The Colour of Scholarships – By Azira Aziz

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.

HK PhD Fellowship Scheme

Those interested in doing a PhD in Hong Kong should check out this fellowship. Looks like a pretty attractive offer.

'New' JPA scholarship next year?

Read this in the Star last weekend. "A new category will be established starting next year for scholarships under the Public Services Department scheme to be awarded purely based on merit, regardless of race."

PUTRAJAYA: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun razak said he was sure that such a category would be welcomed by all communities, including the Chinese.

“We are re-studying the distribution of scholarships under the Public Services Department scheme to introduce a new category.

“Starting next year, we will see the distribution of scholarships based purely on merit, regardless of race.

“We will announce it next year and with the plan to limit to 10 subjects, we expect to see a more level playing field,” he said in his speech at a dinner organised by both MCA and the Associated Chinese Chamber of Industry and Commerce here Saturday.

Najib said this would allow Malaysia’s best students to get aid to pursue higher studies.

“So we will get the best of best and the creme de la creme getting aid for higher studies.

“I believe this will be accepted well and it will allow each individual a fair chance to realise his full potential,” he said, adding however that he was not “letting the cat out of the bag” just yet on the scheme.

Najib said contrary to common perception, not all Chinese were rich.

“Like all Malaysians, they also want to see their children have good education and become successful. All this involves costs,” he said, adding that every race had its needs and if the Government could bring policies that were fair, the Chinese would continue to support Barisan Nasional.

Najib said the Chinese was not against Malays succeeding or opposed to efforts to help the Bumiputra but that they wanted policies that looked at the needs of all Malaysians fairly.

“And that’s why I included it in the 1Malaysia concept,” he said, adding that he would also look into MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat’s request for more government land to build Chinese vernacular schools.

Najib added that during his trip to China, the Chinese government had also promised to bring more investments into Malaysia in the term of equity investments.

“I’m told they are preparing a loan fund if we need this as a sign of their commitment to us. I believe there is an opportunity for China to make an economic boost in Malaysia in terms of development that will include banking as well,” he said.

“I looked into the needs of the local Chinese community when I introduced the 1Malaysia plan, which looks into the needs of every community regardless of the colour, ethnicity and culture.

MCA president Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat said in his speech that the dinner was not just to celebrate the appointment of Najib as Prime Minister but to also show that the Chinese community would always be with the Government and his leadership as it strived to overcome the current economic problems.

A few comments:

(i) There is already a portion of the JPA scholarships which are allocated by merit (20% out of 2100 foreign JPA scholarships). Read this previous entry for more details. How will this new category of JPA scholarships be any different? Will they be restricted to those students who only take 10 subjects at the SPM level? Will there be a separate application and interview process?

(ii) Nothing is said here about the process by which these students will be bonded to the government. I've said this time and time again - most JPA foreign scholarship holders do not come back to serve the government, if they come back to Malaysia at all. There's no use giving out a new scholarship that is merit based if these students are not made to come back to serve the government in some capacity.

(iii) Nothing is said here about how the civil service will be restructured to cater to these scholarship holders. Again, I don't put the entire blame on these JPA scholars because the civil service is reluctant to take in these JPA scholars probably because they know that these high achievers will probably be bored by the career path taken by most civil servants.

I'd prefer the PM to focus on ensuring that JPA scholars are held accountable and the civil service is restructured so that these JPA scholars can come back to serve the government instead of creating another category of scholarships at taxpayers' expense.

Making sense of the JPA numbers

Read this article in the Star about a question directed to Nazri in parliament in regard to JPA scholarships. I'll reproduce it in full below since it has a lot of numbers in it. My comments follow.

68% of merit scholarships went to non-Bumiputra

KUALA LUMPUR: Nearly 68% or 280 of the Public Service Department (PSD) scholarships under the 20% merit-category were awarded to non-bumiputras, said Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz.

He said only about 32% or 135 scholarships were awarded to bumiputra in the latest round of applications for the PSD's overseas degree programme.

"This proves that the award was not based on skin color, that the Government is fair in the selection of the 20% without looking at race, culture or religion but based on academic excellence," he told Lim Kit Siang (DAP - Ipoh Timur) in Parliament Tuesday.

He also said that PSD scholarships looked at academic excellence based on nine subjects chosen by the student relevant to the degree of their choice.

"This limit was set to ensure all students were on an equal playing field because not all schools had the same facilities and teaching manpower," he said in reply to Tan Ah Eng (BN - Gelang Patah).

At the Parliament lobby, Nazri said: “We do not do things without referring to the Federal Constitution, which means that we cannot give all for merit,” he said.

Out of 2,100 PSD scholarships for students to study abroad this year, 20%, which is 417, was reserved for those with merit, regardless of race and religion, he said.

Of the 417, almost 68% were given to non-bumiputras based on merit and only 32% for bumiputras, he said.

On complaints by those with 13As and 14As and did not get scholarships, he said he could not give them because it was not fair since some schools did not allow students to take more than 10 subjects.

That was why the Government wanted to base it on 10 subjects only, he said.

Inside the dewan, Nazri said for year 2009, PSD offered 1,176 scholarships to Bumiputras and 924 to non-Bumiputras.

He also said that more than RM2.8bil in Public Service Department (PSD) sponsorships for overseas degree courses were given out between 2000 and 2008.

The sum was given to 12,485 recipients where 9,160 were bumiputera and 3,325 were non-bumiputera.

The breakdown of table showed that allocation for scholarships increased from RM109mil in year 2000 to RM659mil last year.

Similarly, the number of students also increased from 748 in year 2000 to 2,000 last year, while 598 Bumiputra students getting scholarships in 2000 and increased to 1,100 last year.

For non-Bumiputra, number of students in year 2000 was 150 and had increased to 900 last year.

From Jan 14, 2009, the awarding criteria of the Overseas Degree Programme was divided into four categories, he said.

The first was based on academic excellence without counting race and socio-economic backgrounds where selection was based on academic results (85%), co-curriculum (10%) and interviews (5%).

The category was based on current racial population ratios where one race's allocation would be divided to others if it was not used.

"Selection is also made based on academic excellence with at least A2 in all core and elective subjects.

"At the same time, the candidates were also selected based on their secondary school co-curriculum participation, families' socio-economic backgrounds and interviews," he said.

The third category, he said, were for Sabah (5%) and Sarawakian (5%) bumiputra.

The last category was given to socially disadvantaged students from rural areas with limited facilities and from low-income families.

Nazri added that applicants in categories three and four also had to have at least A2s in all subjects relevant to their degree of choice, which made up 65% of the selection criteria.

He said students under the programme were sent for first degrees in the US, UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Russie, Germany, France, Czech Republic, Poland, Egypt, Jordan, India and Indonesia.

Some general comments:

According to Nazri, 1176 out of 2100 overseas JPA scholarships were given to Bumiputra students while the rest went to non-bumi students. This is very close to the 55 / 45 ethnic quota which the government promised in June 2008.

The composition of these scholarships is as follows:

60% allocated based on 'excellence' as well as the racial composition of the country.

20% allocated purely on merit without considering any ethnic quotas.

