UM rises in the Times rankings

As my co-bloggers often take pains to point out, rankings are far from everything. But still, rankings are something, so here are the top 200 universities in the world, as ranked by the Times Higher Education Supplement. UM has reentered the top 200, a welcome development. The Vice-Chancellor is targeting further improvement.

UM's comparative advantage

Lest I be accused of always bashing UM, here's a bit of good news concerning the oldest university in our young country. "Singapore’s youngest private university, SIM University (UniSIM), is cooperating with Universiti Malaya (UM) to expand the use of Bahasa Malaysia at the international level through sharing of expertise, syllabus and training. UniSIM president Prof Cheong Hee Kiat said the two institutions hoped to realise the objective through such cooperation forged for UniSIM’s Bachelor in Malay Language and Literature programme." Good to see UM's comparative advantage put to good use abroad. Perhaps this can be replicated in other places e.g. Thailand or China?

Postgrad smokescreen?

One of the first initiatives announced by new UM VC, Prof Ghauth Jasmon, is the decision to increase the number of post graduate students at the UM and reducing the number of undergrads. This is not really something new. We've blogged about it here and here. Many of my previously expressed concerns are still valid today. What I fear more is that this may be a smokescreen that the new VC will be forced to use to increase the number of foreigners at the postgrad level in an attempt to artificially boost UM's position in the THES rankings.

This is a sample of what I previously blogged about:

The first question that comes to mind is this - where are all these 'extra' postgraduate students going to come from? According to the same Table, to achieve this three fold increase in postgraduate student enrolment, we need to have an annual average growth rate of 26% for the next 5 years. That seems like a pretty tall task. Imagine a faculty with 40 Phd students and 40 Masters students. To achieve a three fold increase in enrolment, this faculty has to take in an average of 16 new students in both the Masters and PhD programs for the next five years (closer to 20 if you take into account graduating students).

I am quite sure that if one requires a department to increase its intake of students at such a rate, quality will surely be compromised. Most programs probably won't get sufficient applications to makeup the additional places required for growth. And if they do, it probably means that they are letting in students who might not have otherwised qualified.

One can only begin to imagine possible consequences. Since most departments would not be willing to fail or to hold back the underperfomers, what might happen is that we'd get a flood of underqualified Masters or PhD holders coming out from our public universities.

While an increase in the number of post grads is probably necessary if one wants to become a research university, it is not a sufficient condition. I asked in my earlier post the following questions:

- Can our public universities sustain such a dramatic and large increase in the intake of post grads?
- Do we have enough PhDs among our academia who are sufficiently trained to teach these new post grad students? (Currently only 30% of our academic staff have PhDs, the MOHE plans to increase this to 60%)
- Will we compromise on the standards newly hired academics to cope with this increase in the number of post grads?

These questions are still relevant. I doubt that we have the infrastructure (physical hardware and software) to support this level of increase in the number of post grads. But I can be convinced if I see substantive changes in the way resources are allocated within the universities, the way in which academics are hired and promoted and the way in which post grads are trained and supported.

What was interesting about the most recent newspaper report was the the UM VC stated that the number of undergrads accepted would be decreased. While I always thought that the number of post grads would increase over time in our public universities, I've assumed that the number of undergrads would also increase given the high and increasing demand for affordable higher education (albeit at a slower rate compared to the post grads). This surprises me somewhat.

I agree somewhat with the premise expressed by Gerakan Kedah Youth Chief, Tan Keng Liang.

"I hope that UM can consider opening up more undergraduate places to qualified non-bumiputera Malaysian students. It is better for UM to boost its rankings and improve its quality by accepting more highly-qualified Malaysian youths," he said.

This premise is true only if UM opens up more places to qualified non-bumiputera students. But I'm not sure if this is necessarily the case at least in the short run. My sense is that almost ALL the well qualified non-bumi students who takes the STPM exam manage to get placed in a public university. They may not all get their 1st choice uni or 1st choice course but I'm almost positive that the top 50% of non-bumi STPM students gets admitted into a public uni. The other highly qualified non-bumi students are either studying overseas or studying in private colleges. Most of them have no desire to apply to a public uni, partly because they know it's difficult to get into the course of their choice i.e. medicine and partly because they know that the standards are lower in most public universities. Even if the MOHE agrees to allow more non-bumis entry into the public unis, they won't be able to attract a slew of high quality non-bumi students. What they might get is those non-bumi students who took the STPM but did not qualify to gain entry into ANY public university.

What Keng Liang also needs to consider is that UM's 'quality' may be boosted by taking in more post grads and if this process is transparent and meritocratic, I'm willing to bet that there should be more non-bumis accepted at the post grad level compared to the undergrad level. If this is indeed the case, then Keng Liang should have less to worry about in terms of the quality issue compared to allowing more non-bumis entry at the undergrad level.

Prof Ghauth is right to say that having most post-grad students is more likely to increase the academic output of a university but he's got the causation arrow wrong. Having more post-grad students is a result of increasing the number of qualified academics at the professorial level who will hopefully increase the level of academic output. Increasing the number of grad students but not having the proper support academic structure to support them e.g. not enough qualified supervisors will not increase academic output because there are not enough qualified professors in place which means that the post grad students themselves will not be adequately supported.

Finally, my biggest fear is that this is a smokescreen that UM will try to use to increase the foreign intake of students at the post-grad level. I've said this before and I'll say it again - I don't have a problem with accepting post-grads who are foreigners at UM as long as it is done transparently - good quality post grads, the locals are not disadvantaged, etc... But I'm not sure that this will be the case. Rather, it may just be an easy shortcut for UM to increase the number of foreign students to increase UM's position in the THES ratings. This of course after it fell from 93 because THES realized that Indian and Chinese students in Malaysia were not foreigners after all.

Advice to UM VC: Clean up the promotion process

Below is an edited version of an email I sent to an academic in UM whom I've been corresponding with. I received news from this academic that the new UM VC was being pushed to bring UM back into the top 200 in the THES rankings within 2 years and back into the top 100 within 5 years. One of the things he's been trying to do is to 'force' UM academics to publish a minimum of 2 articles in journals which are considered 'impactful' journals (or ISI journals). My advice to the UM VC: Concentrate on cleaning up the promotion process instead of being distracted by this pipe dream of climbing the THES rankings.

