I knew that it was going to be a challenge to keep the UMNO elections out of this blog. Check out this quote from an UMNO delegate:
Musa’s call was also echoed by a Malacca delegate, Datuk Hasnoor Husin, who also urged the government to ensure that only Umno loyalists be appointed to senior positions in public universities. “Please make sure the faculty members are all Umno men, and the same goes for other civil servants,” said Hasnoor. He cited the example of UiTM vice chancellor Datuk Seri Ibrahim Abu Shah who was a party loyalist.
I leave you guys to comment.
Showing posts with label Vice Chancellor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vice Chancellor. Show all posts
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, December 11, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Short post on the new UM VC
Short post from SK Thew, a former MMU student, on the new UM VC. Sounds positive.
Saturday, November 08, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Finally, a VC with a good academic record
Got this piece of news from a friend from one of the public unis. Zaini Ujang, at 43, is the youngest VC in a public university, in this case, UTM. Unlike the UITM VC, Prof Zaini Ujang is a legit academic with a history of academic publications in peer reviewed journals. And he doesn't boast that he's a life long UMNO member and is proud of his publication record. You can view his publication record here. It's this kind of appointment which gives me some hope in the public university system in Malaysia. Another sign that UTM is moving in the right direction? I recently got to know two Malaysian PhD students in Cambridge who are sponsored by UTM. If they and others like them go back to UTM, it's a good sign for that institution.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Vice-Chancellor Selection Committee
Hi guys, yes, I've been posting only sporadically on this blog in recent weeks but I've certainly not forgotten about it. Thanks to Kian Ming for keeping the blog going. I've been posting several education related articles, but due to some of the political nature, I've placed them on my personal blog. The latest being the controversy of the ADUN of Subang Jaya, Hannah Yeoh being banned from attend her own alumni's prefects reunion(!).
I've also paid special attention to education issues in parliament, hoping to eke out answers from the Ministers on the various issues which has been raised by the bloggers and readers here. Unfortunately I still have to fight for attention in the Dewan to get a chance to question the Ministers, I did managed to do so on a handful of occasions.
Of interest is the on-off-on-off vague issue of a vice-chancellor selection committee which has been the subject of discussion on this blog for the past 2 years already.
Over the past 2 sessions, the Minister of Higher Education, Datuk Khaled Nordin has stated that there will be a vice-chancellor selection committee being set up without providing any details. I pursued the matter, as recorded in the Hansard on the 9th July:
In short, that means that there's still no authoritative details on how this committee will work, whether there will be strong interference from the Ministry, on the process of recruitment and just about everything else about the selection committee. Its a little unfortunately that despite this committee being talked about since the previous 2 higher education ministers, we still have to wait for the next parliamentary session before we hear new developments.
At the speed the Ministry is moving, its not surprising that our institutions of higher education isn't going to get any better any time soon.
I've also paid special attention to education issues in parliament, hoping to eke out answers from the Ministers on the various issues which has been raised by the bloggers and readers here. Unfortunately I still have to fight for attention in the Dewan to get a chance to question the Ministers, I did managed to do so on a handful of occasions.
Of interest is the on-off-on-off vague issue of a vice-chancellor selection committee which has been the subject of discussion on this blog for the past 2 years already.
Over the past 2 sessions, the Minister of Higher Education, Datuk Khaled Nordin has stated that there will be a vice-chancellor selection committee being set up without providing any details. I pursued the matter, as recorded in the Hansard on the 9th July:
Tuan Pua Kiam Wee [Petaling Jaya Utara]: Terima kasih Tuan Yang di-Pertua. Tadi
menteri telah membangkitkan satu Jawatankuasa Pemilihan bagi naib canselor. Saya hendak minta penjelasan sedikit, adakah shortlist yang dibuat oleh jawatankuasa ini akan diberikan daripada kementerian ataupun shortlist akan dicari ataupun disediakan oleh jawatankuasa ini dan apakah kuasa yang diberi kepada jawatankuasa ini?
Adakah ia akan diberikan kuasa supaya dapat membuat advertisement di suratkhabar-
suratkhabar seluruh dunia untuk mencari calon-calon yang terbaik untuk menjadi naib canselor universiti kita? Terima kasih.
Dato’ Seri Mohamed Khaled bin Nordin: Ia boleh dilakukan melalui kedua-dua cara.
Satu daripada top down daripada kementerian dan satu lagi daripada Select Committee dan dari segi tatacara dan sebagainya, kita belum lagi memikirkan secara mendalam sama ada ingin membuat pengiklanan seluruh dunia dan sebagainya ataupun tidak, kerana semua itu akan mula dilakukan setelah kita buat pindaan kepada Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti yang mempunyai ataupun yang akan menyentuh mengenai perkara tersebut.
In short, that means that there's still no authoritative details on how this committee will work, whether there will be strong interference from the Ministry, on the process of recruitment and just about everything else about the selection committee. Its a little unfortunately that despite this committee being talked about since the previous 2 higher education ministers, we still have to wait for the next parliamentary session before we hear new developments.
At the speed the Ministry is moving, its not surprising that our institutions of higher education isn't going to get any better any time soon.
Monday, June 23, 2008
New UMS VC
Thanks to one of our regular readers for this link. It is a speech from the new VC of the University Malaysia Sabah, Lt. Col. Prof. Datuk Dr. Kamaruzaman Hj. Ampon. A brief read of his bio and a brief search on google scholar shows that he is a legit academic. His appointment was clearly a political appointment as part of a series of moves by Pak Lah aimed at appeasing the politicians in Sabah and to prevent them from leaving the BN. There was no VC select committee convened to authorize this search. But as far as political appointees go, Dr. Kamaruzaman seems like a pretty good candidate on paper. I wish him all the best in his efforts to build up UMS.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
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
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.
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.I don't know about you, but I thought it was an answer that was as good as a "no answer".
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)