10% allocated to students from Sabah and Sarawak (which is not the 20% promised earlier)

10% allocated to students from disadvantaged backgrounds (no ethnic quota specified).

If 280 non-bumi students were allocated the JPA scholarship from the purely merit based portion, this would mean that a balance of 644 non-bumi students were given the JPA scholarship from the other two allocations i.e. the 60% allocation based on 'excellence' and racial composition of the country and the 10% allocation based on the background of a student.

Questions of ethnic quotas aside, this kind of reply from Nazri doesn't really give me any more confidence in the way in which these JPA scholarship recipients are chosen. For example, how is the pool of 20% purely merit based students selected? How are they different from the group of 'excellent' students from which the 60% allocation is given? How is a 'disadvantaged' background determined?

Unless there is more transparency in regard to the criteria for giving out these scholarships, beyond the superficial information of 60%, 20%, 10%, 10% allocated to whom and what, the questioning of the JPA scholarship allocation will continue to rage on and on.

How Many JPA Scholars Serve Their Bond?

I've been meaning to post this for the longest time, but somehow never got around to do it. Anyway, there has been plenty of talk on the JPA scholarship (again) recently, and one of the related issues which keep cropping up is whether the talents of our returning(?) scholars are actually being fully "exploited" by the Government.

I have addressed the following question to the Prime Minister in parliament:

...berapa ramai pemegang biasiswa yang telah selesai pengajian pada 5 tahun yang lepas, antara mereka, berapakah yang telah berkhidmat untuk Kerajaan mengikut syarat perjanjian biasiswa, berapakah yang enggan menunaikan perjanjian dan yang telah dilepaskan daripada tanggungjawab mereka.

We obviously know that many of the scholars never served in Government but even I was a little taken abacked by the number who has been released incognito.

Bagi tempoh 5 tahun lepas iaitu 2003-2007, seramai 30,832 pelajar tajaan JPA telah menamatkan pengajian di dalam dan luar Negara. Jumlah ini meliputi pelajar-pelajar yang tamat pengajian di peringkat diploma, ijazah sarjana muda dan sarjana.

Sepanjang tempoh tersebut, seramai 4,920 orang telah berkhidmat dalam pelbagai skim perkhidmatan lantikan SPA. Terdapat juga pelajar-pelajar ini yang sedang berkhidmat di bawah skim perkhidmatan yang dilantik oleh Pihak Berkuasa Melantik yang lain seperti Suruhanjaya Perkhidmatan Pelajaran (SPP), Badan-badan Berkanun dan Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan.

Manakala, seramai 314 bekas pelajar tajaan JPA telah memohon dan dilepaskan daripada kontrak.

Pemegang-pemegang biasiswa yang tidak menunaikan kewajipan mereka, tidak akan dilepaskan dari tanggungjawab dengan sewenang-wenangnya. Tuntutan gantirugi melalui penguatkuasaan syarat perjanjian Biasiswa akan dikenakan ke atas mereka yang ingkar terhadap perjanjian yang telah ditandatangani.

Yes, that means that only 16% of JPA scholars actually serve their bonds upon return to the country over the last 5 years. The remainder? Your guess is as good as mine.

No wonder everyone wants the JPA scholarship, while you sign up with a bond, in practice, you'd rarely have to serve a single day of the contract.

Abolish JPA Undergrad Scholarships?

Check out Bakri Musa's latest post on the JPA undergrad scholarships. Well worth a read. I wouldn't go so far as to call for the JPA undergrad scholarships to be abolished but I wouldn't mind if the numbers were cut down drastically to only those who gain admission into the best universities overseas and if steps are taken to ensure that these students come back to serve in the public service.

Only 20% of JPA scholarships given on merit?

Not sure if the thrust of this report in the Malaysian Insider accurately reflects what the PSD DG told the DAP contingent. That 20% of the scholarships are given based on merit seems a bit too low. I'll reproduce the article below in full since Tony is mentioned a few times. I agree with his suggestion that these scholarships should be awarded based on pre-U results such as STPM results instead of SPM results and should more accurately reflect the kinds of universities that these students manage to get accepted into.

Only 20pc of PSD scholarships given on merit
By Shannon Teoh

PUTRAJAYA, May 18 — Only 20 per cent, or one in five, of Public Service Department (PSD) scholarships are given based on merit while the rest are allocated based on racial quotas.

This appears to be a key factor leading to the public outcry over the large number of top-scorers in the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM), Malaysia's school-leaving exam, not obtaining scholarships to further their studies.

This was revealed when DAP leaders, including its parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang and information chief Tony Pua, met with PSD director-general Tan Sri Ismail Adam today.

Also present was DAP Socialist Youth chief Anthony Loke, who told The Malaysian Insider that Ismail had confirmed that 60 per cent of scholarships were given out based on the population ratio of respective races.

Another 10 per cent is set aside for East Malaysian Bumiputras and the same ratio for underprivileged students.

"This is at odds with what Parliament Minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz told the house last year, when he said it would be split according to a 55:45 ratio," Loke said.

The Rasah MP said that there was no way that the current method of allocation could hit that desired ratio.

"This change of policy is why there are more clear-cut cases of qualified students not getting scholarships this year," Loke added.

Ismail had on Saturday asked the public for understanding as there are 8,000 students who qualify on merit but his department had only 2,000 scholarships to allocate.

Lim, in a press conference on Friday, had called for students with nine 1As and onwards to "automatically qualify for scholarships, especially now that the new prime minister has promised to put the people first."

Pua today also called for a total reform of the system, saying that too many high achievers were falling through the net and that pre-university courses such as A-levels or the local equivalent, Sijil Tinggi Pelajaran Malaysia, were a more accurate benchmark for who deserved a scholarship.

"We should change the benchmark to the point when they actually apply to enter university. Then if you do not get accepted into a certain list of universities, there is no argument – you are simply not qualified for a scholarship," he told The Malaysian Insider.

JPA Scholarships – Seeking A Fair & Equitable Policy

Read about all the renewed controversy over the JPA scholarships recently? Check out Kian Ming's latest take (of our many takes).

Well, in the light of the neverending controversy over the award of government scholarships by Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam (JPA) of the Prime Minister's Department, DAP will be holding a forum/dialogue session to obtain feedback from:

• aggrieved students
• current and former local and overseas scholars
• academics
• the general public

The forum/dialogue will be held as follows:

JPA Scholarships – Seeking A Fair & Equitable Policy
Venue: KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall
Date: 19th May 2009 (Tuesday)
Time: 8.00 pm

The panelists will include:

• Lim Kit Siang, DAP Parliamentary Leader and MP for Ipoh Timor,
• Anthony Loke Siew Fook, MP for Rasah and DAPSY Chief,
• Tony Pua, MP for Petaling Jaya Utara,
• Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad, PAS Research Centre Director and MP for Kuala Selangor
• Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, Selangor ADUN for Seri Setia

Dr Goh Cheng Teik, eminent academic, former deputy minister and interviewer for Harvard University admission programme in Malaysia will also be a special guest for the evening.

