Short Break

I'll be taking a short break with the family til the weekend's over. Internet access is likely to be intermittent, so you would be unlikely to hear from me in the next few days. But I'm certain Kian Ming will keep everyone entertained with more exciting write ups! Hopefully by the time I've returned, there'll be more good news to chat about. Have fun! :)

Universiti Sains Malaysia: Equally Clueless?

Most of the articles of discussion on the latest rankings table compiled by the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) has been focused on Universiti Malaya (UM), partly due to the fact that UM has trumpeted its achievements louder last year as well as the fact that the vice-chancellor of UM appeared to have been more vocal in his denial of the state of affairs at the university. In addition, UM has always been the premier institution in Malaysia, hence such a steep fall in rankings from 89th to 169th was always going to be more controversial than other universities who never made it to the Top 200 list ever.

The only exception to the above is Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) whose main campus is located in Penang. USM came in at position 111th in 2004 but disappeared altogether from the Top 200 in the current year's list. The only media comment I've read made by the vice-chancellor of USM on October 30th was highlighted in the earlier post.

USM Vice-Chancellor, Prof Datuk Dr Dzulkifli Abdul Razak was also interviewed by the Star, for the drop from 111th to "unranked". He hypothesized that "the addition of new criteria such as the employer survey could have contributed to the sharp drop in the university’s position."

As discussed many times on this blog, this argument is total nonsense. The real and only reason why USM was even in the Top 200 in the first place, is because the guys engaged by THES to compile the data, QS QuacquarelliSymmonds Limited, made a major boo boo with the USM data. Because QS were likely to have treated Chinese and Indian students as "foreign students", USM was ranked an incredible 4th most international university in the world. See blog post here for a more detailed explanation. As a result, the "size" of the foreign students contingent in USM results in a surprisingly respectable position of 111th in the world universities rankings table.

However, for some reason or other, which I find really really really difficult to believe, the academics and administrators at the university appears to be totally oblivious to the above factual reason behind the dramatic "fall" in rankings by USM. The figures and facts to arrive at the above conclusion are easily available, published by THES and do not require any complex mathematical calculations at all.

Why then, do I read today, that the USM Vice-Chancellor has chosen to engage "a London-based consultant to report on the reasons for USM being dropped from the list of the world's top 200 universities".

The consultant will submit its report at a meeting with USM administrators on Nov 21, said vice chancellor Prof Datuk Dzulkifli Abdul Razak.

He said the consultant was required to report in detail the criteria used by the newspaper to evaluate the top universities this year, after ranking USM at 111th spot last year.

If I'm not wrong, the "consultant" engaged by USM is the same party that conducted the above survey i.e., QS QuacquarelliSymmonds. This is because, the UM Vice Chancellor was quoted earlier to have stated that UM is also setting up a meeting with QS around the same time to "discover" the reason behind the fall in rankings as well as to better understand the methodology.

I wish USM will just pay me the consultant fees and I'll provide the reason(s) for the "fall" in rankings. I'll even give a big discount, saving Malaysian tax payers some valuable cash. Heck, I've published the analysis here for free already!

It is interesting also to find out what type of feedback QS will be giving UM and USM, since QS is the party contracted by THES to conduct the survey. Wouldn't there be some sort of conflict of interest if QS takes $$$ from the Malaysian universities?

And so what if UM and USM managed to better understand the methodologies behind the rankings table? Would both universities then decide to adapt and change the way to run the university in accordance to the table's ranking criteria just to improve the university's ranking? That just sounds a little too silly, right?

Wouldn't it be better for both universities to just focus on improving the quality of academics and facilities at the universities? The rankings will then naturally improve if our academics produces enough quality research valued by the peers and published regularly in respected journals. I just hope that the university administrators and the education authorities will get the priorities right!

Silver Lining in the Great UM Debate

For those seeking a silver lining in this entire debate and process triggered by dramatic decline in the ranking of Universiti Malaya (UM) in the World Universities Rankings table compiled by the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) - "this" is it.

Since July and August, here in Education in Malaysia, we have put forth our views and opinions of the THES rankings, our consistent criticism of the university authorities in their celebration of their 2004 89th placement, our follow up and analysis of the 2005 rankings table, and lately, our disgust at the response of some of the university administrators to the steep decline in rankings. Jeff Ooi has blogged about it. Sdr Lim Kit Siang has written non-stop about it. I've seen many blogs which has linked or written to the issue since. And yesterday, Mack Zulkifli of BrandMalaysia.com has raised the subject and plugged this blog.

