More Top 100 University Rankings

The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) has released more faculty rankings in a prelude to the full Top 200 universities of the world rankings list. The latest list ranks the faculties of Biomedicine, Social Sciences, and Arts & Humanities. This is in addition to the Top 100 universities in Science and Technology blogged here.

I’ve taken the liberty to display the top 20 universities of each faculty for display here. (And guess what, University Malaya is respectably featured!) This information may be useful for those interested in finding the top universities for the relevant subject faculties they are interested in.

The Top 20 Biomedicine Universities


The Top 20 Social Science Universities


The Top 20 Arts and Humanities Universities


Interestingly enough, University Malaya has been ranked very credibly in the above surveys, which is conducted by a company - - using a global peer review methodology. UM did not appear in any of the Top 100 tables for the above faculties (only Top 50 available for Arts & Humanities) in 2004. Its rankings however, improved tremendously to 45th for Arts & Humanities, 83rd in Social Sciences and an impressive 82nd for Biomedicine.

The company in which University Malaya is keeping is shown here –

Arts & Humanities


Social Sciences


Biomedicine


We are always keen to compare ourselves with our cousins down south, and for Arts & Humanities, we managed to “beat” National University of Singapore which was placed 56th, down from 17th the year before.

The other immediate observation I can make is that while the earlier 2004 Top 200 Universities which saw significant participation of international universities out of the United States (US) and Europe compared to other ranking tables such as that compiled by the Shanghai JiaoTung University, the recent faculty tables saw an even heavier presence of these ‘international universities’, particularly those from Latin America. I’m not certain if there has been a concerted efforted as part of the survey to provide greater weightage to non-US/Europe universities.

The Southeast Asian (besides Malaysia and Singapore) universities which have established their presence in the Top 100s are:

• Gadjah Mada Unversity, Indonesia (56th Arts & Humanities)
• Chulalongkorn University, Thailand (82nd BioMedicine, 46th Social Sciences)

From the look of things, University Malaya is poised to perform credibly again in the upcoming Top 200 World University Rankings Table.

Lecturer Conned

I'm not sure what to think of the quality of lecturers in our public universities when you read news reports like this:

A senior university lecturer was cheated of RM600,000 by a syndicate who duped her into believing that they had inherited millions of dollars belonging to an African leader who had died recently.

I would have thought that these types of con will typically victimise those who aren't particularly intelligent. Even if the lecturer couldn't smell the well worked con, surely, she should have read about plenty of silly sob stories of individuals being suckered by the standard highly-placed-official-died routine!

The lecturer agreed to fork out RM100,000 and handed over the money to one of the syndicate members in Kuala Lumpur to “fulfil one of the conditions”. These included “donations” to charities in Africa and also for services rendered.

The lecturer was also asked to pay for a chemical that would purportedly clean the money of black ink, which was used to discolour the cash to make them easier to smuggle into the country. The lecturer borrowed RM500,000 from her friend, who mortgaged his house to secure a bank loan.

I'm more concerned that a "senior" lecturer "educating" our university students than the fact that she lost RM600,000. The "loss" impact on our students could be much higher than that!!

Where I Stand Politically?

Well, this post isn't exactly related to education but I thought I'd put it up just to give readers of this blog where it "appears" I stand politically :)

Thanks to Oon Yeoh who took and pointed out the survey, and published his own political "positioning", I decided to take the test myself and see how I'd be pigeon-holed. Here are the results:

"You are a Social Liberal (65% permissive) and an Economic Moderate (50% permissive). You are best described as a Centrist."



Link: The Politics Test

Well, maybe now you can tell why I write the way I write, and think the way I think :) Or maybe not :) I must say, I would never have described myself as a "social liberal" though...

Higher Education Set for Major Policy Review

Interestingly, as I read Sdr Lim Kit Siang's blog last night, I noted his entry on the announcement by the Minister of Higher Education that there is an on-going review of the University and University Colleges Act (UUCA). I thought that before, I write about it based on the report by Sdr Lim, I should probably scan the newspapers in the last couple of days to see if there has been any reports on the same issue. To my surprise and disappointment, there was none.

The fact that the Higher Education policy is under-going review has been known for some time. However, it wasn't clearly known what exactly was being reviewed and how determined are the authorities in making positive changes to the local higher education policy and institutions.

It was widely reported by the local press (NST and The Sun) late in September that the Government has received a draft policy recommendations from an "independent committee" which was appointed last October headed by former Education director-general Tan Sri Wan Zahid Mohd Noordin. The deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak announced that:

The draft was prepared by a committee tasked with coming up with suggestions on how to provide the quantum leap to turn Malaysia into a regional centre of excellence in tertiary education... We can expect more positive changes to achieve our ambition for the country."

However, when queried for further details,Datuk Seri Najib said the draft is with the prime minister and that they would only discuss it after they have "fine-tuned" the proposals.

Hence, it was only to be expected that if our Minister of Higher Education was queried in the parliament about the relevant proposals, we would get the standard fare replies which essentially means nothing. Sdr Lim argued that while "[the Minister] had been talking about turning Malaysia into an international hub for education with the capability to attract foreign students to Malaysia to pursue higher studies, he had failed to address the most important aspects to ensure university excellence, viz. students and academic staff of distinction."

I referred to recent university disputes such as those affecting Dr. Terence Gomez, Professor Ramasamy and Dr. Azly Rahman and the scandals of the recent university student elections which raise the larger question whether we want our students to have the faculties of critical inquiry vital for success in the globalization age or we just want to continue to breed apathy, timidity and mediocrity.

It was then that Datuk Shafie Salleh announced a policy review of the Universities and University Colleges Act, saying it is now 34 years since it was first passed and students had often raised UUCA as an issue.

“Kalau budak kecil berumur 34 tahun, dah kahwin, dah ada anak, mungkin di kampong dah ada cucu dah, jadi kita akan review baliklah.”

The Minister also added that feedback will be obtain from not only government officials, but also academicians, MPs and the "civil society". He even made the appeal: “Bagi saya chance. Baru setahun saya menjadi Menteri, ya. Bagi saya chance.”

The Minister should definitely be given his chance. But first things first, he needs to survive the impending cabinet reshuffle by the Prime Minister, whereby he is one of the clear favourites for the drop.

[Update: Sdr Lim have just posted an update on the above issue here, requesting the Minister of Higher Education to suspend all UUCA proceedings.]