In addition, for students and scholars who are not able to make it for the forum (e.g., if you are overseas or if you live outstation, you are welcome to submit written submissions to the panel. Please write to: dapscholarship (at) rocketmail (dot) com.

Please forward details of the above forum to all parties concerned, especially those who have failed to secure scholarships despite outstanding results. We will be making a compilation of the complaints, appeals and suggestions made during the evening.

Never ending JPA scholarship 'controversies'

The latest JPA scholarship results have been announced and not surprisingly, it has been met with howls of protests among the usual quarters, starting with the MCA.

Here are a few links to some newspaper reports that document these protests as well as the JPA's response to these protests. You can access them here, here and here.

Protests and appeals should not be surprising given the limited number of scholarships and the higher number of 'deserving' candidates. But the JPA is not helpless in trying to quell some of these protests.

What the JPA needs to do is the following:

(i) Clarify the objectives of the JPA scholarship

- Is it to give an opportunity for academically excellent Malaysian students to study abroad?
- Is it to create a pool of talented workers who would come back to serve the country in the civil service?
- Is it to reward students from academically disadvantaged backgrounds e.g. from rural areas, from lower class families, from Sabah and Sarawak etc... an opportunity to study abroad?
- Does awarding the local versus the foreign JPA scholarship fulfill different objectives e.g. are those who are academically more gifted awarded the foreign JPA scholarship?
- How important is the racial 'quota' in determining who ultimately gets this scholarship?

Right now, my impression is that the JPA is trying to be all things to all people and trying to fulfill too many fast changing objectives with the awarding of these scholarships.

(ii) Make the criterion for obtaining these scholarships transparent to the public

- Hopefully what this will do is to quell some of the protests. At least if the public knows what these criterion are e.g. to reward students from rural areas, they will understand even if they might not agree with these criteria.

I always feel that more information and transparency is better.

(iii) Have some sort of tracking mechanism to see if these objectives have been met

- For example, JPA could easily track the statistics of different scholarship recipients e.g. % of scholars obtaining places to study in the top universities in the UK or US, graduation rates of scholars with different academic abilities based on their SPM results, % of scholars who return to Malaysia after graduation, % of scholars who return to Malaysia and work for the civil service, etc...
- Using these statistics, the JPA as well as their political masters can decide on whether their objectives have been fulfilled and if not, how the criteria for selection needs to be changed to fulfill these objectives

Right now, most JPA scholars who go abroad either don't come back to Malaysia or if they do, end up working in the private sector which is what they would have done anyways, without the JPA scholarship. Hence, it is a waste of taxpayers money.

My sense is that for this year's JPA scholarship, many more students who did not achieve academically stellar SPM results and who were from rural areas were awarded a disproportionate share of the scholarships while many students who were more academically superior but who are from the urban areas were rejected.

We've blogged about the JPA scholarships many, many times in this blog. I will summarize some of the recommendations which have been put forth here:

(i) Award these scholarships only after these students have applied to and obtained places in foreign universities
(ii) Give priority to those students who have obtained places in some of the top schools in foreign universities based on a pre-approved list of universities
(iii) Bond these students so that they have to return to Malaysia to serve in the civil service

If I were advising the Malaysian government on this matter, I would recommend the following steps:

(i) Refer to the JPA foreign scholarships as the JPA scholarships. Call the local scholarships something else since most of the attention is paid to the places for foreign universities.
(ii) Restrict the number of JPA foreign scholarships so that you can be more selective about who you pick to received these scholarships.
(iii) Create an administrative layer within the civil service that is specifically in charge of 'taking in' these JPA scholars as civil servants so that their skills and expertise can be utilized for the public good
(iv) Allow other GLCs to recruit these JPA scholars but with the caveat that these GLCs have to pay back a certain value of the scholarships (but with a discount) so that the taxpayers' money is accounted for

I would make it absolutely clear that the JPA foreign scholarships will be awarded to the best and the brightest who are willing to come back to serve their country. This way, the JPA scholarships will have a focus instead of trying to be all things to all people.

And hopefully, end some of these always occurring 'controversies' about who is or is not deserving of a JPA foreign scholarship.

Stimulus package for postgrad students

One area affected by the mini-budget or stimulus package that was announced yesterday is postgraduate education in Malaysia. All the details are not out yet but here are some of my preliminary thoughts based on the following Star report.

This is what the DPM who is also the Finance Minister and will soon by our PM said:

Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said it would finance tuition fees and research grants up to RM20,000 for every student pursuing a PhD locally and RM10,000 for students pursuing a Master’s programme.

“A total of 500 places at PhD level and 10,000 at Masters level in public universities as well as at Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Multimedia University and Universiti Teknologi Petronas will be offered,” he said.

The Higher Education Minister had this to add:

Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin was happy that the stimulus package took into the consideration the needs and problems faced by fresh graduates during the current economic slowdown.

“Not only are there several schemes for unemployed graduates, the Government is also helping them further their studies by providing financial aid,” he said at the Parliament lobby.

Right off the bat, I want to state that I am not against increasing the number of postgraduate students in Malaysia. In fact, this is probably a necessary step if we want to increase the R&D capacity in our country. But there are a few caveats here, caveats which I have discussed before in previous posts. These include - having a sufficient number of professors who can teach and guide these postgrad students and having a selection process that is rigorous enough such that only well-qualified students are admitted into these postgrad programs.

The remarks of the Higher Education minister do not inspire confidence in me. It seems to me that he sees the increase in the number of postgrad places in our public universities as a way to decrease graduate unemployment. In fact, his remarks seem to imply that these scholarships should be given to unemployed graduates!

In any economic downturn, especially in the US context, a larger number fresh graduates will opt to go to graduate school because the opportunity costs associated with grad school is lower - fewer high paying jobs under current market conditions and so on. But many of these students, especially those who can get into the top graduate programs, would have found a job if they didn't choose to go to grad school albeit one which may not meet their high expectations. These are not students who go to grad school because the alternative would be unemployment.

Perhaps the Higher Education Minister was quoted out of context but it really does seem to me that he doesn't 'get' postgrad degrees. He may really think that it's a good solution to solve unemployment in the country. If these students cannot get a job in the private sector or in government, why not ship them off to do postgrad degrees which we i.e. the taxpayer will foot the bill for?

At least the Education Minister seems to 'get' the picture a little bit better:

Meanwhile, Education Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein said the 1,000 additional posts for graduate teachers, who would be hired on contract, would enable the ministry to address the shortage of teachers in certain sectors.

These teachers will be put to productive use, hopefully, in areas where there are teacher shortages, both geographically as well as by subject. The academic 'bar', so to speak, may not be as high as that needed for a PhD student.

The costs associated with selecting a large group of students who are unsuitable for PhD programs are far greater to the taxpayer as well as in terms of human resource management. There may be high drop out rates, dropping of standards to allow sub-par students to obtain their PhDs, frustrated PhD students who are not well guided by their professors, etc...

Selangor State government to offer education scholarships?