Apologies for the late reply. Was overdosing on turkey yesterday.

This is what I wrote to the new VC in a previous post:

P.S. One of the first pieces of 'advice' I would give to Dr. Jasmon is to read the measurements in the THES rankings very carefully. That way, he can avoid making some of the same mistakes made by his predecessors. For example, Rafiah probably should not have tried to take credit for 'improving' UM's ranking from 246 to 230. After the top 100 schools, the differentiation in terms of scores between the rest of the schools is miniscule at best. A measurement error could easily push the ranking of a school from 250 to 210 or from 250 to 290.

Secondly, I would 'advise' him to stay as far away from these rankings as possible. Play down expectations by saying that UM is in no position to compete with the top universities in the world. Instead say that UM is trying to consolidate its academic resources in specific areas and trying to slowly but surely increase the % of PhD holders among its faculty as well as their publication records. This way, he can divorce himself somewhat from the vagaries of the THES ranking system.

Do you think he really understands how stupid the demands of his masters at the MOHE are? Top 100 within 5 years? Try getting all your faculty to have PhDs first.

Here are a few responses to what you've said below.

I totally agree with what you've said about the need for a customized approach towards trying to improve the different faculties and departments.

Here are a few of my thoughts on this and we may differ / disagree on some of the finer points perhaps because of my US training and also perhaps because of my field.

I think one of the most effective things which the new VC can do is to improve and make more transparent the promotion processes in the university. If he can do this, he'll be able to give the right incentives for the different academics to publish and make an impactful contribution to the academia, either in Malaysia or internationally. He should put in place certain processes which ensures that only the right people are promoted and that those who do not contribute academically should not be.

Here is what I think the criterion for evaluating promotions should be:

1) The number of papers in peer reviewed journals
- I really think that it's important for one's work to be evaluated by one's peer and that publications in these sorts of journals should count more than publications in journals which are not peer reviewed, even though some of these journals may be read more by the 'practitioners' in the field.
- We probably may disagree on this but I do think that there are tiers in peer reviewed journals. Some are obviously more 'presitigous' and harder to get published in than others. I think our scholars should be rewarded for being published in the more prestigous journals compared to the less prestigious ones. These would make our scholars more well known internationally as opposed to being published in less prestigious journals which may be read by more people in the region i.e. Asia or South East Asia.
- But I think the disagreement here may be more on an academic rather than a practical level. My impression is that the problem among our academics is that many of them don't even published regularly in peer reviewed journals, whatever the quality. My impression is based on my interactions with those in the political science faculty so I apologize in advance if this is not reflective of the faculty in your department. My guess is that there are probably easily over 200 political science faculty spread across the different public universities in Malaysia. Based on the stuff I've read in political science peer reviewed journals (and I define this quite loosely), there are probably 10 academics in our public universities that have actually published anything in these journals. I have no idea where the rest of the people publish but I'm guessing that they publish mostly in Malay journals which may not be peer reviewed and also Malay academic books which are probably not peer reviewed as well. I'm guessing that many of them don't even make the bar using these much 'looser' requirements. So for these academics, getting them to publish something, anything, is already a good start. Forget about the ISI journals.
- Let me give you an example from personal experience. I just finished completing a 1st draft of an article which I think has a pretty good chance of being published in one of the top political science journals. If I do make the grade, I'll probably be the first Malaysian political scientist to get published in a journal of this quality. To write the paper which I'm writing, I had to spend about 1 year collecting elections data from 152 countries. After that I had to do case study work for about 30 of those countries. And then I had to many regressions to test the modes which i wanted to test. I just sent the paper out to about 20 people for comments and feedback. After the feedback comes in, I'll have revise my paper again and probably run more regressions. And then I send it in to the peer reviewed journal. Wait to see if it is accepted. If it is, it will come back with comments from 3 reviewers and I have to amend my paper to take into account those comments. From the start of this project to when I hope the paper will be published will be 2 years, give or take. All this for a 35 page paper. I cannot imagine many Malaysian political scientists who may not have had the luxury of the training I've received of going through this process. If I were the head of the polisci department of a Msian public university, I would encourage the faculty, especially the younger ones, to publish in region journals which may be easier to get published in and go from there.

2) Editor of a edited volume

- Besides writing one or two articles in these volumes, an editor has the additional responsibility of collecting and editing these articles.
- Of course, there are also differences in the quality and impact of different edited volumes. Those which are published by good publishers obviously have more reach and impact than those which are published by less well known publishers.

3) Chapters in edited volumes.

- Although many of these volumes are not peer reviewed (except by the editor, who of course, would have different standards than anonymous reviewers in peer reviewed journals), they can be impact chapters which can genuinely add to the body of knowledge of a particular subject. It may by the preference of some who want to publish something quickly and do not want to suffer through the vagaries of a peer review process.

4) Conference papers

- These are not the same as the above since they have not been converted to papers or chapters. But they should be counted if it is in the process of being converted into something more substantive

5) Other organizational responsibilities

- These should be things which contribute to the intellectual life of the department including organizing important conferences, inviting speakers to come and share ideas, etc...

6) Writing articles for newspapers, magazines etc...

- I would probably benefit from this but I would put it very low on the totem pole. It reflects the responsibility of an academic to be a public intellectual but it is DEFINITELY NOT a replacement for being published in journals or books.

You can see where my priorities lie - they have to be in publishing material, the heartbeat of an academic's life.

I think if you can get the promotion review process, either internally or externally, to be able to take into account, holistically, the career of an academic thus far, the VC will have done a lot in terms of getting the message out there that you cannot be academically unproductive and still expect to be promoted. I still hear stories of how academics who are less accomplished are being promoted over those who are more accomplished because of racial quotas or connections with the VC or the right politicians. If a sound review process is in place, you don't actually have to put in place the 2 ISI journals in one year requirement. You can take a three year cycle of an academic's career and make promotion decisions on a medium term outlook.