Attracting Top Universities to Malaysia (III)

In the earlier 2 posts here and here, on the same topic above, I've discussed Malaysia's intent in establishing itself as a education hub for the region with the objective of not only providing educational opportunities for domestic students, but also to double the foreign student intake to 100,000 by 2010.

What I'll do here in this third part, is to have a look at Singapore's policy in attracting foreign institutions to "set up shop" in Singapore. Note that I've gathered a fair bit of materials, and this post may end up being fairly long but hopefully informative. The data should provide us with a better context for comparisons with our very own policy in Malaysia.

To date, Singapore has managed to attract some of the top schools from the United States and Europe to set up their programmes or campus in Singapore. Some of the premier schools which have set up operations are:

• INSEAD - Asia Campus
  
  The INSEAD campus in Singapore provides the full function of services and activities that are offered at its Fontainebleau campus. The programmes include a full MBA, and executive MBA, certificate courses and doctoral programmes.
  
  
• Cornell University - Cornell-Nanyang Institute of Hospitality Management
  
  The Cornell-Nanyang Institute of Hospitality Management is an alliance between Cornell University's School of Hotel Administration and the Nanyang Technological University (NTU)'s Nanyang Business School (NBS). The mission of the Cornell-Nanyang Institute is three-fold. It aims to, among others develop Asian leaders, managers and entrepreneurs in the hospitality and tourism industry, and to build a world-class institution for the creation, translation and dissemination of knowledge to the hospitality and tourism industry in Asia.
  
  
• Stanford University - Singapore Stanford Partnership in Environmental Engineering & Science
  
  The Singapore Stanford Partnership (SSP) is a joint effort between Nanyang Technological University's School of Civil & Environmental Engineering and Stanford University's Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering to establish a Singapore-based premier graduate education and research program in Environmental Engineering.
  
  Graduating students receive NTU’s MS or PhD degree in Environmental Science and Engineering with additional SSP certification jointly awarded by NTU and Stanford University.
  
  
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Singapore MIT Alliance (SMA)
  
  SMA was launched in 1998 with the aim of setting a new standard in international collaboration in graduate science and engineering education and research. It involves some 50 professors from MIT and another 50 from both NUS and NTU in the teaching of courses and supervision of research. Graduates of the intensive 13-month programme have taken subjects such as Advanced Materials for Micro and Nano Systems, High Performance Computation for Engineered Systems, Innovation in Manufacturing Systems and Technology, Molecular Engineering of Biological and Chemical Systems; and Computer Science.
  
  "SMA-2" is a new five-year programme launched in July 2005. It will provide students in Singapore with the opportunity to earn a Masters degree from MIT as well as graduate degrees (Masters or Ph.D.) from NUS and NTU. Graduates now receive a certificate from MIT for their participation in the Singapore-MIT Alliance.
  
  
• John Hopkins University - John Hopkins Singapore
  
  Johns Hopkins Singapore (JHS) was established by The Johns Hopkins University in 1998 as its base of medical operations in South East Asia. JHS has a tripartite mission of research, education and patient care, integrating basic translational and clinical research components.
  
  Research and educational activities are carried out by the Division of Biomedical Sciences, Johns Hopkins in Singapore (DJHS), which is an academic division of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. DJHS will initially concentrate on cellular and immuno-therapies with specific interests in stem cell biology, T cell and dendritic cell biology, virology and cancer.
  
  The Johns Hopkins-NUH International Medical Centre (IMC) is JHS’ clinical arm for patient care and clinical research activities. The IMC (a member of the National Healthcare Group) provides Hopkins-quality oncology services to local and foreign private patients in Singapore.
  
  
• University of Chicago - Graduate School of Business
  
  Chicago GSB's Asian campus offers a full-time executive GSB programme taught by the same faculty which teaches at the school's Chicago and Barcelona campuses.
  
  Designed for professionals with 10 or more years of working experience, the programme's convenient modular format allows one to advance his or her career without interrupting it. Students stand to gain a broad knowledge of business fundamentals, as well as sharp analytical and creative problem-solving skills that extend beyond their jobs and the industry they are in.
  
  A unique feature of the Chicago GSB Executive MBA Asia is the weeklong residential sessions with Executive MBA students in Chicago and Barcelona.
  
  
• University of Pennsylvania - Wharton SMU Research Centre (WSRC)
  
  The Wharton-SMU Research Center (WSRC) was established in 1999 as a center for research collaboration between SMU and the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Under the Wharton-SMU collaboration scheme, the Wharton professors funded by WSRC are expected to visit SMU during the year (typically, during the summer months in Philadelphia) - for research interaction with their SMU counterparts and presentation of research findings at seminars they would give while visiting SMU.
  
  
• Georgia Institute of Technology - The Logistics Institute of Asia Pacific
  
  TLIAP is a collaboration between the National University of Singapore (NUS) and the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) for research and education programs in global logistics. TLI - Asia Pacific is modeled after The Logistics Institute (TLI) at Georgia Tech, which has wide industry recognition as one of the best institutes for education and research in logistics. This collaboration provides logistics expertise which caters to the logistics needs of the industries across the world today focusing on global logistics, information technology, industrial engineering and supply chain management.

Other premier universities which has set up programmes in Singapore include Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven and Technische Universitat Munchen.

The above are really some of the top names in global education, and Singapore is indeed the envy of many Asia Pacific nations for being able to attract them to offer programmes in the country.

While some may criticise that many of the above, represents just the setting up of certain joint programmes, and not offering "direct" degree programmes or setting up branch campuses, it is far more than any other countries in the region has achieved. In addition, it is understood that many of these institutions would prefer to "get comfortable" with regards to the experiment of setting up offshore programmes, particularly in terms of the quality of output, before proceeding to award their own institutions' degrees. For example, MIT has after five years, "stepped up" their programme to offer Masters degrees, instead of just offering MIT certificates.

What did Singapore do?

What were the reasons behind Singapore's relative success in attracting these top universities and academics? The only answer I could give, is that they had a clear and specific programme in what they wanted to achieve, and they had the right competent people to achieve the targets set. They drew a list of the universities they wanted, and they put up a strategy to attract them.

In 1998, Singapore's Economic Development Board launched the World-Class University programme to attract up to 10 world-class institutions to set up a significant presence in Singapore within ten years. That goal was reached in February 2003 - five years ahead of schedule.