Read this in the Star today. The Selangor state government is giving out 10 scholarships to Malays and Indians who are fluent in Chinese to pursue degrees in China. The cost of the scholarship is about RM100,000 per person. Didn't say for how long but I presume that it's for 3 or 4 years. I was ambivalent about this move initially but I think as long as the state government BONDS these students to come back to work for the state government, it is a worthwhile policy to pursue. The state government, with far more limited resources compared to the federal government cannot afford to let these students off 'for free', like the JPA scholars who are sponsored by the federal government.

HP and AMD scholarships

Hey guys, just got notification of this pretty cool scholarship being offered by HP and AMD. There are three scholarships worth RM25,000 each and as well as a HP notebook. (The last three laptops I've bought have been HPs and they've worked great for me. And no, I'm not being paid by HP to say this.:)) There are no bonds associated with this scholarship and the closing data is Sept 30, 2008. For more details, please go to this site.

Agong Scholarship

For those who are below 30 and want to pursue a Masters or a PhD, check out the Agong scholarship. 12 scholarships, 6 for Masters programs and 6 for PhD programs, are up for grabs. Deadline is 6th of August, 2008. Good luck!

Since we're on the topic of scholarships...

I've been meaning to write about this some time back but didn't find the right opportunity. But since the issue of scholarships and politicians have come up lately, I thought that this is an opportune time. This is a story concerning a Bank Negara scholar, current UM VC Rafiah Salim and Anwar Irbahim. I'll reproduce this former BN scholar's blog post below and comment on the other side of it.

Monday, February 25, 2008
Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim My Hero

I actually wanted to write this ages ago. In fact this article should be written 12 years ago way back in 1996. I was 22 years old. A young ambitious chap who just graduated from Melbourne University in Australia.

I have to admit that I wasted most of my time there. Being a Bank Negara scholar, I took things for granted. Late nights out, jamming session, movies/videos (during that time VCD has not been invented :)took priority over my studies. I was totally wrong to underestimate the commitment required for an undergraduate course. Perhaps my excellent SPM results have somehow make me think I was smart enough to go thru university years. How wrong I was.

I can still recalled my first semester exam taken in autumn 1993. It was a Business Computing paper. The night before the exam, AC Milan came to town to play the Australia national team. Me and my college buddies decided that since we know so much about computers, perhaps some time off could be taken to witness the Italian job on football. To be honest, it was a grand occasion. The likes of Paulo Maldini commanding the left pitch was a sight to behold. We came back after supper and started to panic rushing thru the lecture notes and tutorial. I failed the exam miserably. It served me right. It was partially an eye opener (still tak sedar diri) for me since I was under contract to complete the degree with honours within the stipulated time (4 years in my case). I barely got thru the others (my highest mark was 60) and have to re-sit the Business Law exam. My first year was a total disaster, academically and personally.

I tried to buck-up and concentrate more on my studies in my 2nd and 3rd year although the distraction was sometime too hard to resist. Baillieu Library became my second home. In order for me to be accepted to continue the 4th year (Hons), I need to at least obtain an average of 75% throughout my 3 years as an undergraduate. The law of average was too cruel on me. My 1st year result brought down the average to 73%, just 2% short of the required grade. I went to see the Hons program co-ordinator and begged her mercy to accept me as the Hons candidate. Failure to be accepted in the Hons programme could cost me RM240,000 for breach of contract. She tried her best but I guess her best wasn't good enough (sounds familiar?). I tried to console myself by enjoying my Graduation Day. At least I've got a degree :)

December 1995. I came back for good from Australia. Ready to serve the Central Bank of Malaysia. But I was brought to reality when the then Assistant Governor, Rafiah Salim call all scholars to her office. When it came to my turn, she crunched my results and threw it to me saying, "With results like this, you are not good enough to work at the bank" I was totally embarrassed and devastated in front of my colleagues. She treated me like rubbish. Demanding me to pay RM240,000 for breach of contract. I actually offered myself to work at any post (guards included) as long I could serve my contractual obligation with the Bank. After all, I did have a degree, not a total disaster in my own opinion. Even some of my seniors didn't complete the Hons. year but were still accepted to work in the bank. But to her, I was public enemy number 1. The one who tarnished the prestigious image of the Central Bank. All my appeals went to deaf ears and they started to issue a demand letter for breach of contract. I will never forgive Rafiah Salim for what she did on me and my family.

My family was in disarray after knowing that I need to pay RM240k. How on earth can we earn that much? My father, being a hot tempered guy, always directed his anger towards Ibu. Pity my mum, I would say she's the most patient human being in the world, tolerating my father's antics without even raising her voice. We tried to seek help with this so-called helpful politician but to no avail. We even seeked the assistance from Datuk Salomon Selamat, my father's schoolmate, the then YDP SDARA, my very own alma mater.

He promised us that he'll do his best but whenever my father called him, he kept on giving the same answer and finally told us that he can't assist us after we were made to wait for more than 5 months. A true politician indeed! I have nothing personal against Datuk Salamon. Just disappointed with his know everybody attitude but in reality....? It would be completely fine if he told us that he can't help us during our very first meeting. But having to waste precious months like menunggu bulan jatuh ke riba is a bit to much for me.

In the mean time, I went to this job interview at a Bank Negara affiliate. If I'm not mistaken some kind hearted BNM's HR staff called me and ask me to go for the interview. Lucky enough I was accepted but my offer letter was withheld thanks to Rafiah Salim who convinced the Governor not to allow my contract to be transferred to BNM's affiliate.

I totally ran out of hope. My father drafted a last appeal letter addressed to Anwar Ibrahim of the Ministry of Finance. About 3 days after that, we received a call from his secretary En. Muhammad Ahmad, if I recalled correctly. He called to get a clearer picture on my case and say he'll recommend to Dato Sri Anwar to write to BNM's governor to appeal on my behalf. Having been toyed around by many politicians, I didn't put my hope that high and was prepared for another disappointment. Two days later, I received the news I've been waiting for 9 freaking months. BNM has agreed to transfer my contract and release me from any contractual obligation.

Anwar Ibrahim did it in 5 days. The others took almost 5 months before saying they can't do anything to help me. For that I owe him my sincerest gratitude. Forget about all the nasty things accused on him (I don't even care if all the accusations were true) Dato Sri Anwar Ibrahim is my savior. A true hero indeed. You'll surely get my vote of thanks.

First of all, from a cursory glance at this person's posts, I would say that he's a pretty intelligent and articulate guy who probably would have easily made the 75% needed for the honors program if he had not screwed up his first year. Even with his horrible 1st year results, he fell short only by 2% points.

Of course, I have no way of judging how difficult it is to achieve that 75% mark in the University of Melbourne which is one of the top 2 or three unis in Australia. The only basis for comparison I have is my brother in law whose average was something like 95% at the U of Sydney but since he topped his SAM program with an average of 99%, he's probably not a good basis for comparison. (No scholarship to Australia for him alas) My sense is that 75% is probably not that difficult achieve if one is reasonably intelligent and hardworking.

Secondly, I think that Rafiah was a little hard-assed in dealing with his case. Although he had a contractual obligation to get the Honors mark, I'm sure that he was not the first scholar at Bank Negara to do that and to get away with it. And like he mentioned in the post, many of his seniors, presumably also under a BN scholarship, didn't have honors degrees. It certainly seems that Rafiah was trying to make an example of him.