Lastly, on the teaching load bit, I'd ask the VC to think creatively here. One possibility is to recruit more Masters and PhD students who can then act as TAs for the professors. This will decrease the marking load for many professors and hopefully allow them to be more productive academically.

Sorry for being so long winded but I've been thinking about this over the last day or so.

Cheers,

Kian Ming

Rafiah fights back!

I was quite surprised to read Malaysiakini's exclusive two part interview with Rafiah Salim and how frank she was when she was interviewed. You can read the reports here and here. She certainly pulled no punches including a classic 'thing between the legs' line that may have been the highlight of the interview. I'll share some of my thoughts in regard to her tenure and the manner in which she was let go.

When she was first appointed as UM's VC in August 2006, both Tony and I said positive things about her initially. She hit the right notes and said some progressive things in regard to raising the quality of academic at UM.

Then came the 'silencing' of Azmi Sharom, who was initially asked to stop writing his Star column. That decision was later changed to not writing anything about UM in that column.

I also didn't like how she was trying to play up the appointment of Jeff Sachs as the Ungku Aziz chair of poverty studies because I knew that he wouldn't have time to contribute effectively in that role.

In 2007, she came up with a list of excuses to explain why UM fell further (from 192 to 246) in the THES rankings.

Tony has called for her to be replaced when her contract was ending and I think there were good reasons to look for a new VC who is more academically qualified and can take UM forward in terms of its academic standing.

My evaluation of Rafiah's 2 year tenure at UM is mixed at best. I think she tried to emphasize increasing the academic output among academics at UM but she was much more skeptical in regard to opening up academic and student freedoms there.

For an alternative view of Rafiah's tenure, please read Tempinis excellent post here on why Rafiah should have stayed on at UM.

My sense is that she tried her best to implement positive changes at UM but came up against forces that were too great for her to control. She probably had to face many dinosaur academics within UM who probably had never published any articles in peer reviewed journals of standing in their whole academic career, much less the 2 articles per year which Rafiah asked for. She probably had to face political pressures from BN politicians who saw UM as their 'tool' to be controlled and manipulated to serve their own ends.

I also think that she was disadvantaged in what was already an unenviable job in that:

1) She does not have a PhD. While Tempinis is 100% correct in saying that one does not need to have a PhD to run a university effectively, I think that the faculty at UM may have taken her calls to publish more seriously if she herself was a recognized academic with a good publication record. I can half imagine the cynical mocking tones among UM academics discussing the 2 articles per year requirement Rafiah put forward - 'Want us to publish? Maybe she should try publishing articles herself to see how easy it is to get published in peer reviewed journals'

2) She comes across as being too abrasive. This was quite apparent during the Mkini interview. A VC operating in an environment like the UM needs to be able to use the carrot as well as the stick approach. He or she must not only have the academic qualifications and the administrative skills, but also the social skills to be able to cajole when necessary and threaten when necessary. I suspect that Rafiah perhaps was too abrasive for the liking of the staff and faculty at UM.

3) She may not have wanted to 'curry favor' with the politicians. I'm guessing here but she does come across as someone who is less willing to 'play politics' compared to her predecessor Hashim Yaacob. She certainly was not afraid to come out swinging after her contract was terminated. Perhaps this put her in bad standing with her political masters which would have had a trickle down effect to the rest of the faculty. After all, why listen to the threats of a VC who would be leaving soon?

4) Her gender. I'm not sure how much to make of this. I think that regardless of her gender, the job of the VC was going to be a tough one. The dinosaurs there would have rebelled against anyone who wanted them to publish 2 articles a year in peer reviewed journals. But I won't totally discount this factor. It may have been the fact that she was a woman that made some of the faculty and perhaps her political masters less inclined to listen to her. But I do think that it was not gender alone. It was interesting to hear her say that her initial contract was only for 2 years while the new VC's contract is for 3 years. I'm not sure to what extent this is true but it's worth finding out. Of course, the new VC, Dr. Ghauth Jasmon, has much more experience in running universities (he help set up MMU) and is more academically qualified compared to Rafiah which may be reasons given as to why he's been awarded a 3 year contract.

I applaud Rafiah's courage in coming out to say the things which she has said. It certainly takes some courage. After all, she could have kept her mouth shut and try to lobby for some other positions in GLCs after she retires.

But at the same time, I do think that it was time for her to be replaced. I think the new VC has more of the necessary attributes to bring about positive changes to UM. But he'll be up against many of the same forces Rafiah faced - dinosaur academics, political interference, funding challenges, pressures to allow more academic and student freedoms, etc... I wish him well.

P.S. One of the first pieces of 'advice' I would give to Dr. Jasmon is to read the measurements in the THES rankings very carefully. That way, he can avoid making some of the same mistakes made by his predecessors. For example, Rafiah probably should not have tried to take credit for 'improving' UM's ranking from 246 to 230. After the top 100 schools, the differentiation in terms of scores between the rest of the schools is miniscule at best. A measurement error could easily push the ranking of a school from 250 to 210 or from 250 to 290.

Secondly, I would 'advise' him to stay as far away from these rankings as possible. Play down expectations by saying that UM is in no position to compete with the top universities in the world. Instead say that UM is trying to consolidate its academic resources in specific areas and trying to slowly but surely increase the % of PhD holders among its faculty as well as their publication records. This way, he can divorce himself somewhat from the vagaries of the THES ranking system.

Short post on the new UM VC

Short post from SK Thew, a former MMU student, on the new UM VC. Sounds positive.

New UM VC appointed

Hot off the press - Dr. Ghauth Jasmon has been picked as the latest VC of UM. According to the bio page of Unity College International, where he is the current CEO, "Prof Ghauth Jasmon graduated with a First Class Honours Degree in Electrical Engineering in 1979 and the PhD degree in Power Systems Engineering in 1982 from the University of London." Before his current appointment at UCI, he was the president of MMU.