Singapore had a vision of being a world-class education hub, a "Global Schoolhouse," with a "self-sustaining education ecosystem that offers a diverse and distinctive mix of quality education services to the world".

So What's Next?

Clearly achieving the "targets" "five years early" isn't the end of it. Singapore has continued to be extremely aggressive in attracting top-class institutions to set up shop in Singapore, and are no longer content with just "joint research programmes". In a recent move reported by the Asian Wall Street Journal (AWSJ) on July 12th, the government of Singapore made Duke University an offer it couldn't refuse a few years ago:

The city-state would underwrite a new $310 million graduate medical school and hand the entire budget over to Duke. The Singapore school would use Duke's curriculum, and Duke would run the show, from hiring the staff to selecting the students.

Not surprisingly, the university "leapt at the offer". The only caveat was that the degree offered shall not be immediately accepted at the "Duke medical degree", probably until such a time whereby the Duke officials are comfortable with the standards of education in the "new institution" to be equivalent to the standard they offer in North Carolina. The new medical school will be opened in 2008.

The University of New South Wales, one of Australia's top universities (and one this blogger gives more credibility to due to its less "commercial" nature compared to most other Australian universities), agreed last year to build a $245 million campus over 15 years that will offer the university's full range of graduate and undergraduate programs to 15,000 students, beginning in 2007.

The Singapore government has just recently suffered a minor setback when Warwick University rejected an offer to set up a branch campus in the country. Thanks to Jeff Ooi's blog post for the heads up. This rejection was confirmed in a statement made by the university officials, although the statement also says that the university would like to pursue collaboration with Singapore through alternative means. Despite what was reported in the Independent (I found the article highly inaccurate in many of its perceptions of Singapore), I believe that the main reason for the rejection is really due to the reluctance of the academic community to commit to participating in a campus in so far in Southeast Asia. They have earlier voted against the proposal by 27 to 13.

However, I fully exect Singapore to be able to continue to attract the top institutions to set up shop in Singapore. At the end of the day, it is about packaging and being innovative. Singapore has aggressively offered schools preferential real-estate terms, tax-free status and other special deal structures to ensure that it will be successful in roping in the top foreign institutions.

What's in it for Singapore?

We have been talking about attracting these top institutions to Singapore - but what's the reasons for Singapore being so aggressive in its manouvres (such as underwriting US$310 million)?

Besides the obvious of being associated with these universities, there are many other tangible and critical reasons for Singapore's romance with these top schools:

• It takes a terribly long time to set up and nurture a top quality school (and there's no guarantee that it'll be top quality!). By inviting these world class institutions to set up programmes and campuses in Singapore, their "know-how" and expertise are immediately "transferred" to Singapore. It's like instant noodles :). The more top quality educators Singapore attract, the better exposure Singapore students (and educators) get in becoming better educated.
  
  
• It resolves a major education supply side issue in Singapore. It may take a whole generation of academics turnover before Singapore can obtain the right quantity of educators of the right quality. It's a natural supply side constraint for Singapore due to its size and population. But the supply side constraints will be eased with the influx of foreign academicians, which will bring about hopefully some osmosis in knowledge.
  
  
• Singaporean students will obviously benefit from a greater choice and variety in education. From a nation's macro perspective - Singapore has outlived its usefulness as a manufacturing hub, even in the higher technology sectors. The only way to structurally reengineer the Singapore's economy from being electronics manufacturing dependent to one that is service and "knowledged-based", is to ensure that there is sufficient levels of quality knowledge in its population. It's not coincidental that the bulk of the programmes set up by the foreign institutions in Singapore are heavily service, science and bio-technology based.
  
  
• More importantly, I believe for Singapore, is that by having the top institutions set up shop in Singapore, top students from all over Asia will then set foot in Singapore to pursue their further education. It is clear that Singapore probably do not have sufficient natural population to populate these institutions and campuses. However, it is expected that a substantial bulk of student vacancies are expected to be fulfilled through "foreign students". That way, Singapore is clearly hoping (as per the very successful Asean Scholarship scheme) to "trap" the most talented Asians to be resident in the country, in part to make up for Singapore declining birth rates as well as the oft lamented shortfall in talent. Singapore aims to draw 150,000 foreign students from across Asia within 10 years.
  
  
• Finally, all these institutions are of course expected to contribute economically by making money. And in education, there's still plenty of money to be made in this region. As highlighted in the AWSJ report, the move already has paid off for some of the universities. French business school INSEAD, which opened a stand-alone Singapore campus in 2000, says it took in $18 million in revenue last year and has an enrollment of 300 full-time M.B.A. candidates.

The above long blog post, but still fairly brief in details, provides a background of Singapore's policy in attracting top universities. When juxtaposed against the Malaysian "declared" policy to date (through haphazard media interviews with plenty of spin and a lack in details), it gives an indication of how much more we actually need to do.

My original intent was to create 2 post on this topic, which has now become 3. However, it appears that due to the length of this post, I shall now have to leave the last bit of analysis - "what Malaysia needs to do" - in the 4th and last instalLment (for now) for this topic. Thanks for reading! :)

You Give National Schools A Bad Name!

Thanks to reader, John Lee for his link to this particular blog post by Cik Amoi a week ago. In the post entitled "Misguided HM in National School", Cik Amoi gave an example of the poor administration of the national schools which if not checked, will further polarise, the race community in Malaysia. Below are some excerpts from her post, whereby Cik Amoi's 'friend's daughter' was enrolled into the national secondary school (Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan).

In her first year (Form 1), she made many friends from all races and was very happy in that school. In fact, one of her best friend is a Malay girl whose father is also a school teacher, albeit in another district. My friend's daughter did very well in her school exams and came out among the top 3 in her class. However, for some unexplained reasons, she was "demoted" and separated from the class of best students in her second year. She ended up in a class of students who are more interested in disrupting the teachers and playing the fool rather than doing any actual learning.

In her second year, she applied for leave from school to sit for her Piano ABRSM theory examination which happened to clash with the day she was to sit for a Sejarah test paper. She was told to see the HM regarding the matter. Imagine her shock when the HM refused to even listen to her plea or even look at the proof of exam attendance slip. Instead, the headmistress refused to look at her, waved her off with her hand and curtly dismissed her with a "ini semua alasan saja. Kalau kamu absent, kamu dapat markah kosonglah." With that, she was summarily dismissed from the office. Needless to say, she was almost in tears.