This story and some of the stories shared in the previous post on Saiful Bukhari made me wonder about how widespread these kinds of stories are. How many other Malaysian scholarship holders have gone abroad and basically partied their way through 3 or 4 years of university life without having to worry about their grades and such.

This guy at least made an attempt to buck up after his first year. I wonder how many others didn't care even after scoring badly in their first year because they thought they could somehow 'get away with it' because of the lax standards set back home in Malaysia.

Of course, sometimes, the sponsoring agencies can go overboard. For example, the Singaporeans here at Duke are expected to finish their degrees in 3 years rather than 4 (which means summer school most of the time they are here) and have to have a GPA of 3.8 and above which is not exactly easy to maintain at a place like Duke. But my sense is that Malaysian scholarship sponsoring agencies are still very far from setting such high standards.

I can't help but feel a bit pissed off when I read the above post. Even as I sympathized with the writer in his treatment by Rafiah, I can't help but to compare his situation to my own. I was lucky enough that my parents could afford to send me to LSE for my undergrad. Perhaps it was because of my Singapore 'training' and perhaps it was because I didn't want to waste my parent's hard earned money, I worked really hard for my first two years at LSE just so I could secure a 1st class honors. By the end of my 2nd year, I was more or less guaranteed of graduating with a 1st class honors (unless I were to fail all my subjects in my 3rd year). In a sense, I was in the opposite situation compared to the BN scholar above.

There were a few other Malaysian scholars who were studying economics in my year and only 1 of them managed to get a first class. (She would end up being my colleague later at BCG) The other scholars either graduated with a 2nd upper or a 2nd lower. My impression was that some of them didn't really work that hard or want to achieve the same kind of academic excellence I was searching for. (And it was not as if I was studying all the time. I was pretty active in ECAs, took time to travel around Europe and do all sorts of stuff) In my opinion, I though I was at least as deserving of a Malaysian scholarship as the other Malaysians under scholarship at LSE (if not more so) purely from the perspective of academic results. If my parents could not afford it, I probably couldn't have gone to LSE. And yet others whom I thought were perhaps less deserving could have easily gotten scholarships (and did!)

(I could tell you of other stories. About a friend who is one of the smartest people I know who went to UTexas because it was the cheapest option available to him and later got into the PhD program in physics at Caltech. Or about another friend who obtained 4As and 2 distinctions in two "S" or Special papers for his A levels and whose mom had to work for a few years in the Middle East to fund his studies at Cambridge)


I didn't know any politicians who could 'pull the right strings' for me back then. Perhaps I could have gotten some sort of government funding / scholarship if I did.

But even later on, when I knew many more politicians (remember I used to work for MCA and GERAKAN), I didn't rely on these contacts to get funding to come over to the US. Thankfully I received funding from Fulbright and from my university. If not, I probably wouldn't have come here. I didn't ask a political party to fund my application here. I didn't ask any MPs or Ministers to write me a recommendation letter even though I easily could have. Perhaps, I was naive in not using these contacts in a more astute manner in the same way that Saiful Bukhari and this writer did. But thankfully, this naivete did not harm my prospects.

These episodes only makes me wonder aloud - how many people in Malaysia have gotten scholarships because of who they know rather than based on academic criteria? And how many other deserving Malaysians have been left out because they didn't know the right people?

Can someone with a GPA below 2.0 get a scholarship?

I'm sure that our readers are aware of the latest political scandal to hit Malaysian political scene involving Anwar and his aide, Saiful Bukhari. I won't go into the political implications of this scandal. I've written about this in Malaysiakini and you can read it here and here. I just want to ask a rhetorical question here. Can a student such as Saiful Bukhari, who dropped out of Uniten after getting a GPA of less than 2.0 be entitled to a scholarship since this was what Najib alleges Saiful was asking for when he visited the DPM's office? I wish that I had known this. I would have recommended my friends to run as student leaders in the public unis and then use this as the basis to apply for a scholarship even though their grades may be shot to pieces.

Another take on the JPA policy change

This letter was written by a friend of mine, the astute Neil Khor. Many good points raised by him.

Have merit-based system for scholarships
Neil Khor | Jun 9, 08 2:48pm

I refer to the Malaysiakini report PSD scholarships: Publish names, results.

There are many reasons why everyone should be given a scholarship. A student with 11As, who comes from a poor family living in rural Malaysia is definitely someone who deserves support. The government or charitable organisation that supports such a student is uplifting not only an individual but also his family, helping them out of poverty. That is what a government scholarship should ultimately do - better all lives not just the individual.

Which brings us back to the issue of the contentious 45% quota for non-Malays, an increase from 10%. Here is a case of knee-jerk reaction. If urban, mostly non-Malay constituents have rejected the BN, the government - with its great compensatory power - now wants to buy back their votes by giving more non-Malays scholarships. At the same time, this creates an opposite reaction from certain Malay groups, losing them Malay voters.

If the government really wants to take the wind out of the opposition’s sail, they should simply do away with race-based quotas all together. The criteria should be purely merit-based. There must be clear and objective methods of measuring how disadvantaged a student really is. If he or she comes from the rural area, it must be ascertained that the individual deserves the scholarship because of the lack of resources, not merely financial but also infrastructural - lack of good teachers, library etc.

However, if the individual lives in the big city but is the son of a hawker and has to help out in his/her parents, then the individual also needs to be assisted because urban poverty has denied him/her access to the library or facilities at school. Here again, a merit-based system can be implemented. The level of rural or urban poverty can be indexed.

Luckily, Malaysian men are such poor academic achievers and we may not need to provide similar handicaps for Malaysian women, although many deserve such extra help because we still live in a patriarchal society. Attitudes toward female education has changed and here the government can really take some credit for improving the lot of women.

But most importantly of all is quality of distinctions. The education ministry might want to make examinations more stringent to avoid giving the impression that all students are deserving of a scholarship. This does not mean that everyone has to fail but rather the award of a distinction must be of the same quality through time. An STPM distinction in 1992, for example, was regarded as much more valuable than a distinction in the A-Level Examinations in the UK at the time. Similarly, a UM degree of 1996 was acceptable to the Cambridge University for entry into its postgraduate degree programmes.

As for extra-curricular activities, they make for a more rounded individual. But one must be careful not to push people into activities they would otherwise not join simply to earn merit points. Extra-curricular activities give us an impression, particularly at the interview session, of the candidate's maturity and commitment to excellence. The scholarship board can then judge for themselves whether or not the candidate has the right qualities that will ensure he/she actually finishes the degree course.

The BN has to take bold steps to reform Malaysia. No body or organisation will deny a Malaysian a scholarship if he/she has the grades, comes from a disadvantaged background, is an all-rounder and has the track-record of delivery. We are now entering a period of belt- tightening, with less money to spend on development or education as all our resources are channeled to combating inflation. It might be wise for the government to implement a merit-based system that does justice to this new generation of Malaysians.

