The Education Issue - The State of Higher Education in Malaysia

By Dato' Dr. Sharom Ahmat

The Ninth Malaysia Plan tells us that in order for the country to be competitive on the world stage, we need to develop Human Resource which is knowledgeable, highly skilled, flexible, creative and imbued with positive work ethics and spiritual values. Towards this end, a number of key development thrusts have been identified: (i) Comprehensive improvement of the education and training delivery systems (ii) Strengthening national schools so that they become the school of choice for all Malaysians and through this strengthen national unity (iii) Implementing measures to bridge performance gap between urban and rural schools (iv) Providing greater opportunity and access (v) Creating universities of international standing No one would disagree with such aims and the strategies to be adopted. And whilst understanding that it takes time to see the desired results, it must also be pointed out that issues relating to Quality and National Unity through education have been stressed in different forms perhaps ever since the First Malaysia Plan. Yet, what we continue to see is too high an incidence of mediocrity as exemplified by the tens of thousands of unemployed graduates, and probably an even higher number of those under employed. And instead of the national educational system consolidating national unity, we see continued polarization in schools and institutions of higher learning along racial lines.

In the area of higher education, despite stated national aims and objectives, the impression one gets is that Qualitative policies and progress seem to have been overtaken by Quantitative ones. Look at some examples of what is highlighted in the Ninth Malaysia Plan:(i) New Universities, University Colleges, Branch Campuses, Polytechnics and Community Colleges have grown phenomenally. In 2005 there were 71 such public institutions and an incredulous 559 in the private sector. Given that the population of Malaysia was 26.75 million that year, it meant that there was 1 higher education institution for every 42,460 people. Such a ratio, even the most developed nation must surely envy! (ii) Enrolment too had increased from 574,421 in 2001 to 731,698 in 2005 and is expected to reach 1,326,340 in 2010. This works out to an average increase of 23.2% annually. Yet another enviable achievement! But where are the Qualitative indicators? I think we need to go back to basics and start afresh in formulating policy and planning in higher education. This means the need to deliberate and debate the fundamental purpose of education, and then to translate them into practice to produce the desired results. All too often when purpose is discussed, education is seen as the provider of qualified workforce for the machinery of production and consumers of products in order to provide for the economic prosperity of the country. And on the personal level to be able to earn a respectable living. Whilst this is an important and legitimate objective, over-linking education with financial goals can turn out to be problematic in the long run. Education needs to be more, as it needs also to serve human society. Sharing of common goals, beliefs, outlook and values provide the framework which binds its members together, without which a human society cannot continue to exist. Furthermore, the society must ensure that the common ground will continue to hold from generation to generation. One of the real purposes of education is to produce citizens and leaders who can ensure the smooth operation of that society - now and into the future. Our problems - corruption, injustice, oppression, poverty - are primarily man-made. And directly or indirectly this can be traced to the education system that produces the people who perpetuate the problem. There are Rulers who sell out to foreign powers and subjugate their own people; Bureaucrats who enforce laws without justice; Generals who wage war on their own people; Businessmen who exploit and cheat; and

Politicians who abuse their power and enrich themselves. These are all educated people and in many cases highly educated. But this is what happens when the education system is devoid of proper moral training. The society becomes sick because the education system is sick and this is the real crisis in education. Nurturing the human being through moral training must always be an inextricable part of education, reflected by teaching across disciplines and by example; not merely by introducing an add-on course on moral education taught without conviction, let alone passion. The teacher is not just a professional but also a mentor and a moral guide. If you take university education, one fundamental purpose is to foster an academic community in which learning and scholarship can flourish with a resolute commitment to the principle of searching and upholding Truth. For this to happen, the university must allow for freedom of speech and freedom of scholarship - albeit with responsibility. This entails the right to raise what may be considered to be deeply disturbing questions and the right to challenge what may be deemed to be cherished beliefs of society at large and of course, of the university itself. It is this right to critical teaching and research which the university has a duty above all to be concerned, for there is no other institution in any liberal democratic society, which is the custodian of this very precious yet vulnerable right. The university must therefore be committed to the principle of respect for intellectual integrity, freedom of enquiry and rational discourse. Indeed the university needs to stand up and defend these attributes each time any of them is attacked. And the State should in fact see this as critical to the long term well being of the nation. Once this is in place, we can then deal with issues relating to curriculum, teaching and learning, scholarship and research, staff and students, leadership and management, and contributions to state and society. And in so doing, never to lose sight of the first principle of a university which is quite simply, the unfettered pursuit of Excellence. For excellence is absolutely critical since universities exist to conserve, create, re-create and communicate information, knowledge, skills and ideas and their practical application at the most advanced level possible for society. Indeed universities are the only institutions that can do this on a sustained scale for they are uniquely designed to carry out this role. In Malaysia, adherence to the principles and values discussed above is difficult to say the least. The proliferation of public universities and the seemingly overnight conversion of University Colleges and Teachers Training Colleges into full fledged universities can only result in worsening the problem of mediocrity in total antithesis to the need for excellence. Some Vice-Chancellors will tell you that each time a new university is

