programs etc... makes UiTM probably one of the last places that they would want to go. If this is the case, then the argument that non-Malays would be somehow 'stealing' the places of Malays does not stand. In any case, the options for Malay students in terms of universities are probably more than that of the non-Malays. It is not as if a Malay / Bumi student who fails to get into UiTM will not have the option of going to another public uni.
This is not to say that I agree that Khalid's suggestion will necessarily solve the problem which he identified. His reasoning was that by allowing non-Malays and international students to gain entry into UiTM, this would increase the standards of UiTM as well as giving the opportunity for the Malay / Bumi students in UiTM to mix with students of other ethnic groups and hence be more exposed to the world and can have better career prospects.
This might be a nice ideal to have but I suspect that allowing non-Malays and internationals to gain entry into UiTM will neither improve the standards of education in UiTM nor will it necessarily be better for the Malay / Bumi students in terms of exposure. After all, UM, USM and UKM, probably the top three public unis in Malaysia are ethnically mixed but this has not prevented the standards there from dropping over the past few decades. And there is not guarantee that the current situation of de facto racial segregation in our public unis will not be replicated in UiTM if non-Malays are allowed in.
UiTM needs much more than just allowing non-Malays entry if it wants to improve itself. There needs to be wholesale structural re-arrangement is this is to happen.
Ultimately, the losers from this whole episode will likely to be the UiTM students. The other public unis, especially the research universities - UM, USM, UKM, UPM - are moving forward and trying to be more open. If there is going to be any improvement in our universities, it is likely to start with these public universities and not UiTM, especially given that it has a VC who is an UMNO 'lifer' and an ITM 'lifer'.
P.S. I think that another negative side effect of this episode is that some non-Bumi employers might discriminate, implicitly or explicitly, against UiTM graduates, exacerbating the already serious problem about unemployed UiTM graduates.
Let's step away from the politics of the statement and examine the its implications. If the VC and some of the UiTM students want to maintain UiTM as a mono-ethnic institution, then they have to consider the following. They should abandon any pretense of trying to achieve a 'world class' status university. Not that this was achievable in the first place anyways. But there is no university in the world that comprise of only one ethnic group and can be considered anywhere close to first class. Furthermore, it's not as if UiTM selects the best and the brightest among the Malays / Bumiputeras in the first place. My understanding is that it's pretty easy to get in, as long as you are a Malay / Bumi. Being mono-ethnic and being non selective, this VC and others following in his footsteps should just give up the pretense of trying to build a 'world class' university.
I've not thought about this issue from this angle since I always assumed that one of the main pillars surrounding university life was the pursuit of scholarship in the midst of diversity, not just in terms of ideas but also amidst people of different ethnic groups, income levels, etc... The idea that a university can call itself as such but reserve its places totally for students of one ethnic group just belies belief in some sense. We've always had ethnic quotas in our public universities but there was always ethnic diversity. Walk into any university in the US, from the best like Harvard to some which have never been heard of in Malaysia, or go to any university in any developed country, you'll see students of different ethnicities and nationality.
For our Malay / Bumi readers who disagree with Khalid's suggestion, try to answer this question - Name me one other university in any country, developed or developing, where the students are of only one ethnicity. If you want to argue semantics in that UiTM comprises more than one ethnic group (Malays and the different Bumiputera groups in Sabah and Sarawak), then do this - name me one other university in any country, developed or developing, which does not allow members of a certain race entry into that university.
You had this kind of policy in the American South before desegregation and you had this kind of policy in apartheid South Africa. But now in South Africa, the only other country in the world that practices affirmative action for the majority population, universities are totally desegregated and there are no universities which are reserved only for the black population.
In other words, Malaysia is probably the only country in the world which restricts citizens of a certain race (in this care, more than one race) from applying and gaining entry into one of its universities (or in effect, the entire UiTM system).
In this light, one might even say that UiTM does not even fulfill the conventional understanding of what a university is, at least not by international standards.
Let's take this a step further. Let's say that 10% of the places in UiTM are opened up to non-Malays. What is the likelihood that these places will be snapped up in a hurry? My sense is that they will not. 10% of the places in the MARA colleges were opened up to non-Malays a few years back and indications are that this quota is nowhere near being filled. There are just too many options for non-Malays out there these days. The many public unis, the private colleges, the many twinning programs etc... makes UiTM probably one of the last places that they would want to go. If this is the case, then the argument that non-Malays would be somehow 'stealing' the places of Malays does not stand. In any case, the options for Malay students in terms of universities are probably more than that of the non-Malays. It is not as if a Malay / Bumi student who fails to get into UiTM will not have the option of going to another public uni.