As a result of all of the above, the interest in the issue has been absolutely fantastic. Very much to our surprise, pageviews of this modest blog hit off the roof last week, despite being a public holiday week, hitting 6,800, more than double the prior week. Yesterday, thanks to Mack, the site registered more than 1,900 pageviews, a new high for Education in Malaysia.

The silver lining is not however, about hitting "new high" statistics. The silver lining is that we have had fairly open debate and discussions which have attracted many many readers and interested parties. Even the typically docile local press such as the Star have been publishing some critical comments on this issue. This, to a certain extent, is democracy and an increase in tolerance of critical discussions at work.

The outcome of the debate so far has put the vice-chancellor of Universiti Malaya on the defensive, and under pressure. The Star has even published a critical call by the Parliamentary Opposition leader for the Cabinet to publicly reprimand the vice-chancellor for his arrogant and indifferent attitude towards the severe drop in rankings.

Lim said the Cabinet should censure Prof Datuk Dr Hashim Yaacob for his public pronouncement that he was "not worried" and instead felt "great happiness" over the decline of the university's position in the international ranking.

The Minister of Higher Education himself has not been able to fully extricate himself from the UM debacle. It appears that he doesn't have the stomach to be critical of the vice-chancellor of his premier university for some reason or other. At the same time, it is noticeable that his "support" to date for the vice-chancellor has been lukewarm, with the only indication coming from his press interview with Bernama.

Shafie said that in terms of points, the results achieved by UM were still good but owing to the introduction of the positions and the inclusion of more universities in the ranking, its position slid.

"Performance-wise, the UM is still good but because the points between one university and the next are too close, even missing two or five points can result in a big drop in position," he added.

Will the Minister come to the Vice-Chancellor's rescue? Or wil they sink together?

This was just a regurgitation of what the vice-chancellor has earlier claimed to be the reasons behind the "improved performance". But it does appear that the minister is waiting for the issue to pan out or die a more silent death before making any further comments which may negatively implicate himself either way the issue pans out.

As responsible Malaysians, we really need to continue to raise the profile of this critical issue to address the decline in the standards of our public university over the years. We'd like to thank readers and bloggers alike to date for making this a high priority Malaysian issue.

To make sure that this issue is resolved favourably for Malaysians, we will continue to highlight it prominently in our blog and urge other Malaysian bloggers to do the same. For non-blogging readers, feel free to use the facts and figures which have been compiled on this site to write to the Star, the New Straits Times and the Sun. Not to forget, write to the MPs and ministers of your constituency and Barisan Nasional to express your concern over the leadership at our premier local university.

We hope that some time, one to two months from now, we will see more light at the end of the tunnel at least, for our higher education institutions.

Leadership Revamp Needed at UM

The University of Oxford and Cambridge in the UK are two well known and world class universities. Tony read PPE (Politics, Philosophy and Economics) at Oxford and I got my MPhil in Economics at Cambridge (after getting my BSc in Economics at LSE). It is hard to question the reputation of these two universities but yet these two universities have come under considerable pressure of the last 10 to 15 years.

Many of their best academics have been poached by leading US universities who can offer more research funding and higher salaries. By many accounts, among the academia, they have been overtaken by the top US universities in many fields and will continue to lose its competitive edge unless something drastic is done.

These two leading universities are hemmed in by a few things. “National service” is one of them since there is significant governmental pressure on Cambridge and Oxford to accept students from a wide variety of backgrounds (read: class). Funding pressure is another one since the maximum amount of school fees that they can charge their students is capped at a ridiculously low level (up to 3000 pounds in 2006) which isn’t anywhere near the cost of providing that education. In addition, because Cambridge and Oxford runs a college-based system of education at the undergraduate level, the cost of education per student is much higher than that of other public universities in the UK.

Both universities have in the recent past, appointed new vice-chancellors to meet these serious challenges. In 2004, Tony’s alma mater, Oxford, appointed Dr. John Hood - a New Zealander -to the VC position. His suggestions for reforms including subjecting academics’ work to closer scrutiny and linking pay to performance as well as introducing external trustees to oversee the governance of the university, has been met with disapproval from many of the Oxford academics. While one may argue against his methods or philosophy, it is clear that the senior leadership at Oxford recognizes the gravity of the situation and the need for reform if Oxford is to continue as a world class university.