As for all the various race-based organisations and their detractors, they can still go about promoting race-based scholarships. All they need to do is to set up their own scholarship funds and finance worthy students through those funds. Now that the government has limited resources, it is time to ask ‘what you can do for the nation’ rather than demand for primordial rights. For ‘nothing comes of nothing’ thus by demanding without actually deserving or giving, does more harm than good. There is nothing wrong in wanting to help but it is not right to take away from others just because of the colour of their skin.

JPA scholarships - an update

Saw this update on the Star. 161 Indian students received the JPA overseas scholarship, up from 120 last year, an increase of 34% which less than the 400% increase in the quota for non-Bumi students. (from 10% to 45%)

I found the 120 number a little strange. If the previous quota was 10% and only 2000 scholarships were given out, this means that non-Bumi students should have gotten only 200 scholarships. If 120 were given out to Indian students, then presumably only 80 were given out to Chinese students.

The reason I find this hard to believe is that my encounters with JPA students have always led me to conclude that there were more scholarships given to Chinese compared to Indian students. That there would be more scholarships given to Indian students doesn't make sense from an observation standpoint nor does it make sense from a political standpoint. MCA's lobbying power is presumably greater than that of MIC's and as such, it doesn't make sense that there would be more Indian JPA scholars than Chinese JPA scholars.

Please note that I am not making any claims as to who 'deserves' these scholarships more. I'm just trying to look at the figures from a rational standpoint and they don't make sense.

One possibility is that the MIC Minister, S Subramaniam, got his figures for the previous year wrong. Another is that JPA was already awarding more than 10% of the JPA scholarships to non-Bumis. I'm not sure which possibility is more likely.

But if the JPA policy change was implemented this year, then this must mean that most of the balance of the 900 scholarships should have been allocated to Chinese students which is approximately 740 scholarships (taking away the 160 allocated to the Indians). This means that Chinese students are probably the biggest beneficiary of this policy change. If we assume that there were about 150 scholarships allocated to Chinese students before this policy change, this would represent close to a five fold increase!

Remember what I said in this earlier post about some people ignoring the intra ethnic distributional consequences of the JPA scholarship such as the fact that most Malay recipients would be from middle class families? I think that we may also ignore the intra non-Bumi distributional consequences.

It is no surprise to me that the freeing up of this quota system would benefit the Chinese more than the Indians. Not only are there more Chinese in this country, a larger proportion of Chinese are in the middle class, which following the above logic, would be in prime position to capture gains from policy liberalization. Again, this is not an argument for the superiority of one race over another. It's making conclusions based on sound logic.

This story also tells me that we need to be clear about what the JPA scholarships hope to achieve. Is it just to award the top scholars who disproportionately come from the middle classes? Or is it to give a leg up to scholars from the lower classes? There is a trade off between these two objectives. Of course, they can be straddled someone - such as having a proportion of the scholarships means tested - but this trade off will continue to exist.

I'm not jumping up and down just because more Chinese and Indians will receive the JPA overseas scholarship. My thoughts on this topic is well documented in this blog. Most of these scholars won't come back to Malaysia and even if they do, won't serve the government in any way, shape or form. It's still money wasted, in my opinion but since JPA scholarships are not going to go away or be revamped anytime soon, I need to keep writing about it.

JPA Scholarships - Beyond Racial Quotas

As promised, part 2.

JPA scholarships - beyond racial quotas
Ong Kian Ming and Oon Yeoh | Jun 7, 08 11:44am

Previously, we discussed the political implications of the change in the racial quota for the JPA overseas scholarship allocation. In this article, we want to bring up certain weaknesses in regards to this scholarship which many politicians and NGO representatives do not bring up when supporting or criticizing the latest policy change.

These weaknesses cut across racial lines which should tell us that often, we have to take off our racial lens and look beyond them in discussing issues of this nature.

JPA offers two types of scholarships. They offer approximately 2,000 overseas scholarships and 10,000 local scholarships. The overseas scholarship is obviously the more prestigious scholarship and garners most of the public press and dissatisfaction.

Most of the public is unaware of the cost of the overseas scholarships. A conservative estimate is that one overseas scholarship costs roughly RM200,000. A degree in a university in London or in a top private university in the US would cost more, perhaps between RM300,000 to RM400,000. Using the lower and more conservative estimate, one cohort of JPA scholars would cost the taxpayers roughly RM400 million. While this pales in comparison to the billions of ringgit spent on oil subsidies, it is still no laughing matter.

So if Umno Youth proposes an increase in the number of overseas scholarships from 2000 to 3000, we are talking about an additional allocation of RM200 million, not an insignificant amount.

In addition, the public is probably unaware of the fact that the return on investment, so to speak, from the JPA overseas scholarship is almost non-existent. Almost ALL overseas JPA scholars do not end up working for the JPA or the government. Many of them choose to stay overseas. Those who come back to Malaysia often end up working for the private sector which provides better pay, working conditions and promotion prospects. (Those who are sponsored to do medicine may be the only exception)

Furthermore, almost ALL of these scholars who break their JPA bonds do not pay a single cent back. It is a standing joke among some JPA scholars that when they go back home, they notify JPA that they are back, submit an application form to the JPA and then wait for them to ‘lose’ these forms and release these scholars from their JPA obligations.

In other words, these scholarships are given away, more or less, for FREE to these scholars.

No structure

One may ask – why doesn’t the JPA ask these scholars to work for them or to work for another government department or ministry? The sad fact of the matter is that there is currently no structure within the public service that can fully utilize the skills and smarts of JPA scholars. Unlike the Singapore PSC, the equivalent to the JPA, scholars are not rotated and fast tracked within the different ministries that they might be allocated to.

rais yatim akademi seni convocation 211206 students In addition, there is probably very little appetite among some in the public service who do not want to see smart and capable JPA scholars coming in to ‘shake things up’ and possibly outshine them. Hence the current ‘close one eye’ policy of not forcing these scholars to work for the government or to ask them to pay the bond back in any form or fashion. Again, breaking the JPA bond cuts across racial lines which is not surprising given the current state of our policies.

Can Malaysia really afford this kind of policy? Even Singapore, by far a richer country than Malaysia, is not so generous in giving out scholarships to its citizens without having them to work for it or to pay it back. The Singapore government is infamous for chasing down bond breakers and forcing them to pay back the value of their scholarships, often at punitive interest rates.

There is a school of thought which says that the social benefits of sponsoring these scholars to go abroad and then releasing them to work for the private sector is more beneficial to the country compared to forcing them to work for the government. This argument is flawed in many ways.

Firstly, it ignores the fact that many JPA scholars do not even come back to work in Malaysia. Given that JPA does not release figures of where these JPA scholars end up working (one doubts if they even know), we cannot even be sure of the percentage of scholars who come back to work in Malaysia.

Secondly, it assumes that these scholars would not have been able to obtain other scholarships either from Malaysia or from overseas if the JPA scholarship did not exist. There are many other organisations in Malaysia which provides overseas scholarships such as Bank Negara, Petronas, Telekom and Tenaga, just to name a few. Some, especially Petronas, have much better track records of keeping their scholars or asking those who break their bonds to pay it back.