My first thoughts on this appointment is to wonder if the Minister of Higher Education, Khaled Nordin, actually went through a VC selection committee, something which Tok Pa, the former Minister had promised, was to be a permanent committee. Tony has blogged extensively on this issue before including here and here. If this committee was tasked with the job of searching for a replacement for Rafiah Salim, it must have done its work very quietly since we never heard about its work anywhere. My suspicion is that they were probably not consulted at all, if such a committee still exists. This sets a bad precedent for future VC appointments under the current Minister of Higher Education since there is no guarantee that the candidate eventually selected would have gone through a thorough screening process.

This being said, at least the new appointee, Dr. Ghauth Jasmon, has more academic and administrative experience compared to Rafiah Salim. He was fast tracked to become the head of the Electrical Engineering department only 4 years after he obtained his PhD from UOL. He made professor 10 years after he obtained his PhD. He was appointed Deputy VC in 1995, 12 years after he obtained his PhD. (All this was at UM) Clearly a fast riser.

I'm not sure when he was appointed president of MMU but he started working there in 1997 and stepped down in 2007. During this time, he seemed to have overseen a rapid increase in the number of students as well as the building of infrastructure there.

He has both experience in the private as well as public university setting. He knows UM well since he taught there for more than 15 years. He oversaw the establishment and growth of MMU, one of the better homegrown private universities in Malaysia, in my humble opinion. Utilizing these skills, he might be a good candidate to oversee some positive changes at UM.

One possible knock on him is that I couldn't find many publications attributed to him when I did a quick search on google scholar. Perhaps some of our readers who are Electrical Engineers can do a better search on him and enlighten us as to his academic record. I also hope that our readers who graduated from MMU can enlighten us as to his record as President of MMU. From a few blog posts I've read, he seems to be someone who is 'on-the-ball' and pretty responsive to the demands on students.

We'll be keeping an eye out on him I'm sure. And I'm sure that Tony will weigh in on his own thoughts on this appointment as well.

No Free Speech for Nobel Laureate

I want to reproduce a letter written by a friend of mine - Andrew Aeria - on the move by UM to scrap a talk that was supposed to have been given by Nobel Peace Prize winner, Shirin Ebadi. Just to clarify, the letter is written with a sarcastic tone, in case there is any confusion.

Congrats to the UM VC!
Andrew Aeria | Oct 23, 08 4:38pm
I refer to the Malaysiakini report Invite to Nobel laureate scrapped after 'protest from students'.

I am writing to congratulate Rafiah Salim, the vice-chancellor of Universiti Malaya for bravely and single-handedly putting Malaysian academia back into the international spotlight.

Well done, Rafiah. By caving in to some obviously hidebound ‘Iranian students’ and cancelling Iranian Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi’s scheduled lecture on 'Islam and Cultural Diversity' at UM, you gratuitously displayed to the world your university administration’s equally immaculate bigoted view of academic freedom and the pursuit of knowledge.

Certainly, as Malaysians who already are the most informed in the world and living in a diverse multi-cultural society, we have no need to listen to ‘nobody’ Nobel Laureates like Shirin Ebadi, right?

I mean, what else does Ebadi know and what else can she tell us about ‘Islam and Cultural Diversity’ that we in Malaysia, with the help of our ‘Iranian students’, do not already know? So, well done.

I also gushingly applaud Rafiah Salim’s robust defence of the emotional health of ‘our Iranian students’. After all, if these blinkered ‘Iranian students’ are unhappy about ‘nobody’ Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi’s views and don’t want to listen to her, let alone allow others to explore any ideas that are different from their intolerant views, then surely we in Malaysian academia have to dance a jackboot march to their tune even if it is reminiscent of the Third Reich, no?

Well, Rafiah, you and your administration have pretty good goosestep dance moves, that’s for sure. I’m certain that all those now ‘happy Iranian students’ will gladly give you a 45-degree full-handed salute.

And if you listen closely, you might hear them happily utter ‘Seig Heil’! What courage you display in protecting the fragile emotions of our ‘Iranian students’. Truly well beyond the call of academic duty. Well done!

In this excellent spirit of ‘Malaysia Boleh’ and to ensure Malaysian academia’s continued international prominence, may I humbly suggest that you now direct the UM chief librarian to identify and publicly burn all books authored by Shirin Ebadi and other Iranian scholars of ‘Islam and Cultural Diversity’ that the ‘Iranian students’ don’t like.

I am sure those ‘Iranian students’ can very quickly draw up an extended list of disagreeable books that make them unhappy for your immediate action. Indeed, why stop at Iranian scholars, Islam and Cultural Diversity?

Why not just burn the whole UM library down so that all in Malaysian academia (led of course, by ‘our happy Iranian students’) can return to the raw pristine beauty of our vain-glorious collective ignorance.

Indeed, I am sure those ‘Iranian students’ and your administration would gladly welcome such a move as a significant civilisational move forward; Malaysian academia’s leap of faith into the brave new world of the 21st century!

Hurrah!

Since when have Iranian students in our public universities started dictating policy? Does this mean that if Indonesian students protest a talk given by Habibie, such a talk will be canceled?

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the right of the Iranian students to protest. But if they want to protest, they should be given a space, both physically as well as in different student newspapers, to protest Shirin Ebadi's presence on campus. But she should also be given the space to speak her mind in a way that is befitting of a Nobel Laureate. But this is Malaysia so we should not expect either to occur, apparently.

Meritocracy examined

Just wanted to point our readers to an insightful analysis done by 'unwanted citizen', someone who's clearly in the know about the medical faculty and intake at University Malaya (UM). My conclusion from his analysis is this - there has been a more transparent implementation of meritocracy, meaning that those students who perform well in STPM AND Matriculation, are getting into the medical program at UM. The clear losers from this are the bumiputeras from Sabah and Sarawak.

Vice-Chancellor Selection

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

My question to the Minister was

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The reply given by the Minister clearly showed two things.

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

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

Why Rafiah should stay

Tempinis has written this very well argued post on why Rafiah should stay on as the VC of UM. I've reproduced it below for the benefit of our readers and see what they have to say.