My friend was shocked by the callous attitude of the headmistress and went to the school the next morning to try to explain the situation to her. However, the HM was out of the office on "personal matters" and he was attended to by the asst HM. When he showed the exam slip to her, she retorted with a "Oh, ini untuk ujian Piano. Anak kamu dari keluarga elit, ya?. Maaf, saya tak boleh tolong. Kalau alasan tak mahu datang sekolah kerana sakit masuk hospital atau saudara mati, itu boleh. Lain alasan mesti tanya guru besar dulu. Datanglah besok pagi" My friend was utterly speechless!!

When he finally caught up with the HM, she was in a better mood. The HM conceded that it is not possible for the girl to change her Piano exam date and agreed to allow her to sit for the Sejarah paper in her office immediately after she finished her Piano test. When my friend queried her on why she refused to give her consideration to the request earlier, he was further shocked by her reply that it was because there are so many other students in the school who frequently apply for leave to attend "Church" matters (hal-hal agama Kristian)! She thought that my friend's daughter was also trying to skip school to attend "Church". Maybe it was the HM's good fortune that my friend is not a Christian, otherwise, he would be HUGELY OFFENDED by her remark.

Is there a HOTLINE which we can call the Ministry of Education and complain about the headmistress and assistant headmistress? I'm in agreement with Cik Amoi that the above experience is not unique, and is prevalent in many schools throughout the country. At the same time, I'm aware that there are also excellent head of schools in Malaysia and these black sheeps just give national schools, which is the critical melting pot to promote national integration, a terrible name.

The problem is, in the best case scenario, the headmistress gets transferred to another school as "punishment". To me that's not punishment for the headmistress, but instead for the poor students of this other school, at the continued expense of the taxpayers.

There's clearly plenty to be "transformed" and improved about our education system, and our team of teachers and education administrators. Things will not change overnight - not a chance. But if things do improve bit by bit over time, then that's worth fighting for the future generation of young Malaysians. The question is, where do we start?

Top 100 Science & Technology Universities

Thanks to a post in Eric Beerkens blog, I was updated of the Top 100 Science and Technology universities in the world recently compiled and published by The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES). This 2 tables serve as a prelude to the full global universities rankings table to be released next month.

The following table shows the top 20 Science universities in the world as per the THES survey. It is interesting to note that it appears that Oxbridge universities are actually rated better than the top universities in the United States for this year, and the previous year.


More interestingly, however, and it appears that the University itself have not yet discovered this, University Kebangsaan Malaysia (National University of Malaysia, UKM), has been included amongst the top 100 science universities in the world. UKM is ranked joint 91st, an improvement from being unranked in the previous year. UKM was also unranked in the world's top 200 universities ranking list for 2005 by THES. In this particular case, the ranking might just be a tad more credible than the achievement by Universiti Malaya and Universiti Sains Malaysia, which achieved their respective 89th and 111th world ranking last year, on the basis of a misguided "international faculty and students score". In this particular case, the science university ranking is provided purely on the basis of "peer review", although UKM had no "citations" to speak of. I would definitely be interested to find out more about the methodology used to derive the "peer review" score.

For those interested, the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) are ranked 34th and 84th respectively. I've provided the table of the universities ranked 90th-100th below:


The top 100 technology universities of the world on the other hand, has a slightly different make up at the top. In this case, the universities of the United States are stronger and the top 20 consists of 7 universities from Asia as shown below. It appears that the Asian universities have been more adept in embracing technological advances to build competitive strengths than those in the Europe, which is represented by only 4 universities, of which 3 are from the United Kingdom (UK).

None of the Malaysian universities made it to the top 100 list for technology universities. On the other hand, Singapore fared particularly well here, with NUS and NTU ranked 9th and 26th respectively. More interestingly, Chulalongkorn University of Thailand made it to the 100th placement.


I hope that the above tables have been informative. I've received plenty of friendly criticisms on my blog post that I pay "way too much" attention on ranking tables for Universities. My personal opinion is that ranking tables are never going to be 100% accurate. However, I strongly believe that if the right methodology is used for the relevant compilation, the ranking tables will provide a good indication of where a university stands. For example, there probably isn't going to be much of a difference between enrolling into a university ranked 16th vs one that is ranked say, 24th. However, between say 16th and 67th, or say, between 48th and 97th, there are bound to be some significant differences.

In an age that we are bombarded with too much information, the bulk of which are ingeniously manipulated marketing information, there is a major need for some form of credible comparison tables to provide objective information to educators, students and parents. Go visit a website of a university ranked say, 104th and that of one ranked 12th, you will find that it is extremely likely that a student is unable to tell the difference in terms of quality between the two institutions. In fact, the lower ranked institution is more likely to "oversell" is quality and achievements in order to attract more students to the university, especially in the age where higher education is facing mass commercialisation.

Hence if anything, my approach to ranking tables will be to continually improve its accuracy and methodology, rather than to completely abandon or ignore such findings.

The Sun Interview with Dr Rais Yatim

I've quoted the teaser quote publised in the Sun a few days back here, and the full interview is published in this weekend's the Sun. You can also read the full interview here.

The bulk of the article deals with the National Cultural policy for Malaysia, the problems he faces such as religion vs culture, multi-racial & inter-racial culture which are fairly sensitive issues for Malaysia. For this post, I'll just highlight the sections which were relevant to our education policy.

The Sun: You mentioned education just now. I remember our second prime minister Tun Abdul Razak said in 1965 "our National Education Policy is aimed at bringing children of all races together, learning the same thing in the same way and under the same roof so that they will feel that they share the same ideal and the same country". But this is not happening.

Yes, it is not happening. You are right. To a certain extent it does happen. Let me admit again. Culture can be nurtured. It does not happen by chance. Culture can be nurtured in the cocoon or in the testing bed. Now what is the testing bed? The testing bed is education, the schools. Instead of sharing a common experience, we see polarisation of the races. No shared experience. This because there are Chinese schools and Tamil schools. And Sekolah Kebangsaan (SK) today is not what was envisaged long ago as a place our children learn and grow up together. We want all races to pass through the same schools, but they are not. In the 60s and 70s, yes, but not now.

The Sun: Why is this happening?