Thirdly, it assumes that the social benefits accruing from these scholars going overseas to study is somehow higher than if they had remained in Malaysia and did their degree in a public university. This is hard to justify since a smart and motivated citizen would be able to contribute to society whether he or she studies abroad or at home. In fact, one can make the argument that the social benefit of a scholar staying at home would be greater than going overseas since this would increase the overall quality of students in our public universities.

Look beyond racial quota

The social benefits argument clearly does not hold water.

Some of the other criticisms of this policy change also fail to look beyond the racial quota. An example of this is the statement made by ABIM addressing its concern over this policy change on the grounds that the poverty level among Malays is higher than the other communities and indirectly arguing that Malays should be given the larger share of these scholarships.

students protest campus election suhakam 240807 playcardWhat these critics conveniently ignore is the distribution of these scholarships among the Malays. In most countries where affirmative action is practiced, it is usually the middle and upper middle class of the targeted community that benefits from these policies. This is certainly the case in the US where minority students (Black and Hispanic) who are in the top universities come disproportionately from middle and upper middle class families. We would not be surprised if the same is found in the Malaysian context – that the JPA scholars, including the Malays, come disproportionately from middle and upper middle class families. Hence the argument that the previous racial quota should be maintained on the grounds of helping poor Malays is not a sound one.

It is a little saddening that ABIM, a well respected Muslim NGO, would want to deal with this issue that does not directly deal with the issue of Islam. Even from the perspective of justice, it seems that they like other Malay organizations, only care about the issue when changes in racial quotas are involved and totally ignore the distributional impact of policies within the Malay community.

Such arguments also ignore another related change in the JPA policy which is to automatically provide a scholarship to those with 10A1s and above and whose families earn less than RM1,500 a month, regardless of race. Surely such a means tested policy is more just than a blind racial quota from a progressive and an Islamic perspective.

More information is always better than less especially for those interested in researching this area. If the JPA were to collect and then release relevant data on the allocation of these scholarships – race, SPM results, family income, university, whether they return to Malaysia, where they end up working, etc… - then perhaps some of the doubts surrounding the JPA scholarship could be quelled. More importantly, it could guide us towards making better policies in regards to the JPA scholarship.

To summarize, there are more important issues surrounding the JPA scholarship other than the racial quota. Most important is the fact that the returns on investment from these scholarships is almost non-existent since these scholars don’t return to work for the government (if they do come back at all) nor do they pay back their bonds. Given the high cost associated with these scholarships, this situation is not tenable in the long run.

JPA scholarships - who wins, who loses

Since some of our readers are not Mkini subscribers, I'll post my two articles in full here. Hope that Mkini doesn't mind. This is part 1. Part 2 will follow.

JPA scholarships - who loses, who wins?
Ong Kian Ming and Oon Yeoh | Jun 6, 08 12:59pm

Why this sudden increase in the non-Malay scholarship quota? What are some of the political implications arising from this policy change?
Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, the minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, announced last week that the JPA (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam or Public Service Department) overseas scholarships allocation would be changed from a bumiputera-non-bumiputera ratio of 90/10 to 55/45.

This is a subject which is close to the heart of Kian Ming, who runs a blog covering education issues, together with PJ Utara MP Tony Pua. In this first article, we discuss the political rationale underlying such a move and what the political impact might be. In the next article, we move beyond the racial and political rhetoric and discuss certain shortcomings of this scholarship, none of which have been brought up by those who are supportive or protesting against this policy change.

The allocation of the JPA overseas scholarship is of symbolic importance for the Chinese and Indian Malysians, since year after year, complaints about top SPM scorers who are of Chinese and Indian descent failing to obtain the JPA scholarships are always featured in our newspapers. Indeed, Malaysiakini has seen a deluge of such letters from disappointed students and parents in the past month or so. (The actual number of non-Malays affected by this particular policy is actually quite small when considering the number of SPM students in one cohort).

tunku abdul rahman tar college 290307 studentsThis is not the first time that the BN has shifted its policy on the racial allocation of the JPA overseas scholarship. It was widely speculated that after the 1999 general elections, the number of JPA overseas scholarships given to non-Malays were increased. But that was never publicised in the same manner as this policy change and the more than four-fold increase in the number of scholarships given to non-Malays took many people by surprise, including Kian Ming, who has been following issues to do with education in Malaysia for some time.

Why this sudden increase in the non-Malay scholarship quota? What are some of the political implications arising from this policy change?

A charitable view of this policy change is that the government finally succumbed to public pressure and to rejecting the large number of otherwise qualified non-Malays and listening to their appeals, time and again.

Of course, one can also see this as a political move to appease the non-Malay voter base which abandoned the BN in large number in the previous election. By changing a policy which has symbolic value in the eyes of the non-Malays, the BN is hoping to win back the hearts and minds and votes among members of these communities.

A more cynical and perhaps nefarious view of this policy change is that it is a subtle political strategy by BN, more specifically Umno, to create a climate of fear among the Malays that their rights are slowly being eroded because of the rise in the power of Pakatan. Of course, this would require a lot of subtle maneuvering on the part of the BN since they are the ones who actually approved this policy change and not Pakatan.

Protests from the usual suspects

To be fair to the government, there actually has been a subtle shift in the language used in defining education policy over the past decade or so. While we may debate the comparability of the matriculation course which is largely taken by Malays, and the STPM course which is largely taken by non-Malays as the entry requirements to our public universities, the word used to define the entry process has been ‘meritocracy’ in the past few years.

This despite the initial protests by Umno Youth which still surfaces from time to time. One does not anticipate that the meritocracy process for entering our public universities will be changed in the near future. Similarly, one does not anticipate this JPA scholarship policy change to be reversed any time soon despite the protests from some of the usual suspects including Umno Youth, Abim and GPMS, just to name a few.

But even the reservations expressed by Umno Youth were couched in terms that were more ‘flexible’, in a manner of speaking. Their representative did not ask for the quotas to go back to the 90/10 allocation but instead proposed that the total number of scholarships should be increased and the allocation quota revised to 70/30 so that no scholarships would be taken away from the Malays while giving an additional allocation to the non-Malays.

school students 220606 01Do we expect the non-Malays to respond to this policy change by swinging their support back to the BN? We think not.

It would take more than just one policy measure of this nature to win back the hearts and minds of the non-Malays. While this may have worked in the aftermath of previous elections when the non-Malay opposition parties performed well, we are in living in a different political environment. Pakatan can always respond to this by promising the non-Malays that they would implement a more equitable allocation policy across the board and not just for the JPA overseas scholarship.

One strategy used by PAS in past elections has been to ask voters and its supporters to take whatever goodies which the BN offers them, including free rice and the like, and then vote for PAS in the voting booth. It is not hard to imagine the non-Malays behaving in a similar fashion.

The reaction among the Malay grassroots has been harder to judge. Kian Ming senses a subtle and gradual shift in the Malay ground in terms of coming to terms with the eventuality of competing on a more level-playing field with the non-Malays beginning with the education realm. The fact that there has been a noticeable increase in the number of Malays performing well at the SPM level has perhaps helped assuage the fears among Malays that they cannot compete with the non-Malays.