Kian Ming has a post in Education Malaysia re-iterating their (Tony and Kian Ming’s) position that Rafiah Salim should be removed as the VC of University of Malaya. I believe that this is a such a wrong and populist position that I feel compelled to reply.

First, Rafiah Salim has been reported to be implementing many sensible moves in improving the university. These steps include (a) making annual publications in two peer-reviewed journals a key performance index for lecturers; (b) consulting external dons in matters of promotion; and (c) the signing of student exchange agreements. Rome was not build overnight. Tony Pua is being completely unfair to blame Rafiah Salim for the continued decline of University of Malaya’s ranking. Rather than taking a knee-jerk reaction (e.g. recruiting graduate students from the Middle East to improve the foreign student ration), Rafiah Salim seems to have the courage and wisdom of taking the bull by the horns in the unheadline grabbing task of trying to promote a research culture in the university.

Second, Khaled “Save Sufiah Yusof” Nordin’s move of extending Rafiah Salim’s contract by only six months puts her and the university in an invidious position. This effectively creates a ‘lame duck’ Vice Chancellor. Matters are on hold. Nothing will get done. See story below from the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Third, Kian Ming’s gripe against Rafiah Salim’s qualifications is again unfair. It is true that she does not (save for an Honorary PhD) have a PhD. But you have to consider what discipline she is in and what generation she is from. Rafiah Salim is a lawyer and many lawyers in her generation even in Oxbridge do not have PhDs. In fact, in many US Law Schools where law is a postgraduate degree - PhDs are not a pre-requisite for faculty members. I am sure Kian Ming will agree with me that a PhD is not evidence of leadership abilities. I have met enough dumb people with PhDs to last me a life time. While a PhD is an absolute must for new faculty hires especially in science and the social sciences, Rafiah Salim should not be faulted for not having a PhD. As the Vice Chancellor she is an administrator whose most important quality is leadership ability. Thus far, I think she has shown remarkable leadership abilities. Also, Kian Ming’s comparison with the Harvard President is totally unwarranted. University of Malaya is not Harvard and will never be Harvard. To benchmark University of Malaya to Harvard is just so wrongheaded I do not even know where to begin.

Fourth, universities are not corporations. Universities are mysterious organisations where sensitivity to culture matters. You can’t just come in and fire all the deadwood. The Vice Chancellor will face an open revolt and won’t last very long. See the story below on the ill-fated Oxford Vice Chancellor, John Hood, who tried to institute changes too abruptly. Needless to say, he didn’t last too long. I believe that Rafiah Salim being an insider of University of Malaya is the best person for the job currently.

Fifth, superstar professors may not work out in the long run. This is related to the culture point. A superstar professor might not stay with the university for long. See the story on NUS Business School’s Chris Earley who left after only 2 years as Dean. There is also a problem of ‘fit’. I don’t believe University of Malaya is ready for a superstar foreign Vice-Chancellor yet. Such an individual would probably leave the university in frustration after a while. We need someone like Rafiah Salim to raise the standard of the university to a respectable level before anyone abroad who is remotely decent would take the job. Also, witness the appointment of Dr. Tan Hock Lim by the Vice Chancellor of UKM, Sharifah Hapsah. Dr. Tan Hock Lim is no doubt a superstar but his appointment has created such ill-will and jealousy in and outside UKM that Sharifah Hapsah is now subject to (in my opinion, wholly unjustifable) attacks by Harakah. Change needs to be handled sensitively and incrementally in universities.

For all these reasons, I believe that Tony and Kian Ming are completely wrong when they argue for the removal of Rafiah Salim as the Vice Chancellor. This is a move which is populist and ultimately misconceived. I expect our politicians like Tony to be bigger than this. I do not see a better person in the horizon. The only argument that remains for the removal of Rafiah Salim is that she ‘censured’ Azmi Sharom for something he wrote. Now I have the greatest respect for Azmi Sharom’s writings, but there is always two sides to a story. What exactly was said to Azmi? Even if Malaysiakini’s version is to be believed, I do not think this is such a major transgression that merits as a ground of removal. The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that Rafiah Salim is doing a good job. And that is why she should stay for at least 3 more years.

UM VC to be replaced after 6 months?

The writing is on the wall, I think. Although it was reported that the contract of the current UM VC, Rafiah Salim, will be extended by 6 months, it appears likely that she will be replaced after that as the new Minister for Higher Education, Khalid Nordin, has indicated that a search committee will be set up soon to look for a new VC.

I agree with Tony's earlier post on this issue. While Rafiah has been a better VC than her predecessor (Hashim "Billboard" Yaacob), she also has stumbled many times. Tony has listed some of her shortcomings. I have also been very critical of the appointment of Jeffrey Sachs as the first Professor of the Ungku Aziz Chair of Poverty Studies because I saw this as a high profile appointment which was wasteful and produced little returns from a reputational or research standpoint.

Of course, there are others who would disagree with us and I think that some of them have some good points including tempinis, a regular commentator on this blog.

Hopefully, the new search committee will take heed of Tony's advice on this matter which he has written extensively on in the past.

In case anyone is interested, please compare the academic CV of the first Harvard woman president, Drew Gilpin Faust, and that of Rafiah Salim. I know it's an unfair comparison but it's worthwhile to point out that Rafiah served as Dean and Deputy Dean of the law faculty at UM, one of the most prominent faculties in the university with just a Masters degree and that her own UM VC website does not give her CV.

World Class Vice-Chancellor Needed for UM

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

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

Under Datuk Rafiah's tenure:

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

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

The Higher Education Ministry needs to:

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

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

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

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

Another Sachs UM pilgrimage

Jeffrey Sachs is in Malaysia again for another 'Praise Malaysia to the High Heavens' UM tour. To be fair to him, I didn't think that he would come back to Malaysia so soon (it's winter break in the US). I thought that he'd only be back in summer. Furthermore, he might have said some more critical things about Malaysia's poverty eradication schemes but it might not have been reported. He could also be conducting genuine poverty research when he's not giving his rehashed speeches. And his latest bio, updated in January 2008 (this month), still does not state his affiliation with the UM, which defeats the purpose of using him to raise the profile of UM internationally.