Because they see certain things in the Sekolah Kebangsaan which frighten them. Too much religion, too much Islam. They became frightened. That is the big impediment to the races studying together under one roof. Therefore, if Islam in schools can be reduced, SK can once again play the role intended for it. Now it is not about the teaching of ugama that is being questioned. No, not that. Have religious classes by all means. But keep away Islam from other aspects of life in the school. No doa at the assembly, no doa in the classroom except during religious classes. Then, and only then can Sekolah Kebangsaan be the crucible where shared experience is cooked. Finally, we must improve the quality of teachers in SK.

Yes, the last sentence was short but its importance probably the greatest - the Chinese community will unfortunately continue to shun the national schools if the quality of teachers in the Sekolah Kebangsaans do not improve. See also example of obnoxious head of school here.

Maintain PMR Standards

Following the report in the Star with regards to the PMR examination which has been regarded as a little "too easy" (blogged here), a Mr Sunny Tan of Johor Bahru, wrote in the Letters column of the Star, requesting that the education authorities "maintain PMR standards".

The Education Ministry and the Malaysian Examination Syndicate (MES) should really take the views of teachers and students who are disappointed with the lack of challenge of the examination papers seriously and not just shrug them off.

We must ask ourselves if the results give a true picture of the students' understanding of, and ability in, the subjects tested when they are set below par. It is dangerous to disillusion ourselves by lowering the standards.

I'm sure all of us could not agree more. We'd like the MES to take the criticisms constructively and help us improve the standards of Malaysian students and the crediblity of the Malaysian examinaton in the future. What MES should do now is make a public statement that it will consider all the opinions of the teachers, parents and the public and make future year examinations a better one.

Sunny goes on to argue that over the years, "the ministry has reduced the content in the Mathematics and Science syllabus to make the subjects lighter on our students."

However, due to current and future needs, the syllabus should instead be enhanced ... The ministry should not take out components just because they are slightly more difficult to understand.

Apparently, there was a new format of examination for the English paper as well. This format, it appears, consists of graphic materials and short texts - as describe by PMR student John Lee in his comments on the earlier post here. Sunny argued, understandably that this new format "will not test the ability of the students".

When one looks at the current examination formats for the English Language papers, one will question the seriousness of the Government in raising its level. One only needs to check the questions over the last 30 years or so to see the steep degradation of the standard.

We would appreciate if the ministry injects more comprehension, grammar, writing and other more useful components into the syllabus to help our students get a better grasp of the language.

Sunny was not the only reader complaining, there was plenty of feedback from the Star readers published today. Some of the examples of comments are:

“Exam standards have been dropping year by year. This will affect the standard in university too. Please buck up.”

A student said the questions were probably made easy because school Mathematics and Science teachers were themselves not proficient in English. “The teachers who are teaching Maths and Science in English cannot even read or teach in English. What do you expect?”

National Union of the Teaching Profession secretary-general Lok Yim Pheng said the MES should not lower examination standards to make it easier for weaker students. [The MES] cannot lower the standard of exams like this just to make it easier for some students. The standard of public examinations must be maintained,” said Lok.

Yes, MES, we do not want to produce a generation of incompetent 'A' students.

Hear! Hear! Quote from Dr Rais Yatim

The Sun this weekend will published an interview conducted with Datuk Seri Rais Yatim, our Minister of Culture, Arts and Heritage. In a snippet provided today, Datuk Seri Rais is quoted to have argued the following, which is a sensitive but critical subject in the Malaysian education system.

Have religious classes by all means. But keep away Islam from other aspects of life in the school. No doa at the assembly, no doa in the classroom except during religious classes. Then, and only then can the national school be the crucible where shared experience is cooked.

In recent months, the retired politicians and civil servants have spoken critically about the state of the current education system. There comments are blogged here and here. Now, a sitting Minister of our current cabinet have bravely spoken. Is anyone listening? Can we expect changes?

I'll look out for the entire interview in the Sun tomorrow.

The Lack of Competitve Pressures: A Response

Kian Ming posted a blog post entitled "Competitive Pressures... or the Lack Thereof" earlier here. Kian Ming argued that "there are no such competitive pressures within the academia in Malaysia. There is no ‘publish or perish’ culture. It is possible to stay at the level of Assistant Professor (or the equivalent titles in Malaysian academia) all your life without publishing a single piece of academic work."

His post has attracted a response from a regular reader of this blog, whose email I shall republish here below. The reader is a lecturer at a local private college himself, while his retired father was with a local public university. He seeked to establish the fact that there was to some extent, a "publish or perish" culture, but it was a discrimatory one. It also tells of the many ills which plague our local universities, supported with real life anecdotes:

"There are some aspects of your article which I do not agree with you. My dad was an academician in a public university and he was only promoted to a Professor when he was about to retire (about 2 years from retirement). There is no 'publish or perish' policy in public university for a certain group of privileged people. However as for my dad, coming from the non-privileged group, he and his colleagues have to publish a lot of their works and researches for chances of promotion and to stay alive in the university.

He would tell us at the dinner table that he was granted grants by international organizations and agencies and his other colleagues of the 'privileged group' would want to hitch a free ride or get a free meal. He would tell us that his junior colleagues 'of the privileged group' has gotten their professorship or associate professorship but has neither the experiences and the amount of work to justify the promotion.

Bear in mind, that there is a lot of politicking involved in public universities in Malaysia for academic promotion. The non-privileged group of academicians will either fight among themselves or work together. Most of them bitter about their status in the organization until the end of their tenure because they are not honored and recognized for the work they did. It happens and life is unfair. My dad and most of his colleagues from the non-privileged group have their basic degrees (some of them including my dad has first class honors), masters degrees and Ph.D. from top universities in UK and the USA.

However, even there are some people of the privileged group, were merited with promotions. However it constitutes only a small percentage from that group.

As for the private education institutions in which I am currently working in, does not permit their academicians to publish and to do research because of time constrains. The amount of teaching hours that a lecturer have to teach per week is about an average of 20 hours per week which is 2 or 3 times less the workload of a public university academician.

Private colleges and universities can hire any top notched academicians available in the market and paying them top money, but in actual fact, they would only end up teaching only and will not have the time for research. The bottom line for these private education institutions is how much money they can make. Thus is it worth the amount of money spend to hire these guys and get less teaching hours from them? That is why in most private education institutions, those with phd always end up doing administrative and managerial duties rather than to teach.

