On September 25, I wrote on the recent Time Higher Education- QS Ranking of World Universities which rated our Malaysian public universities poorly in the region and world.
Unfortunately, the sec-gen despite acknowledging the need for drastic change in the nation’s universities, totally ignored the issue of the NEP and its race related policies and how these are related to the decline in standards.
QS World University Rankings® 2014/15
The role of the NEP in the decline in public university standards goes back at least 40 years when following the May 13 racial violence, the Government launched a policy aimed at rapid expansion of bumiputera human resources, especially at the higher levels. A key component of this policy was to increase the number of Malay and other bumiputera graduates, especially from local universities.
Expansion of higher education opportunities
Only two universities had been established in the country prior to 1969 (University of Malaya and University of Penang (later renamed Science University of Malaysia). Between 1969 and 1999, nine new universities were established. Subsequently, another nine public universities have been set up, giving the country today a total of 20 public universities.
Please see the list below of public universities in Malaysia as of now.
The establishment of so many public universities within a short period of time is not necessarily a bad thing for any country. In fact, the provision of expanded educational opportunities to cater to a larger segment of the young is an important and desirable step forward for a country’s development.
Another key requirement is that the entire process of higher education expansion must bring in the best minds -- irrespective of race -- to formulate policy as well to manage and execute the process. The recent course of higher education management and policy-making from other countries shows that outcomes are best when the process of higher education is transparently managed and executed and involves independent academicians with support from enlightened members of the public as the key stake holders and players.
Outcomes of racial policies
In Malaysia, the opposite to this merit-driven and autonomous process has taken place with the Umno dominated Barisan Nasional government over the years tightening control instead of liberalizing control over the universities. For the past 30 years, we have had BN/Umno politicians play the dominant role in managing and executing higher education policies and consigning independent-minded academics to an insignificant role.
As a result of Umno’s domination in BN, Malay preferential policies have become the key policy thrust in public higher education since the 1970s.
Some of the important impacts of these policies include:
- Race, and not merit, has been the main criterion of entry of students and recruitment of academic staff in universities.
- Ethnic quotas system and other forms of Malay ethnic preference have been pursued in various forms and permutations often discreetly hidden from the public.
- Bright non-Malay talent has been marginalized often through outright exclusion. When recruited into the staff, they have little incentive to do their best or to stay in service in a Malay-dominated system.
- Teaching and research performance and standards have fallen because a system of meritocracy is only partially in place and is secondary to race and political-based criteria.
- Most academics in the public universities are resigned to the fact that race (and political connections) is a critical -- and often the major -- factor determining recruitment, promotion prospects, and access to perks and opportunities that are part of the academic system.
Government domination in the universities has also been exercised through a host of other laws and regulations such as the Statutory Bodies Discipline and Surcharge Act 2000 which makes it an offence for staff to publicly criticize government policies without ministerial permission; the unpopular University and Universities Colleges Act; and recent requirements such as the Pledge of Loyalty (Aku Janji).
All these university specific-laws and rules as well as the national laws restricting freedom of expression such as the Sedition Act (1969), the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984, and the Official Secrets Act 1972 have had a chilling effect on academic autonomy, morale and standards.
They have also directly affected the way in which staff and students function and perform in the universities. In particular they have served to inhibit any free discussion or independent analysis (including by academicians themselves!) on what is taking place in the universities, especially in relation to NEP-related policies and programmes.
Perhaps the most critical channel of control exercised by Government over public universities which has facilitated the primacy of NEP and related ethnic policies has been through its power and influence over appointment of the key higher management staff of universities that implement policy. This includes the appointment of Vice Chancellors, Deputy Vice Chancellors, deans or heads of faculties, departments and centres of learning, as well as senior administrative positions such as the Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Bursar.
Way Out of the Dead End: Need for Honest Appraisal
What is the way out of the dead end that Malaysian public universities face resulting from the continuation of NEP type policies?
- "Are we colour blind in our dealings with students, or do we show preferential treatment to students we consider ‘our own kind’?
- "Are we providing a working environment where academic integrity is paramount and the path to professional satisfaction and reward? Or are we creating an environment based on feudalistic practices that can bring about nothing but dissatisfaction?"
- "Are promotions and appointments based on merit? Are we ensuring that the most qualified academics are selected for promotion and to lead our departments, faculties and research institutions, regardless of their ethnic background? Or are we undermining morale by appointing academics based on factors other than merit?"
According to Arshad, the declining academic standards “can be reversed by an administration that is transparent, accountable, non-racial and free of corrupt practices… . We cannot be seen as promoting the goal of ending racism unless we are also seen to be people who act in [a] just and non-racial manner."
Urging academic staff to take advantage of universities to promote racial integration and instill good values in students, and to be vocal on important issues, he argued that only merit-based promotions carried out in an honest and transparent manner could account for every cent of public funds, and that anything less would be an abuse of power and corrupt act.
The good Tan Sri did not mention the NEP and its race orientation directly in his unprecedented analysis. That may have been too much of a taboo topic and too sensitive even for someone of his standing to broach.
However, he also pointed out that “[a]silent culture is not an ethical culture in academia”. Stressing the need to “stamp out corruption and racism” and to be seen as clean and trustworthy, he argued that “[w]e need to govern in a non-racial and transparent manner if we hope to get our students to understand the values of justice and accountability.”
As far as I am aware, no other senior university official has come remotely close to Tan Sri Arshad in terms of the critical tone and frankness of his appraisal with respect to the major challenges facing the universities – at least not in a public forum. That “silent culture” he spoke about has become the norm in academia as well as in the official printed mass media. Can that culture of silence and denial finally be broken?
New policies in place of the NEP would not necessarily mean less access to higher educational opportunities for deserving or poor Malays. However, in pushing Malays to compete on the basis of merit against other groups, these policy reforms would have been the most effective way of raising their standards and achievement levels as well as those of the universities as a whole.
Can the NEP and race-related policies be put back on the agenda and its pros and cons discussed and dissected without the accompanying threats and attempts at political blackmail? The answer to this question will be the crucial factor determining whether Malaysian universities can take that vital step forward in improving their standards and in regaining the respect of their peer group and the international ranking agencies.
A final concern: if these issues cannot be raised in the appraisal of our universities which is the apex of our educational system, what hope is there for the rest of the country’s society and economy that we can escape from the pervasive racial paradigm that dominates policy-planning, policy-making and policy implementation?
The wisdom of recent historical hindsight and empirical experience has decisively shown that the continued practice of the NEP’s racial restructuring prong is not only counter-productive but is also inimical to Malay and national interests. Can this truth be finally grasped by those in power and lead to changes that are long overdue?
References
-
Lim Teck Ghee, “Higher education in Malaysia and Singapore: Common roots but differing directions", Higher Education Policy, 6 (2), 20-24, 1993.
-
Francis Loh, “Crisis in Malaysia’s public universities? Balancing the pursuit of academic excellence and the massification of tertiary education???, Aliran Monthly Vol. 25, 2005: Issue 10.
-
Sharom Ahmat ,“The State of Higher Education in Malaysia" in Project Malaysia: The education issue.
-
The World Bank, Malaysia and the Knowledge Economy: Building a World-Class Higher Education System, March 2007.
Note
This article first appeared on CPI, 09 October 2009.
This is the second part of an article exploring the decline in the country’s competitiveness. For the first part, see Malaysia’s International Competitiveness: Sliding, Sliding … which appeared in this website on Sept 25, 2009. An abridged Chinese version first appeared in the Red Tomato weekly.
The focus in the paper is solely on public universities. The problems of private universities warrant a separate analysis which is not covered in this article.