THES 2007 Rankings: Denial Syndrome Persists

There is plenty to blog about with regards to the latest Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) World University Rankings table which was released and blogged here yesterday. I've managed to obtain the full report earlier.

All of our universities which are "ranked" have fallen in positions. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) fell to 309th from 185th in 2006, Universiti Malaya (UM) to 246th (192) and Universiti Sains Malaysia to 307th (277)

One point however, sticks out. In a press conference yesterday held by some of the local vice-chancellors, the denial syndrome, a disease which has enveloped our academia has clearly not been cured since the days of Kapten Datuk Professor Dr Hashim Yaakob.

The vice-chancellors, including Datuk Rafiah Salim, of UM, gave several excuses for the dismal performance by Malaysian universities.

Firstly, they blamed the "change" in methodology for the drastic fall in rankings. It sounded as if the methodology was specifically tweaked to disadvantage Malaysian universities when in fact, it was tweaked to ensure greater transparency and accuracy.

As highlighted in the main THES rankings report:

In addition, we have strengthened our safeguards against individuals voting for their own university in the peer review part of the analysis." This improvement in methodology is certainly fair as it prevents the bias to vote for one's own institution.

And the result of the above change in methodology, as specifically highlighted in the full THES report, was the corresponding decline in Malaysian universities rankings!

But we suspect that some Malaysian and Singaporean institutions have lost out because of our increased rigour over voting for one’s own university, and there are no Malaysian universities in this top 200.

This clearly indicates that Malaysian universities were ranked better in previous years in part due to Malaysian academicians ranking their own universities highly when completing the survey! That's academic honesty for you, a la Malaysia.

Secondly, what was disgraceful, was Datuk Rafiah's attempts to de-sensitise Malaysia's dismal performance by arguing that Singapore suffered the same fate as well:

"Even the National University of Singapore (NUS) has dropped to the 33rd spot when it was always within the top 10."

Here, she is wrong on 2 counts. Firstly, NUS was and has never been a Top 10 ranked university. Last year, it was ranked 19th, falling 14 places to 33rd currently. It was ranked 22nd in 2005. Hence Datuk Rafiah Salim is guilty of citing wrong figures to prove her point, with the unintended consequence of epitomising the general quality of local research.

On the second count, NUS remains well within the Top 50 of the world and has not fluctuated more than 14 places over the past 4 years while UM tanked year after year! I don't know how Datuk Rafiah equated UM's plight to NUS's.

Then Datuk Rafiah complained that "The way [she] look at it, smaller countries like Malaysia are bound to lose out as THES has introduced new criteria which is peer review and has changed the citation and list of publications."

Again, it's a case of self-pity which will not take Malaysian academic standards anywhere. Singapore is some 480 times smaller than Malaysia in terms of land area and 6 times smaller in terms of population. That didn't seem to stop them from having 2 universities ranked within the Top 100. Other developing countries such as South Africa, Mexico, Taiwan and Brazil also has universities ranked within the Top 200.

Finally, she asked for more money.

If we want to compete with some of the top universities in the world, first we have to be in the same league. Right now, we are not. One way to overcome that is through adequate funding.

No, Datuk Rafiah, the first thing to do isn't asking for new funding. Giving lots of money to half-baked researchers and academics isn't going to improve the quality of the universities by very much. It's not too dissimilar to the Government's effort of launching our so-called "space programme" by paying the taxi fare for a Malaysian to go to space. Or for that matter, more money could just mean more funds for the academically meaningless pursuit of worthless coloured medals.

The first things to do, has to be the following (in simple terms, as elaborated in other blog posts):

1. Recruit the best lecturers and academicians from Malaysia and all over the world, instead of focusing on race, nationality and patronage.
   
   
2. Enrol the best students qualified for each faculty, instead of the current ambiguous and seemingly random university and course allocation.
   
   
3. Practice transparency in all aspects of the academia, from recruitment to promotions of academics, as well as setting clearly defined minimum entry requirements into every course and publishing such data post every enrolment cycle.

The above are well within the rights and functions of both the Ministry of Higher Education and the university administrators. The question is, whether the authorities are willing to face up to the challenges and weakness of our current system, and take the hard but absolutely necessary actions to raise the bar.

Without the required political will, Malaysian universities will be doomed to further demise particularly if we are preoccupied with treating the superficial symtoms such as recruiting more foreign students from 3rd world countries, instead of tackling the core issues.

I was happy to provide Datuk Rafiah Salim the benefit of the doubt when she was first appointed as UM's vice-chancellor as blogged here. However, her recent statements, her immature treatment of Dr Azmi Sharom plus her outburst at the recently concluded student leaders' meet certainly lowered my confidence in her ability to turn things around. For someone who claimed that raising UM's ranking on THES is one of her 3 core tasks, she definitely appears to be failing her own benchmarks, and failing badly at that.

Footnote: Let me emphasize that it gives me no pleasure to find Malaysian universities dropping out of the Top 200 list. I certainly wish that we have representation among the Top 50 universities, and that'll be something I'll be extremely proud of. But the state of affairs of our higher education requires a "extreme makeover", and demands the harshest of constructive criticisms. Molly-coddling the issues as our government has done over the past decades will not miraculously result in our problems fade away.

Top 200 No More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-Malay Deputy VC appointed

Read this in the Star today. UM has appointed a non-Malay to the position of deputy VC (development). It was reported that 'the Higher Education Ministry has approved the creation of a new deputy vice-chancellor's (V-C) post in Universiti Malaya that will help link its research development with infrastructure development.' I was pleasantly surprised to it was a non-Malay who was appointed to this position since I had always assumed that all the deputy VCs in the public universities were 'reserved' for Malays.

This is not to say that I think that a person should be appointed to a certain administrative post just because he or she is of a certain race. I would support the candidacy of any and all qualified candidates regardless of race. But we have seen how certain Malaysian academics have left our shores and have become VCs in other universities in Asia most notably Prof Wang Gangwu who was the VC of the Hong Kong University from 1986 to 1995. The fact that many of these academics (mostly non-Malays) who have been passed up time and time again for promotion opportunities probably encouraged them to relocate to other universities in other countries in the region or further abroad.