There is a lot of red-tape too in private education institutions. Don't be fooled thinking that the private sector is more efficient in their work. We private academicians have to do a lot of paperwork too. However, I would agree with you that private sector education institutions are working towards challenging the public universities for grants and better academic standing because of strong influences and pressures from their foriegn partners and the acceptance of the reality that education is not a business but a social service, by making lower profits and or breaking even. There have been arrangements for private education institutions academics to be given less workload if they are doing research and has gotten a grant for themselves. They are these arrangements now and it is a matter of time to see private education institutions being up to par or to better than public university in terms of research and development.

The government has given a lot of opportunities for public universities to improve through grants and allocations but the standards are still appalling. However, with external pressures from private education institutions, they might buck up one day!"

The reader also gave another example in a subsequent email with regards to a certain unhealthy practice at some of our local universities:

"There is another monkey business going on in university regarding to retirement. A lot of lecturers before they retire are given promotions resulting a several pay scale jumps thus upon retiring, he collects a high "pencen". It is ridiculous because it is not based on merits that he got the promotion but as a farewell gift. It happens to a lot of academic staff in the university who has retired. Although not formally admitted but openly practised."

Not a pretty picture at all for our institutions of higher learning...

PMR Too Easy?

The Penilaian Menengah Rendah (PMR) examination has just been completed on Tuesday this week, and apparently, many are of the opinion that the examinations this year has been of a lower standard, particularly for Science and English Language papers. This is reported in the Star today.

A Mathematics and Science teacher from Seremban said her students were “disappointed” with the Science paper as the questions were “too easy.”

“One of my students commented that had he known the questions were to be that easy, he would not have studied so hard! They were disappointed that the paper was not a challenge”.

Apparently, even the average and weaker students found the paper easy and not challenging. One of the teachers interviewed was even harsher with her comments, claiming that “Science was easy and English was closer to the UPSR exam”.

Is it just a one-off? Or is it representing another decline in standards in the Malaysian examinations? The immediate speculation that comes to mind is the fact that this was the first year whereby Mathematics and Science examinations are conducted in English (though not yet 100%, as Malay translations are still available) - is the lowering of standards meant to coincide with this so that students will fare "better"? This was similarly speculated by one of the teachers interviewed.

“I do not know if it has anything to do with the fact that this year’s candidates were the first to study Maths and Science in English. But the standard of most of the papers was much lower than Form Three level.

What lends credence to this speculation is the fact that just one month ago, the Ministry of Education released the results of the July trial PMR examinations conducted for Mathematics and Science in English which was apparently very poor. The New Straits Times reported on the 16th September that "Form Three teachers who have been teaching Science and Mathematics in English since January are a worried lot."

In a subsequent NST report, the Ministry of Education Director General, Datuk Ahamad Sipon said "the questions were designed to test students on their understanding of questions posed in English and Bahasa Malaysia, and Maths and Science terminology and their grasp of concepts, ideas and information presented in both languages."

Teachers were to have used the results of the "diagnostic assessment" test given to Form Three students in July to remedy weaknesses in the teaching of Science and Mathematics in English. He said the test was not meant to be a trial examination for the Penilaian Menengah Rendah and could not be used to assess students’ performance in the exam...

The Malaysian Examination Syndicate director Dr Salleh Hassan, who has been under a little bit of pressure in the recent PMR examinations due to issues blogged here and here, naturally "begged to differ". The best way for our civil servants to answer some of the tough questions posed, is by apparently "answering without answering".

He said the level of difficulty was about the same for every examination – including this year's – so the syndicate could chart and compare students’ performance over the years.

"Every examination has a combination of six levels of difficulty – understanding, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Some questions will be difficult and some questions will be easier, depending on the level of testing."

Errr... how does that convince the public that the PMR examination standards were not lower, I have absolutely no idea.

Attracting Top Universities to Malaysia (II)

Wah... just as I posted Part 1 of the my post on the above title last night, the New Straits Times today "followed up" on the issue of attracting "top universities" to Malaysia by placing the latest story on its front page.

The proclamations were not at all modest, with the article headlined: "Major boost for higher education: Going big (Ivy) League".

This is the news that Malaysian parents have been waiting to hear: Malaysia is going to be home to a top-class medical university and business management institution, modelled on the famous Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Besides providing more places for locals otherwise forced to venture abroad, these two institutions will also give the country’s ambitions of becoming a regional education hub a major fillip. It also signals a move by the administration to aggressively chase tie-ups with brand- name foreign universities.

If it is true that Wharton is indeed coming to set up campus in Malaysia, that'll be great news. However, the fact is "the Government planned to set up a business management institute" (so it's a locally owned institution) and "the business management institution will involve a tie-up with Wharton Business School of University of Pennsylvania".

Unfortunately, the nature of this "tie-up" is not elaborated in greater detail. Any tie-ups with an institution such as Wharton will be good for Malaysia. But before we go jumping about with joy ("what parents have been waiting for..."), shouldn't we at least obtain the necessary details of what this "tie-up" is about? Will it be about an annual one-month exchage of 2 academics? Or will it be the endorsement of the local certificates by Wharton?

The above announcement is made by our "Special Envoy to Higher Education Ministry", Datuk Seri Effendi Nawawi. There is also an interview with him available here, which don't provide any further details with regards to the "tie-up". At the same time, he continued to hint at some form of collaboration between our local universities and Cambridge University without providing any additional details.

These "tie ups" with the big name schools are in no doubt positive steps, albeit we have yet to determine, how exactly "big" the steps are. What is certain however, is that they don't yet deserve a screaming headline that Malaysia is going "Big (Ivy) League", and parents will need to with hold they joy for a while longer.

I'll follow with the promised examination of Singapore policy on attracting the world's top universities for comparative purposes in the next post.

Attracting Top Universities to Malaysia (I)

In an attempt to make Malaysia one of the key destinations for global students to pursue their higher education, the Ministry of Higher Education appears to be taking a two-prong strategy. The first one appears to be the increased liberalisation in the private college sector, in terms of setting up new colleges as well as in terms of awarding degrees. The second one, which is the subject matter of this particular post, is with regards to the ministry's attempts to attract universities from the western sphere to set up "branch campuses" in Malaysia.

The policy of attracting the "top" universities of the world to set up campuses in Malaysia, is not a bad one. Theoretically, if we are able to attract the top universities in the world to set up campuses in Malaysia, it will not only attract more foreign students to the country, it will also benefit the local education environment. For instance, the local top students will have a choice of attending the local campuses at a cheaper cost to acquire top-notch education. At the same time, public universities which has been under scrutiny today will face greater competitive pressures to improve performance to maintain their standards.