Cambridge is watching this ‘experiment’ closely and if the reforms are successful, look for them to follow suit in the not too distant future. In the meantime, they appointed Professor Alison Richard to the position of vice-chancellor in 2003. While she was born in the UK, she has been in the US, specifically Yale, for the past 30 years, including 8 years as Provost (something like a chief academic officer).

Her mandate is not as controversial or extensive as that given to Dr. John Hood. It seems that she was brought back to Cambridge because of her fund-raising skills, an area in which the UK universities are mere amateurs compared to their US counterparts.

But make no bones about it, these two leading UK universities are more than aware of the pressures of international competition. Oxford has been the more daring of the two universities, indicated by their willingness to take on the ‘dons’ there – who some criticize are more interested in preserving and living in the ‘tradition’ that is Oxford rather than producing world class and cutting edge research.

The UM VC should take emulate at least the courage of Dr. John Hood by making real reforms - starting with improving the quality and accountability of the teaching staff – instead of patting himself on the back by erecting huge billboards promoting UM’s world class ‘recognition’. And the prime minister should give him the mandate to initiate these reforms and to see them through. If the UM VC cannot or is not willing to take this responsibility, his job should be given to somebody who will.

More "Praise" for Universiti Malaya

Calvin & Hobbes is my favouritest comic. I have it's entire collection! And this panel "dugged" up by the Discordant Dude, portrays with the greatest understatement, the malaise in our higher education system.

Having written an earlier letter to highlight aspects of the quality of Universiti Malaya (UM) in the letters column earlier in the week, Prof Dr Mohamad Rom Tamjis has written another one, this time to the letters column of the Star Education pull out in praise of UM.

I commented on his earlier letter in the blog post - The Art of Flattery @ Universiti Malaya, and it appears that Prof Dr Mohamad Rom Tamjis will continue to provide "rock solid" support to his Vice Chancellor who promoted him to the Dean of the Engineering Faculty. While the previous letter was entitled "UM falls in ranking but is on right track", this one is entitled "Done well despite national demands".

Despite having to shoulder the duty of upholding the government’s policies and ensuring their successful implementation – which universities in other countries may not be subjected to – Universiti Malaya (UM) has performed very well in the international arena.

Let me see if I understood the above statement correctly. Is Prof Dr Mohamad Rom Tamjis alleging that "the duty" to uphold the government's policies comprised the standards at Universiti Malaya? Hence the reason why UM did not perform as well as "universities in other countries" as these other universities are not subjected to the same constraints? Interesting, we would definitely be interested in finding out what exactly are the government policies which are hindering the achievement of excellence at our local universities. These hindrances should definitely be voiced so that our universities will be able to achieve higher standards.

With regards to UM's world ranking this year at number 169 compared to 89 last year, it must be noted that this time, the evaluation criteria is more encompassing and comprehensive.

Errr... Prof, doesn't that mean that the previous year's ranking in which UM managed to squeeze into the Top 100 was an anomaly because the evaluation criteria is less "encompassing and comprehensive"? Why should we be happy about it?

And as expected, he ended the letter on a "high", asserting that UM should still be "congratulated". Interestingly, he also appealed for "concerned citizens" of the country to defend UM's image:

Only the best 200 universities are listed and UM is in the list... UM should be congratulated for its excellent performance at the international level. I hope that everybody, including those in UM, will continue to support the university to achieve a better performance in the future.

As UM is an icon of Malaysia, I feel that it is the duty of every concerned citizen of this country to defend its image and continue to support it for the good of our country.

Both Kian Ming and myself are extremely concerned citizens of Malaysia. It is because of our concerns which we feel that it's absolutely necessary to highlight the arrogance and malaise in the current administration of the university, which can only at some point in time, lead to further deterioration of standards at not only UM, but also other public universities in Malaysia.

We would argue that the manner in which both the vice chancellor of UM as well as Prof Dr Mohamad Rom Tamjis have been "defending" the image of the university have instead served to further heap dirt on Malaysia's premier institution of higher learning. Their statements have been dogmatic, arrogant, recalcitrant, constricted as well as analytically and intellectually unsound. We are providing constructive criticism to ensure that UM will not become a fallen icon of Malaysia, which will in effect make it's image indefensible except by parties whose sole interest is to "curry favour" the superiors.