The noticeable silence among the Pakatan parties will probably help in not making this issue one which the BN can capitalise on. DAP has not made any statements either in support of this policy perhaps because they do not want to give undue credit to the government, and PAS, not wanting to incite the Malay ground, has not made any statements critical of this policy.

Pakatan has also been helped by the fact that this issue has been overshadowed by other more demanding and headline grabbing issues such as the petrol price hike and the on-going speculation of political crossovers. Under more normal political circumstances, this policy change would have had much more political coverage.

Even more changes to come?

Is this a sign of the things to come, that there will be similar liberalisations in racial quotas in other areas be it in the education or the economic realm?

We are more guarded in this respect. As mentioned before, the push for more ‘meritocracy’ has been an ongoing initiative in the education realm. It would be a stretch to extend this to the business and economic realm, for example, at least in the near future. One would not expect government contracts or top government positions to be suddenly allocated in a more equitable fashion, many of them which currently are not even distributed according to a 90/10 ratio.

One also cannot discount the role of government agency here. Nazri has been consistently unpredictable in his policy statements and decisions but one thing that has been consistent about him is his desire for publicity. He could have pushed for this policy change not only because he felt that it might have been the expedient thing to do but that it would also garner him positive publicity, especially from the non-Malays. Other Umno politicians, who might not want to stick their necks out on the chopping block, would likely not do the same in other policy areas.

To summarise, the significance of this policy change should not be discounted, even if it is limited to one small area of education policy in this country. It is part of a more gradual shift in defining the terms of competition, at least in the education realm. Whether this will translate into the business and economic realms is harder to predict.

While the non-Malays would welcome this policy, the political circumstances of the day will limit the swing in their support back to the BN. The effect on the Malay ground is harder to judge but so far, the grassroot reaction seems slightly muted. It probably helps that the hike in petrol prices quickly knocked this particular issue of the front pages and minds of voters.

JPA Quota Revised

This is pretty big news. I'm sure many of your readers would have read about how the JPA ethnic quota has been changed from 90% Bumi / 10% Non-Bumi to 55% Bumi and 45% Non-Bumi. It was announced by Nazri Aziz, Minister in the PM's department sometime last week. The responses have been coming in thick and fast. I'm sure that this will not be the first time we will tackle this issue on this blog. Tony would have other insights and opinions. But let me fire off the first salvo.

First of all, I'm not exactly elated or jumping for joy at this news, contrary to expectations. Why? I've said many times in this blog that I think that as long as JPA doesn't effectively bond the overseas JPA scholars to Malaysia, I would prefer to JPA overseas scholarship component to be scrapped altogether. It costs Malaysia a few hundred million ringgit a year without any guarantee of returns. Singapore, a far richer country than Malaysia, would never throw hard earned tax dollars at such a scheme which promises very low returns to investment. You can read my previous posts here and here.

So, even if the distribution of this scholarship has become more 'meritocratic' (which I think it will given the new ethnic quota), there is little reason to celebrate if one looks at how our tax dollars are spent in this regard.

That being said, I never thought that I'd see the day when there would be a policy change in such as sensitive area i.e. JPA overseas scholarships. This is a major shift in the thinking of the policy makers, even if it is in one small area of policymaking. For now, I want to avoid the political strategy behind this move (I'll save that for one of my Realpolitik podcasts and Malaysiakini writeu-ps).

If this is an indication that the government is willing to shift the way it make policy especially in the area of higher education and our public universities, then I would certain welcome it.

My underlying assumption here is that the changing of the ethnic quota parallels a move towards moving to a more meritocratic way of policymaking and of promotions and hiring practices, for example. One can argue that this may not necessarily be the case since it is possible that certain Bumis who have better results and so on might lose out to non-Bumis with poorer results. But I think history has shown that most of the time, it was largely qualified non-Bumis who were denied the JPA scholarships rather than the other way round (if not, why have a quota in the first place?).

Hence, there are good reasons to support this policy on meritocratic grounds. Since JPA overseas scholarships won't be abolished anytime soon, I think that this is the best situation one can hope for. (Of course, my preferred solution would be to abolish ethnic quotas completely and offer scholarships on a purely merit base system but this is politically infeasible)

In addition, there is a means tested component now for the JPA overseas scholarships. From what I understand, those scholars who have been shortlisted and whose parents earn less than RM1,500 a month would automatically be awarded the scholarship regardless of race. This is certainly in line with the component of the NEP which is supposed to help the poor in Malaysia, regardless of race. Again, I think that this is something positive.

But one has to recognize that there may be potential costs when one practices means testing. It's something which many people don't want to say because it is not politically correct. Which is if one shortlists top SPM scorers from low income families, the probability of these scholars getting into a top university in the UK or the US is lower than if a top scorer from a middle or upper middle income family were to have been selected.

Before you guys start throwing barbs at me, recognize that I'm stating a well known finding. I'm not saying that someone from a low income family cannot get into a top ranked US or UK university. What I'm saying that the proportion of students who get into these schools who come from middle and upper middle income families is usually higher. If you look at the top schools in the US, even some of the need blind ones and those with very generous financial aid schemes, you'll find that the middle and upper middle income kids form the largest proportion of students. There are many reasons for this - exposure, support from parents, networking effects - which I won't go into but it's something that we should recognize as one of the by products of 'means testing'. Of course, this doesn't mean that many of these kids can't get into a perfectly respectable university. It all depends on what you want the JPA to achieve and who you want it to reward.

I'm flagging this to show the complexity and consequences of different policy decisions. For example, Tony, in a much earlier post, suggested that instead of awarding JPA scholarships after SPM, we should award JPA scholarships after the students have applied to and gotten into a list of pre-approved top ranked universities. This would certainly be much more meritocratic and would award students based on a more explicitly laid out terms and conditions but again, it would be regressive in that it would probably be advantageous to those from middle or upper middle class families. Those who can afford to spend money on books to prepare a student for the SAT not to mention the expensive application process to many of these universities.

Being someone who likes more information rather than less, I think that many of these questions can be partly answered if more information were revealed to researchers, politicians, activists and the public at large. For example, I would love to see the grade distribution of those who obtained the JPA prior to this change in the quota and after the change in the quota. Did the standards for the non-Bumis fall after the quota was relaxed? Did the standards for the Bumis rise for the same reason? Did the means testing have anything to do with this?

What about the kinds of universities and courses which the respective JPA scholars were admitted to? What was the geographical distribution? How many got into top notch universities? Again, what was the correlation between the means tested students and the kinds of universities they got into?

I hope that I've illustrated the complexity involved in trying to evaluate the merits and demerits of such a policy change. The thing that I dislike about certain groups coming out to protest or to support such a policy change is that they only focus on the ethnicity quota issue without delving deeper into some of the other implications such as the poor return on investment, the implications of means testing, the kinds of schools which the scholars get into and the underlying rationale for the JPA (is it to reward good scholars who can get into top schools or those who come from lower income families?). I admit that I'm sometimes guilty of looking at things strictly from a racial lens but I do try not to. And I've certainly tried to in this particular instance.