It is Malaysia's offical goal to attract up to 100,000 foreign students in 5 years time from just under 50,000 students today. Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak read a speech by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi which stated that "the country needed to recognise the impact of 'internationalisation' on the education sector," when officiating the launch of the University of Nottingham Malaysian Campus (UNMC) in Semenyih. This was reported in the Star on September 27th. The UNMC has currently over 1,200 students from a remarkable 30 countries. The University of Nottingham is ranked a very respectable 12th in the Times Good University Guide for 2006 in the United Kingdom.

On Sunday, Higher Education Ministry director-general Datuk Dr Prof Hassan Said claimed that "more foreign universities from Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States are preparing to have a presence here." This was reported in the New Straits Times on Monday this week.

Most of the universities he visited in these countries showed keen interest in either setting up branch campuses or research and development centres, he said.

"In the case of Ireland, we are discussing a lot of things. There is a possibility the individual universities will set up branch campuses. There is also the possibility that all of them might come here as a consortium."

On the surface of it, this sounded like good news. However, upon more detailed scrutiny (with no disrespect at all to Irish Universities), these colleges are no where near the top colleges of the world. In the respected and widely cited Shanghai JiaoTung University (SJTU) ranking table of the top 500 universities of the world, 1 Irish university (Trinity College Dublin) is placed in the 201-300 category while 2 others were placed in the 401-500 category (University College Cork and University College Dublin). Even in the more doubtful world rankings list compiled by the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES), the only Irish University appearing in the top 200 was Trinity College, placed at 87th. Are our Ministry officials pursuing the right universities to set up campuses in Malaysia?

In circumstances such as this, it is inevitable for anybody not to make comparisons to the policies instituted in our southern neighbour, and envy their success in some of their undertakings. Singapore has been extremely successful in attracting the top schools in the world to set up programmes or campuses in the country. Some of the top universities which have set up presence in Singapore includes Insead, the leading European business school from France, University of Chicago Business School, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (5), Stanford University (4), Cornell University (12) and John Hopkins University (19) (SJTU world rankings in brackets). Additionally, Duke University (32) from the United States and the University of New South Wales (153-202) are expected to open their campuses in Singapore within the next 3 years. I will dwell more in terms of Singapore's policy to attract the top schools in the world in the subsequent post.

The question that we (and the policy makers) need to ask is whether we have a specific strategy in recruiting these "top universities". Are we trying to really attract the top schools, but are misguidedly pursuing the second and third tier universities - University of Nottingham (83), Monash University (203-300) and the Irish Universities?

Alternatively, is it an intentional commercial decision to attract the 2nd and 3rd tier universities, as there is justifiably a very strong demand for their degrees throughout the world? From a foreign exchange income perspective, attracting these institutes is not a bad decision at all. The number of students who can qualify to the top universities of the world are few. On the other hand, there will definitely be a larger pool of students who will qualify into the next tier of good universities.

The difference in the nature of the above policies have subtle implications for our education industry in Malaysia. The latter policy may be a successful one in terms of commercial factors, but it will not have as strong an impact in their ability to improve the quality of our students and local education sector, as the former policy. In addition, Malaysia is likely to be labelled (if not already), a "mass" education centre of higher learning, instead of the "top" education centre of higher learning.

I don't think there is a strictly right or wrong to the above choices, although I'd like to believe that Malaysia should be more ambitious in attracting the real top colleges to set up some form of presence in Malaysia. It is more important that the officials at the Ministry of Higher Education formulate a clear policy for the country and stay focused in achieving the objectives of the policy. At the moment, I'm just not convinced that the officials know what they are specifically doing.

Interestingly, Datuk Prof Hassan claimed that "Cambridge University was planning to collaborate in research and development with various local universities," in the latest interview. The same newspaper published on the 6th June this year that "Cambridge University is looking into the possibility of setting up a branch campus here." It was immediately rebutted in a low-key report in Malaysiakini, in which Cambridge officials flatly denied any plans to set up any "branch" and any other countries.

Collaboration between academics are common occurences and definitely not as claimed by Prof Hassan that "[i]t is the first time that Cambridge has explored this possibility with other universities."

I just wish that our officials focus a bit more with their roles and responsibilities and a lot less in try to "name drop" to associate themselves with supposedly "great" achievements. These actions by our government officials will obviously negatively affect potential collaborations we may have with institutions like Cambridge (imagine being questioned by the Malaysian media about a non-existent plan like setting up a "branch" in Malaysia!), not to mention that it'll make Malaysians look really stupid.

As mentioned earlier, my next post on this same topic will do a comparative study on Singapore's single minded pursuit and their innovative strategies to attract the "top" institutions of the world to the tiny island.

Budget 2006: Human Capital Development

This post seeks to highlight and consolidate the information with regards to "what's in it for education", provided by the budget announced for the year 2006. The information is consolidated from the Prime Minister's budget speech and the local newspapers, the Star, the New Straits Times as well as the Sun.

In the Prime Minister's budget speech, he outlined 4 key strategies to achieve the objectives of the nation for 2006. The strategies are to implement proactive Government measures to accelerate economic activities, to provide a business-friendly environment, developing human capital and finally, to enhance the well-being and quality of life of Malaysians.

The total amount of expenditure allocated for the education sector is RM29 billion, or approximately 21.5% of the entire 2006 budget (RM134.7b). Of the amount however, only RM5 billion is available for "development" activities. That means approximately RM24 billion is utilised for existing operations, for e.g., salaries for teachers and civil servants, rental, utilities etc.

The Budget announced by the Prime Minister about a week ago provides development for Education in roughly, 3 different segments. I'll classify them as (1) Direct expenditure on Education, (2) Tax benefits in Education and (3) Post-education incentives and benefits. I'll then follow up with a quick commentary on the Budget for Education below.

(1) Direct Expenditure on Education

Of the RM5 billion development expenditure for education, RM1.3 billion will be spent on pre-school, primary, secondary and matriculation schools. In addition, approximately RM1.2 billion will be utilised to improve infratructure, IT, hostels and teachers' quarters.

As part of the education program, the Government has set a 2010 target for staffing secondary and primary schools to be 100% and 50% graduate teachers respectively.