School Fees Discrimination: Not Malaysian Enough!

It appears that, according to the Federal Territory education director, Noor Rezan Bapoo Hashim and the Deputy Director-General (Schools) Datuk Khusaini Hasbullah, our Education Act (1996) is discriminatory against certain Malaysians. For some Malaysians, possessing the same citizenship still results in different treatment, such as having additional administrative and approval processes and even possibly paying different fees for schools.

On October 22nd, it was reported in Malaysiakini that several parents from Jinjiang, Kuala Lumpur, are faced with the possibility that their children have to pay more for school fees because one of the parents is a foreigner. Their place in the school may also be in doubt as it is subject to approval from the Federal Territory Education department’s communication unit. This is despite the fact that these children are already Malaysian citizens on their own.

Parents were unsurprisingly “dumbfounded”.

"I don't understand. I am Malaysian. My wife is from Taiwan, but my 12-year-old child is Malaysian, has a Malaysian identity card (IC) and was born here. Is she still to be treated as a foreigner just because my wife is Taiwanese?" asked Ong Seng Eng.

Another parent, Lock Heng Chong, whose wife is from Thailand, said the school authorities themselves had certified his daughter's citizenship but he still had to fill up copies of the 'JPWP/HDS001' application forms entitled 'foreign students' application to enrol in state/ state-subsidised school. The officers in the school informed him that it was “new regulations” issued.

What’s even worse, was a case reported through a letter in the Star on October 31st whereby “M. M.” was required to re-register her child with the State Education Department although her husband and I are Malaysian citizens by birth!

The only possible reason for the “discrimination” was because the child was born overseas, registered at the Malaysian High Commission and issued with a Borang W within a year of her birth. At the same time she has carried a Malaysian passport all her life and has been enrolled in the government school system for the past nine years.

“Yet we were issued with triplicate pink forms entitled Permohonan Penerimaan Masuk Murid bukan warganegara Ke Sekolah Kerajaan/Bantuan Kerajaan and asked to provide duplicate certified copies of supporting documents.”

There has since been several versions of replies provided by the Ministry of Education officials to date. One official argued that the regulations were not new, but were just being “enforced” today.

"It's just that there has never been a comprehensive exercise to record such particulars since the law was put into place. The ministry just wants to find out how many children of permanent residents and other foreigners are enrolled in our public schools. We don't know, for example, how many undocumented migrants have their children enrolled in public schools. That's all this is, for record-keeping purposes."

This was perhaps confirmed via a report in the Star on October 30th which stated that:

Every school-going child with one or both parents who are non-Malaysians must register themselves with their respective state Education Departments before they are allowed to start school next year.

The new directive from the Education Ministry requiring such students to fill up a special form titled “entry forms for foreign children” is to facilitate its efforts to collect data on students and their parents’ citizenship status. Parents who have received letters informing them of this new requirement should go to the relevant state education department to fill out a pink form.

I can completely understand the ruling if it refers to children whose citizenship is not Malaysian, even though I am certain there are more efficient methods of administrating the process above. What I cannot understand is why should a Malaysian child, who by default, has the right to enjoy the national education system be put through such silly hassles and humiliation just so that the Ministry can collect some “data”? As far as I’m concerned, there are far less discriminating and discreet methods of collating the required data.

Datuk Khusaini Hasbullah attempted to appease the infuriated parents by assuring them that “the school will accept the child as long as one of his parents is a Malaysian citizen”. He rationalised that the parents were angry because of the name of the form which implied that their child was a foreigner. He suggested that his Ministry will rename the form “Entry Form of Children with One Non-Malaysian Parent”.

Datuk Khusaini Hasbullah completely misses the point. Why should the child, if Malaysian and possess relevant documentation, be required to complete a form and obtain approval from the Ministry of Education when he or she has no problems obtaining the national registration identity card as well as the Malaysian passport? Why not just revise the enrolment form for all students to incorporate these data requirements for the Ministry to collate the information as per the cited Education Act.

To quote “M. M.”:

While we appreciate that the Education Ministry needs to reconcile its students register/ database, the authorities could have handled the exercise with a little bit more logic and sensitivity and not assume that one cannot be a citizen just because he or she is born overseas.