created, existing universities lose good academic staff, and worse, even the mediocre and the dead-wood get higher positions in order to make up the numbers. What is so tragic is that our government has been more than generous in allocating large amounts of money to the higher education sector, but the outcomes do not commensurate with the input. The allocation for tertiary education in the Eight Malaysia Plan was 13.4 billion and under the Ninth Plan there is a 20% increase to 16.1 billion. Yet in recent years we face the embarrassing deterioration in world ranking of our universities. And because the focus seems to be in increasing enrolments and graduates instead of occupying ourselves with improving quality, we see inflation and erosion in the value of the university qualification. A serious rethink and re-examination of the current status of tertiary institutions is necessary. Are expectations of government, society and the individual being met? In this context the National Higher Education Strategic Planlaunched by the Prime Minister in August 2007 is to be welcomed. This is in fact historic as for the first time in the history of higher education in Malaysia, we have a comprehensive long term plan. The Ministry of Higher Education sees the Plan as helping to create a higher education environment that will foster the development of academic and institutional excellence, thereby achieving for Malaysia "world class" higher education. And with this transformation, we should produce human capital of the highest quality with first class mentality" needed to turn Malaysia into a developed nation. To translate these highly desirable objectives into reality, the plan will undertake, amongst others, the following strategic action initiatives: (i) Strengthening of higher education institutions by attracting and retaining the best academics that can contribute significantly to advances in research and train graduates who can apply their knowledge in the world of work. This is to be achieved by giving greater autonomy to universities and by refining the role and expectations of the Board of Directors, the Vice-Chancellor and Senior Management. (ii) Creating an environment that fosters a culture of excellence in order to attract the most able to enter academia and ensure that academics are measured through continued demonstration of their passion for teaching and research. (iii) Building a critical mass of researchers, scientists and technologists so that there will be at least five renowned Research and Development Centres of excellence.

(iv) Establishing Apex Universities which will be characterized by having the Best Leaders, the Best Faculty, the Best Students and the Best Facilities. (v) Transforming the Ministry of Higher Education to effect a philosophical change from that of a Regulator and Enforcer to being a Facilitator and Partner. We can only laud the government for these initiatives, something serious educationists and others had been hoping for thus long. But for all these to become reality, one precondition must prevail - the political will to ensure its achievement. Political will in this context implies: (i) That university will truly be given autonomy to ensure excellence. (ii) The Plan describes the Vice-Chancellor as the key leader to be drawn from the "highest ranks of professionals, who must possess credentials, a track record and command the respect of key stakeholders". However, nothing done so far indicates this will be implemented. (iii) Promotion of academics is to be based on their continued demonstration of passion for teaching, research and the attributes of first class human capital. Is this being practiced? And what is being done with academics with "continued demonstration" of non-performance? (iv) Creating the right environment for Research and Development is right but will researchers be allowed to decide the agenda? This may be less of an issue in Science and Technology, but in the Humanities and the Social Sciences (which is hardly emphasised in the Plan), there is much doubt. (v) Interestingly, on the issue of Apex Universities, a Government back-bencher in Parliament, described this idea as flawed. To him, an Apex University is the product of a lengthy process, and not the result of an administrative measure; that it cannot be created, but is a process of evolution over time. (vi) For the ministry of Higher Education to be transformed in the manner envisaged, it must be staffed by the best leaders, managers and administrators, people who can command the respect of the higher education society. How possible is this? (vii) One overarching sentiment in the Plan, which is disturbing, is the bias towards what is considered as Professional and Applied courses over what is deemed to be General courses. On the one hand, our graduates are supposed to be appreciative of

humanistic pursuits, but the emphasis is the perspective of Industry which is the key imperative. Professional Courses are those that have "high exchange value" as opposed to general courses, which by implication have "low exchange value". The real issue of quality, irrespective of the type of course, seems to have no importance. In conclusion, we must acknowledge that much has been done by the Government in the area of tertiary education and huge resources have gone into supporting this sector. What concerned citizens wish to see is that the high investment which the government is rightly committed to brings the kind of results which will benefit the nation and the people. The Mission, Strategy and Action Plans are all to be lauded. The skepticism is whether there is political will to make these plans work. Or whether compromises and political expediency continue to rule the day?

Dato' Dr. Sharom Ahmat began his career in academia in 1963 as a lecturer and eventually became the Deputy Dean at the University of Singapore. He also served as a Professor of History, the Dean of Humanities and the Deputy Vice Chancellor of University Sains Malaysia. His wide knowledge in the field of education comes from over 40 years of experience in the field and has gained him advisory and consultative positions in institutions both local, and abroad.