Prof Dr Khaw Lake Tee certainly seems qualified. It was reported that 'Prof Khaw earned her first-class honours in Law from UM, a master’s degree from Monash University, Australia and a PhD from the London School of Economics and Political Science', a pretty impressive CV.

It was also reported that 'Other universities to follow suit in making such an appointment are Universiti Kebangasaan Malaysia, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia and Universiti Teknologi Mara.'

I think this is an encouraging move in so far as it seems to indicate a greater willingness on the part of the MOHE to level the playing field, as it were, by promoting a more meritocratic approach towards promotion opportunities in our public university.

But I'm still waiting for the day when we get to see a well established and well qualified non-Malay academic take up the position of the VC of a Malaysian public university.

'Booing' of the UM VC

Thanks to Johnleemk for his comments on the First Annual Malaysian Student Leaders Summit 2007. Part of his comment was the following: "Today was more interesting - I think it's quite difficult to have confidence in Rafiah Salim and Mustapha Mohamad (especially the former) after how they performed today. Both gave ridiculous answers to questions on academic freedom at home and abroad; Rafiah made this ridiculous proposal that we send boys to "paramilitary" (her words) boarding schools. For a moment we thought she was joking." Perhaps, it was in this context that the NST reported that she was booed at this summit.

The NST reported that:

Boos and catcalls greeted Datuk Rafiah Salim when she said public university students had the freedom to express their thoughts and ideas.

Several hundred dissenting voices rang out when the Universiti Malaya vice-chancellor, when taking a question from the floor, said there was "no such thing as students being unable to address their concerns".

Hearing their disapproval, Rafiah retorted: "Behaviour like this is exactly what causes people not to respect you. You won’t even give me a hearing. And you won’t get respect.

"If you behave like that, nobody will listen to you because it is not worth listening. You are not respecting others."

I was a little surprised that the NST reported that the UM VC was booed. Usually, something like that would be conveniently 'left out' in favor of more positive news, perhaps focusing on the Minister in attendance, in this case, Tok Pa, the Minister for Higher Education.

I was even more pleasantly surprised that 'several hundred dissenting voices rang out' when the UM VC said that 'public university students had the freedom to express their thoughts and ideas'. While UKEC organized forums in the UK might attract crowds which can be boisterous and opinionated, I would have thought that the fact that this summit was held in Malaysia would have held many 'tongues' in check. Thus, the fact that those in attendance (including JohnLeeMK) would be brave enough to offer their dissent in a vocal fashion is something refreshing.

I would certainly laugh at the notion that there is freedom of expression among students in public universities in Malaysia. The UUCA puts many restrictions on student activities and organizations (including the ability to join political parties and volunteer for political activities) and student elections are notoriously 'rigged' and 'controlled' by the university authorities.

The UM VC should have realized that when she says ludicrous things in front of a crowd that is intelligent and is not afraid to show their contempt for such ludicrous statements, 'booing' is the first thing that she should expect. But I'm sure that she didn't see that coming, probably anticipating a far more docile crowd, perhaps similar to the crowd that she is used to in UM.

Sometimes I wonder if people like the UM VC really believe that there is freedom of expression in public universities in Malaysia or that they say this because they have to or perhaps they have said this so often that they start to believe this fiction.

Academics against Akujanji

A Malaysiakini report yesterday highlighted the campaign by academics in Malaysia against the Akujanji pledge. Not only does it call for Akujanji to be abolished with immediate effect but it also calls for Dr. Azly Rahman, Dr. Mutiara Muhamed and other academics who have been dismissed because of their opposition to Akujanji to be reinstated. This campaign is being headed by Dr. Syed Husin Ali and Dr. Lim Teck Ghee.

Tony has blogged passionately about this issue here, here, here and here.

I've been a little more agnostic about 'Akujanji' believing that it is possible aka NUS to create a public university where academic freedom is not exactly free flowing but I think that Tony is probably right in saying that Akujanji needs to be revoked as part of a larger, comprehensive move to create more dynamic and open minded universities in Malaysia.

I would certainly prefer to work in a university, especially in my field, where Akujanji does not exist and I would think most other academics would as well. I certainly support the petition circulated by Dr. Syed Husin Ali and Dr. Lim though I don't see how Ong Kian Ming, a PhD candidate at Duke University, would add value to the cause. (Dr. Lim sent me the petition but I forgot to reply to him. Apologies, Dr. Lim)

The actual petition circulated by Dr. Syed Husin Ali and Dr. Lim reads as follows:

Petition for Revocation of University Akujanji

We, the undersigned - former university staff members, present university staff members (who cannot include their names here for fear of victimization by the authorities) and civil society organizations - call on the Government to revoke the imposition of the Akujanji pledge with immediate effect.

This requirement of loyalty to the Government – found only in a few repressive university systems in the world – has stifled academic freedom in our country to an unprecedented extent. It has also inculcated a culture of fear, passivity and uncritical thinking in the campuses which is antithetical to the development of our universities and to the quality of teaching and scholarship.

Government leaders, including the Prime Minister, have called on the universities to take up the challenge of upgrading their standards and producing quality teaching and research that will help the nation meet the goals of 2020, including the goals of a matured, liberal, scientific and progressive society. The Aku Janji stands as a major obstacle in the way of our universities rising to this challenge.

In this regard we also call on the Government to reinstate Dr. Azly Rahman, Dr.Mutiara Mohamad and other academicians who have been dismissed as a result of their opposition to the Akujanji. Similarly, others who have suffered in their career development due to the Akujanji should have their cases reviewed and should be provided with justice and redress. These are our academic prisoners of conscience who have been unjustly victimized and whose continued exclusion is a black mark against academia and our democratic system and values.

Our concern is not the first voiced on this issue - academic staff associations and numerous other concerned individuals and organizations have during the past three years spoken out and asked for the abolition of the pledge which is also against the fundamental rights of freedom of association and expression. We hope with this petition that we will be the last to take up this issue.