What really humiliates the child as well as the parents, and rubs salts onto the wounds, is when an official clarified that the charges, RM 240 for the secondary school level, RM 120 for primary school pupils, would be levied on parents upon approval of their application forms.

"The approving body is at the ministry level, not here at the department, and definitely not at the school. Furthermore, there's no question of payment at this moment. That only comes into the picture if the approval has already been made at the ministry.

Once again, this official completely misses the point. The contention is not so much “when” the parents have to pay the extra fees, but a “why” should their child, who is a Malaysian, have to pay more fees than other “normal” Malaysian children?

Noor Rezan Bapoo Hashim explained that one of the clauses under the Education Act states that as long as one of the child’s parents is a foreign national, the parents must fill the additional form. “Based on that, we can check whether these children have to pay more fees,” she said.

At the same time, the Education Ministry financial division secretary Mahanum Abdullah said that the move was to ensure that foreign students settled their fees promptly as many had failed to do so.

No, Pn Noor and En Mahanum, the way to check whether the child have to pay additional fees is not by checking for the nationality of the parents. It is by checking the nationality of the child!

Pn Noor had the cheek to advise parents to go ahead and register their children early “as sometimes these forms take time to process and I don’t want them to miss out on the first few weeks of term.” Pn Noor, if your department or ministry is unable to cope with the administrative and paper work involved in the policies to be implemented, then please don’t create these unnecessary rules and regulations in the first place!

I am certain that the above administrative debacle is not due to national laws and regulations such as the Education Act. The spirit of the law is clear, in the simple sense that foreign students need to be properly identified and registered. However, the civil service interpretation of such laws tend to be overwhelmingly to the letter and form, even if it is impractical, inefficient and worse, diametrically opposed to the spirit of the law.

We have obviously too many civil servants in the government, for the director-generals could no longer find productive functions for them to perform. Instead they have to be occupied with strategising on a "new entry registration for children with one non-Malaysian parent" and implementing new administrative red tape, paperwork and absolutely unnecessary hassles for the rakyat.

As expected, the Minister of Education Datuk Hishammuddin Hussein, when queried by the MP for Kepong, Dr Tan Seng Giaw in Parliament more than a week ago, had no answers. I don't expect the minister to have answers probably because he is unaware that his ministry officials are so capable of ingenius ways of inconveniencing the public. Hopefully, he doesn't take too long to rectify the silliness of these new procedures and provide his response to Malaysians accordingly.

More foreign students in UM? Part II

Bernama reported yesterday that the Minister of Higher Education, Shafie Salleh, will give 'greater focus' to the 'internationalization' of UM as a strategy to promote its international reputation. He's starting cautiously by only mentioning mentioning the recruitment of more foreigners at the post-graduate level. This is in contrast to what the VC was reported to have said earlier which was to open up 5% of places at the undergraduate level to foreigners. Shafie is wise to start at the post-graduate level since opening up places to foreigners at the undergraduate level will open up a huge can of worms and stir up great controversy.

Let me start of with some positives since we've been bashing the VC as well as Shafie quite a bit over the past week or so. In the same Bernama report, Shafie said that 5 local universities will be having joint PhD programmes with Imperial College (IC) of London starting next year. If this indeed materializes, I think it would be an excellent opportunity for our local varsities. Firstly, it would reduce the cost of obtaining a 'foreign' PhD since Malaysian students would not have to stay in London for any extended period of time and PhD school fees would presumably be much lower as well. Secondly, in a related point, the reduction in cost might allow more lecturers who are currently waiting to be sent abroad to do their PhDs, an opportunity to cut short that waiting period. Thirdly, Malaysian PhD students would be able to learn and benefit from the expertise of professors at IC, one of the top engineering schools in the UK, if not worldwide.

But the devil is in the detail. There's an old saying which goes something like 'Beware of Greek bearing gifts'. One has to examine what IC is getting out of this. There's no such thing as a free lunch and if this partnership is realized, one must see that it ends up being a win-win situation for both parties and not just the Malaysian government dishing out tons of money to IC for this partnership. One must also ensure that Malaysians who go through these PhD program actually get sufficient contact time with IC professors and not just have email contact or see them once or twice during the course of a year. Finally, one hopes that this partnership will actually result in a revamp and improvement in the training that a Malaysian PhD student gets and not just be a purely symbolic gesture.