In addition, as part of a RM700 million budget made available to eradicate poverty among Malaysians, part of the funds will be used to upgrade and renovate rural schools, especially in Sabah and Sarawak, and supply electricity to about 550 schools and water to 260 schools; increasing the food allowance for children in Tabika Kemas from 60 sen to RM1.50 per day. A specific amount of RM80 million has also been allocated to construct and equip 400 rural libraries. From the budget notes and reports, I'm not certain whether part of this RM700 million (which will also be spent on repairing houses, as well as improving the living standards of the orang asli) is taken from the education budget of RM1.3 billion.

The Higher Education Ministry will receive the amount of RM1.4 billion. Of the RM1.4 billion, RM493mil for increased enrolment of students in technical, vocational and skills training institutes, which is expected to go up from 72,000 now to 98,000 next year. Enrolment in polytechnics is to be increased from 78,000 to 80,000 next year.

In addition, the Higher Education Ministry will set up a special unit to assist private institutions of higher learning (IPTS) obtain accreditation and recognition overseas in an attempt to boost the private education system in Malaysia to become a hub for the region.

(2) Tax Benefits in Education

• Parents with children pursuing tertiary education will get automatic tax relief of up to RM4,000. This applies also to those with children studying at recognised universities abroad.
  
  
• Tax relief for disabled children pursuing higher education will also be increased from the current RM5,000 for each child to a total of RM9,000.
  
  
• To encourage lifelong learning, the scope of courses that qualify for tax relief of RM5,000 for individual taxpayers will be broadened.
  
  
• At present, tertiary-level courses on technical, vocational, industrial, science and technology skills are tax-exempt. This exemption will be extended to professional qualifications as well as accounting and law courses.
  
  
• To increase the number of local scientists, IPTS specialising in science courses will be given Investment Tax Allowance of 100% for 10 years.

(3) Post-Education Expenditure and Benefits

Out of the RM5 billion development expenditure for education, there is a budgeted amount of RM1.1 billion allocated for "training". There appears to be many new programmes targetted at life-long learning as well as retraining (and additional training) for unemployed graduates as well as "incentives" for prospective entrepreneurs.

Some of the programmes are:

• The Prosper Graduate Programme to help graduates become entrepreneurs. Graduates will have to set up their own businesses and the Government will provide 200 of them with financing of up to RM50,000 each;
  
  
• The Young Entrepreneurs’ Scheme which is built around information and communications technology (ICT), tourism, halal products as well as food processing and packaging;
  
  
• The Industrial Skills Enhancement Programme for which RM100 million has been allocated to train 4,800 people (unemployed graduates).
  
  
• In addition to these, the other incentives involve putting more money into existing training institutes to train a bigger pool of school leavers. Nearly RM1 billion will be provided for trade and industrial training at Institute Kemahiran Mara, Pusat Giat Mara and Industrial Training Institutes.
  
  
• To encourage companies to provide job opportunities for unemployed graduates, listed companies under the supervision of the SC that provide allowances to participants under the Unemployed Graduates Training Programmes will be given double tax deduction for a period of 3 years. It is expected that at least 1,000 unemployed graduates will be trained under this programme by listed companies in the PNB and Khazanah groups.

Quick Commentary

Compared against the previous years, the allocation for Education has increased significantly. The development expenditure for 2004 and 2005 are only RM4.3 and RM3.4 billion respectively. It also means that the budget for education has increased by a massive RM46.8% over the previous year. This is a good development for the country.

The next question to ask is whether as a percentage of the overall budget, is 20% a reasonable proportion of expenditure for education? Are we investing sufficiently in our future? A quick check with the Singapore Budget for 2005 reveals comparable expenditure proportions. A comparison with Singapore is always useful as they have the undisputed(*) lead in terms of the quality of education in this region (* with the exception of the Selangor Menteri Besar who claimed in his version of statistics that the education standards in Selangor is better than that of Singapore's).

Singapore has a overall budget expenditure of S$29.64 billion, and the amount of S$6.16 billion allocated to education works out to approximately 20.8%. Of the $6.16 education budget, approximately S$1.08 billion is reserved for development. Development expenditure hence works out to be approximately 17.5% of the education budget. Once again, the proportion of development expenditure for Malaysia's 2006 education budget is approximately the same at 17.2%. From this perspective, I'm happy that the Government has allocated sufficiently (in terms of funds) for education in this country.

However, taking the analysis a little bit further - it is clear that the average spend on each Singapore student is significantly higher than that of the Malaysian student. Although the proportion of education expenditure from the budget is the same between the two countries, the total number of students differ markly. As at 2005, the estimated number of students from primary to university is approximately 650,000 in Singapore, versus 5.7 million in Malaysia. As a result the per capita spend for a student in Singapore is S$9,470 (~RM21,300), while for Malaysia, it works out to only RM5,080. That works out to less than 25% the expenditure per student in Singapore.

The above is not so much a criticism of the budget, but more a statement of fact. The Singapore education system is significantly "ahead" of Malaysia is partly due to available expenditure. That in turn is due to the fact that Singapore (~US$23,700) is a more prosperous country per capita, compared to Malaysia (~US$4,200). [An alternative measure of GDP per capita based on purchasing power parity, gives Malaysia a per capita income of US$9,100]

The question then for our policy makers is, how are we going to ensure that our young will be able make the necessary quantum leap if our education spend will likely be significantly behind that of the leaders? While M Bakri Musa noted in the Sun on Friday, that our RM1.1 billion for Higher Education is barely a quarter of University of California (Los Angeles) (UCLA) may be factually accurate, we can only spend within our means. However, does that mean that we will have to be resigned to the fact that we are going to be forever behind these richer countries?

We must recognise that we are never going to be able to match the expenditure of the richer countries. We may argue about increasing the spend on education by a few percentage points, but the difference is still going to be miniscule compared to the absolute spend in other countries like Singapore. It is extremely important therefore, for our policy makers to become more innovative in improving our education system, and ultimately enhancing our students capabilities. If we cannot compete in dollar and cents, we must then compete in terms of guile, cunning and acumen. We must be able to formulate policies which will leverage our strengths to ensure that we receive double or triple the returns per dollar spend on education, compared to other countries.

The question then, for our education ministries, is whether we are happy with just going through the motions or are we prepared to undertake the necessary measures to ensure that we are able to compete at the highest global level and ensure that we don't fall behind. The Malaysian budget has provided for education adequately given our constraints - are we able to utilise the funds efficiently and effectively? It is important to realise that it's not always about more money.