We feel that this is an urgent matter not simply of academic interest and concern but of national importance too and call on the Government to respond in a fair and enlightened manner and to place the interests of the universities and nation ahead of partisan political ones. The revocation of the pledge is a vital step in ensuring that fundamental rights of freedom of association and expression are not further eroded and that our academicians can play their rightful role in helping our nation advance.


I just want to make three observations in regards to the signatories of this petition

Firstly, most of the signatories are social scientists (especially political scientists) or academics from the humanities. I recognize many of the names on the list (and indeed, know some of them) who are social scientists including - Dr. Collin Abraham, Dr. Azmi Sharom, Dr. Sharon Bong, Dr. Cheah Boon Kheng, Dr. Stephen Chee, Dr. Farish Noor, Dr. Terence Gomez, Dr. Khoo Boo Teik, Dr. Khoo Kay Jin, Dr. Patricia Martinez, Dr. Maznah Mohamad, Dr. Lim Teck Ghee, Dr. Francis Loh, Dr Mavis Puthucheary, Dr. Ramasamy, Dr. Johan Saravanamuttu, Dr. Shirley Lim, Dr. Syed Husin Ali, Dr. Toh Kin Woon, Wong Chin Huat and Dr. Diana Wong.

If the momentum from 'within' to abolish Akujanji is to continue, there needs to be more support for its abolishment across the academic fields including the engineering and science faculties. If not, the impression that this movement is only support by trouble making social scientists and those from the humanities will only be reinforced.

Secondly, as noted by the Malaysiakini report, out of the 40 academics who signed on to this petition, 29 are retired. Obviously, one needs to ask why there are not more signatories among active academics. Is it out of fear that reprisals might be carried out against them similar to those carried out against Dr. Azly Rahman and Dr. Mutiara Muhamed? This is not out of the question. To overcome this fear, there must be a concerted gathering of support among active academics so if a large enough number of them do sign this petition, it is not possible to carry out reprisals against all of them. In other words, achieve some sort of 'critical mass'.

Easier said than done but perhaps one can start by asking academics from the engineering and science faculties whether Akujanji has hurt them in any way (recruitment, funding, research proposals) or why they might feel that Akujanji might be needed (or no need for it to be abolished). From here, one can hopefully move forward to achieve the 'critical mass' necessary for such a movement to be taken seriously.

Thirdly, even among those signatories who are not retired (the 11 brave souls), I know of only 2 who are relatively young in regards to their academic careers. (Apologies for Azmi and Terence) The two are Dr. Sharon Bong and Wong Chin Huat, who are both teaching at Monash Sunway now, a private university. This of course calls into question the level of support for such a movement against Akujanji among the younger academics in our public universities. I'm quite sure that the 'pressure' which can be exerted on them would be higher compared to the more established i.e. older academics.

Of course I could be making too much out of this. Perhaps the petition didn't circulate to the younger academics because Dr. Lim and Dr. Syed Husin Ali didn't know enough of them (the same argument can be made in regards to the lack of outreach to the scientists and engineers). The level of support against Akujanji could be as great if not more so among the younger, perhaps more idealistic, academics in our public universities.

I do hope that Akujanji can be abolished as part of a comprehensive move to change the mindset and structure of our public universities. But like all things in Malaysia, change for the better tends to happen slowly and incrementally, if at all. I wish Dr. Lim and Dr. Syed Husin Ali all the best in this endeavor.

Sachs finally coming to Malaysia?

Looks like the first Royal Ungku Aziz Chair of Poverty Studies, Professor Jeffrey Sachs of the Earth Institute at Columbia University is finally coming to Malaysia. His appointment was announced and made last November and was highlighted here in this blog. Since then, I've heard from a source that he's had a phone call with Tok Pah, Minister for Higher Education and now, he'll be coming in August of this year to deliver a keynote speech at the Faculty of Economics and Administration (FEA) at the UM.

A recent online search on Jeffrey Sachs and UM revealed this tentative program for a conference on poverty alleviation organized by the Faculty of Economics and Administration (where KS Jomo taught and were Terence Gomez taught before his secondment to the UN in Geneva).

According to this program, the conference entitled "Poverty Distribution Amidst Diversity: Options and Challenges for Development" will be held on Aug 13 and 14, 2007. Prof Sachs will give the keynote address and be a discussant on a higher powered panel which includes Tok Pah and Max Ongkili, Minister in the PM's office in charge of National Unity and Integration and Dr. Denison Jayasooria of the Yayasan Strategik Sosial (YSS).

I've said this before and I'll say it again - the appointment of Professor Sachs to this position is a waste of taxpayers funds and does not fulfill the objectives set out by the UM.

Prof Sachs, in his two year appointment will probably come to Malaysia once a year, given his many other commitments. While in Malaysia, he'll be asked to deliver a few keynote addresses, in the UM and in other settings, set up for him by the University or the MOHE. He won't be able to contribute any significant intellectual contribution to UM or Malaysia in terms of research or advising faculty or graduate students or teaching.

In contrast, Prof Joan Nelson, the third holder of the Pok Rafeah chair at IKMAS, UKM, was / is based in Malaysia for a length of time (9 months, if I'm not mistaken) and was an active contributor to the intellectual and research life at IKMAS in UKM. This is the model that UM should have used - appointing a researcher who had a genuine interest in Malaysia and who would be able to be based in Malaysia for some length of time to be part of the academic and intellectual community.

Furthermore, Professor Jeffrey "mention-his-name-to-any-economist-and-they-will-drop-when-they-hear-it" Sachs (quote is attributed to the current UM VC) doesn't even list his appointment as the Royal Ungku Aziz Chair of Poverty Studies in his most recent CV, thereby not fulfilling one of UM's objectives of appointing Jeffrey Sachs - which is to raise UM's profile internationally.

Too bad I can't be at the UM to take part in the above conference. It would have been interesting to ask Prof Sachs what he hopes to achieve in his two year appointment. And to ask the VC whether she thinks that appointing Prof Sachs was worth the cost.