This is not to say that I agree that Khalid's suggestion will necessarily solve the problem which he identified. His reasoning was that by allowing non-Malays and international students to gain entry into UiTM, this would increase the standards of UiTM as well as giving the opportunity for the Malay / Bumi students in UiTM to mix with students of other ethnic groups and hence be more exposed to the world and can have better career prospects.
This might be a nice ideal to have but I suspect that allowing non-Malays and internationals to gain entry into UiTM will neither improve the standards of education in UiTM nor will it necessarily be better for the Malay / Bumi students in terms of exposure. After all, UM, USM and UKM, probably the top three public unis in Malaysia are ethnically mixed but this has not prevented the standards there from dropping over the past few decades. And there is not guarantee that the current situation of de facto racial segregation in our public unis will not be replicated in UiTM if non-Malays are allowed in.
UiTM needs much more than just allowing non-Malays entry if it wants to improve itself. There needs to be wholesale structural re-arrangement is this is to happen.
Ultimately, the losers from this whole episode will likely to be the UiTM students. The other public unis, especially the research universities - UM, USM, UKM, UPM - are moving forward and trying to be more open. If there is going to be any improvement in our universities, it is likely to start with these public universities and not UiTM, especially given that it has a VC who is an UMNO 'lifer' and an ITM 'lifer'.
P.S. I think that another negative side effect of this episode is that some non-Bumi employers might discriminate, implicitly or explicitly, against UiTM graduates, exacerbating the already serious problem about unemployed UiTM graduates.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Spotlight on UiTM VC
After reading about UiTM students protesting against the Selangor MB's proposal to open up 10% of the places at UiTM to non-Malays, I decided to do a bit of 'investigative reporting' on UiTM. Initially I wanted to write about the philosophy of UiTM and how it might or might not be compatible with allowing non-Malays into UiTM. I'll write about this in part II of this spotlight but for Part I, I want to point our readers to the qualifications of the current VC of UiTM, Dato' Seri Prof Dr Ibrahim Abu Shah.
The esteemed VC lashed out at Khalid Ibrahim saying that "UiTM was the last educational bastion for the Malays and other Bumiputeras to help change their lot, hence no quarters should interfere with its founding objectives and administration."
So I thought that it was fair game for us to take a closer look at the qualifications of the VC. It is not the first time that the VC has appeared on this blog. Tony has highlighted him before here, here and here.
His VC webpage can be accessed here and he has been the VC of UiTM since 2001. He is an UiTM 'lifer', if you will. He graduated with a Diploma in Public Administration from ITM in 1971 (before ITM achieved its current university status). He then worked as an Executive Officer in the Malaysian Treasury from 1971 to 1972. He then left to further his studies in the US and obtained his BA in Economics from Ohio University in 1974 and an MA in Sociology from the same university in 1975 (must have been a good student to finish a BA and MA in 3 years!).
He then came back and was the deputy dean of students affairs at ITM Shah Alam, the site of its current flagship campus from 1976 to 1982. He then transitioned to a senior lecturer from 1981 to 1991. During this time, he took leave and obtained his PhD from the University of Maryland in Government and Politics. (For those of you who don't know, Maryland is a pretty good state university and I know that their polisci department is pretty good as well)
The title of his dissertation was:
"The use of higher education as an intervention strategy in the economic development of a plural society : a case study of Mara Institute of Technology in the economic policy of Malaysia"
In fact, this piece of work is the only academic reference I could find for the esteemed VC when I did a google scholar search under his name.
Upon his return from the US, newly minted PhD in hand, he was made the Provost of ITM Sarawak. During this time, I'm guessing that ITM expanded throughout the country in an aggressive manner. He was made the Deputy VC (Academics) in 1998 and because VC in 2001.
So, let's summarize his work and life experience thus far. He got his diploma from ITM and apart from one year at the Malaysian treasury and his time in the US, he has worked in an ITM all of his adult life.
His homepage gives a list of his publications including the must read "Gaya Hidup Remaja Masa Kini. (1997) Shah Alam: Biroteks, Institut Teknologi MARA" and "Pendidikan Bermutu Masyarakat Sejahtera. (1990) Kuching: Education Department, Sarawak". None of his publications are with a recognized refereed journal or publisher. Most, if not all of his publications, are with local publishers including UiTM, his own institution. Almost all of his publications have to do with his favorite subject, you guessed it - ITM.
Having established his academic credentials, which are of course worthy of a Professorship, let's examine some of his other, "credentials". This is what is listed under 'political contributions'.
1. UMNO Member (1968 - present)
2. Youth Leader, UMNO Kg. Pulai (1981- 1983)
3. Committee Member, UMNO Youths Jasin, Melaka (1982 - 1983)
4. Chairman (Founder) UMNO Club, Carbondale USA (1983)
5. President, UMNO USA Club (1985 - 1987)
So apart from being an ITM 'lifer', he is apparently an UMNO 'lifer' as well including being the founder of the UMNO Club in the US, probably in the first year of his PhD in Maryland.
Under 'outside contributions', he is listed as being an "Exco of Alumni UMNO Club (oversea) (1995 – present)". Ironically he is also a member of the "Committee of Advisor National Unity (Panel) February 2007 – December 2008" and an occasional speaker at BTN forums. Boy, what would I give to be a fly in the wall in one of his BTN lectures.
Under 'forums and talks', the following is listed:
"Talk to all Malaysians UMNO division heads about "Gerakan Anti Kerajaan Pelajar-Pelajar di Kampus-Pengalaman UiTM" – 15 November 2001"
If having an in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of UiTM and being a loyal UMNO supporter are qualifications for the position of the VC of UiTM, the esteemed VC is probably the most qualified person in the universe. But if academic experience and an open outlook are the criteria, then... you guys finish the sentence.
The esteemed VC lashed out at Khalid Ibrahim saying that "UiTM was the last educational bastion for the Malays and other Bumiputeras to help change their lot, hence no quarters should interfere with its founding objectives and administration."
So I thought that it was fair game for us to take a closer look at the qualifications of the VC. It is not the first time that the VC has appeared on this blog. Tony has highlighted him before here, here and here.
His VC webpage can be accessed here and he has been the VC of UiTM since 2001. He is an UiTM 'lifer', if you will. He graduated with a Diploma in Public Administration from ITM in 1971 (before ITM achieved its current university status). He then worked as an Executive Officer in the Malaysian Treasury from 1971 to 1972. He then left to further his studies in the US and obtained his BA in Economics from Ohio University in 1974 and an MA in Sociology from the same university in 1975 (must have been a good student to finish a BA and MA in 3 years!).
He then came back and was the deputy dean of students affairs at ITM Shah Alam, the site of its current flagship campus from 1976 to 1982. He then transitioned to a senior lecturer from 1981 to 1991. During this time, he took leave and obtained his PhD from the University of Maryland in Government and Politics. (For those of you who don't know, Maryland is a pretty good state university and I know that their polisci department is pretty good as well)
The title of his dissertation was:
"The use of higher education as an intervention strategy in the economic development of a plural society : a case study of Mara Institute of Technology in the economic policy of Malaysia"
In fact, this piece of work is the only academic reference I could find for the esteemed VC when I did a google scholar search under his name.
Upon his return from the US, newly minted PhD in hand, he was made the Provost of ITM Sarawak. During this time, I'm guessing that ITM expanded throughout the country in an aggressive manner. He was made the Deputy VC (Academics) in 1998 and because VC in 2001.
So, let's summarize his work and life experience thus far. He got his diploma from ITM and apart from one year at the Malaysian treasury and his time in the US, he has worked in an ITM all of his adult life.
His homepage gives a list of his publications including the must read "Gaya Hidup Remaja Masa Kini. (1997) Shah Alam: Biroteks, Institut Teknologi MARA" and "Pendidikan Bermutu Masyarakat Sejahtera. (1990) Kuching: Education Department, Sarawak". None of his publications are with a recognized refereed journal or publisher. Most, if not all of his publications, are with local publishers including UiTM, his own institution. Almost all of his publications have to do with his favorite subject, you guessed it - ITM.
Having established his academic credentials, which are of course worthy of a Professorship, let's examine some of his other, "credentials". This is what is listed under 'political contributions'.
1. UMNO Member (1968 - present)
2. Youth Leader, UMNO Kg. Pulai (1981- 1983)
3. Committee Member, UMNO Youths Jasin, Melaka (1982 - 1983)
4. Chairman (Founder) UMNO Club, Carbondale USA (1983)
5. President, UMNO USA Club (1985 - 1987)
So apart from being an ITM 'lifer', he is apparently an UMNO 'lifer' as well including being the founder of the UMNO Club in the US, probably in the first year of his PhD in Maryland.
Under 'outside contributions', he is listed as being an "Exco of Alumni UMNO Club (oversea) (1995 – present)". Ironically he is also a member of the "Committee of Advisor National Unity (Panel) February 2007 – December 2008" and an occasional speaker at BTN forums. Boy, what would I give to be a fly in the wall in one of his BTN lectures.
Under 'forums and talks', the following is listed:
"Talk to all Malaysians UMNO division heads about "Gerakan Anti Kerajaan Pelajar-Pelajar di Kampus-Pengalaman UiTM" – 15 November 2001"
If having an in-depth knowledge of the inner workings of UiTM and being a loyal UMNO supporter are qualifications for the position of the VC of UiTM, the esteemed VC is probably the most qualified person in the universe. But if academic experience and an open outlook are the criteria, then... you guys finish the sentence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)