Having this kind of partnership with foreign universities might be a strategic way of overcoming the lack of suitably qualified professors in our local universities. One would of course prefer that this shortcoming be overcome by better qualified locals but this is at least a short term measure to stop the bleeding.

Shafie is also wise in saying that it would be unwise to recruit too many foreign students at the taxpayer's expense. I am sure that many of use would prefer to see the taxpayer's funds put to uses which can more directly increase the quality of our universities like paying qualified lecturers a more competitive salary or better infrastructure for science labs and the like.

Many state universities in the US who have experienced cuts in their education budget that is funded by the state has also cut funding to PhD students, especially foreigners. I'm lucky because I'm in a private university that is very well-endowed. In the UK, most PhD programs do not offer scholarships to foreigners and many in fact charge foreign PhD students, especially those that are funded by their home governments.

Now, for the question marks. Shafie mentioned that he would ask the governments of Australia and New Zealand to encourage their students to "participate in credit transfer programmes with Malaysian universities such as UM". What makes Shafie think that Australian post-graduate students would want to have part of their post-graduate training in a local university in Malaysia especially when the expertise in Australia is so much better across the board? I can think of a few exceptions - in areas where local varsities have professors who have expert knowledge in the field that cannot be found in Australia or in areas which Malaysia has a comparative advantage in (study of tropical diseases, study of ethnic politics). But these are likely to be niche areas. If Shafie thinks he can market Malaysian universities to post-grad students in Australia, then kudos to him.

Unlike the IC arrangement, where IC post grad students are not expected to come to UM to get credits (at least to my understanding), this seems like another hare-brained idea with little chance of success (short of throwing money at Australian graduate students).

One of the key elements of a good PhD program is to have professors who excel in research. This is what distinguishes a research university, which UM is supposed to be, from a teaching university. Having more foreign post-graduates will not drastically improve a university's research or PhD program if the same professors are in charge of those programs.

If Shafie wants to develop UM into a research university in the long term, he should come up with a comprehensive plans which (1) gives incentives to professors to conduct research and to punish those who don't (2) provide avenues for professors to bid for competitive funding sources. The other stuff is just window-dressing.

The Art of Flattery @ Universiti Malaya

Flattery is defined as (1) the act or practice of flattering, or (2)excessive or insincere praise in accordance to Dictionary.com. There are times where flattery is appropriate to give due recognition to the achievements and capabilities of the receipient. There are many other times however, where flattery and the visions of grandeur are contrived and insincere as attempts to “curry favour” or more crudely, to “bodek”.

We have always known that the art of currying favour is pervasive in our political circles with one always trying to outdo another in the attempt demonstrate one’s “absolute” loyalty to a senior politician. This is done in the hope that he or she will be able to gain, whether financially through contract handouts or other pecuniary gains through appointment to influential positions such as town councillors. This culture of currying favour is to be abhorred, although we tend to be more tolerant of it if it’s limited strictly to the sphere of politics.

However, when this “art” permeates into the culture of the elite academia of Malaysia, that’s when you know that things have really gone way too far. Where can you find clear examples of this culture in our universities? Well, they are really not hard to find at all. In the case of Universiti Malaya, you will find them on newspaper advertisements and large billboards and posters. But after a quick search, you can find it right on the university’s website itself!

Here’s some examples of how the university, clearly directed by the vice-chancellor utilises the crude version of the art of flattery and grandeur on his direct and indirect superiors:

UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA
BEHOLD THE MASTERY OF THE OLD GLORY.

Forgive my lack of understanding and comprehension of what the above statements. Maybe that’s why my English did not get an ‘A’ at ‘O’ Levels. I am completely gobsmacked as to what the above means.

Witness ISLAM HADHARI at work in UM!

The Prime Minister, YAB Dato’ Seri Abdullah Hj. Ahmad Badawi wants the nation to be Cemerlang, Gemilang & Terbilang and the nation should produce towering personalities. His Islam Hadhari wants Malaysia to prosper and move forward.

Yes, our Prime Minister will be most pleased with being mentioned in some of the most ungrammatical sentences you can find on the website. There is just so much enthusiasm in attempting to show that the vice chancellor and “his team” are “completely” in line and smitten with the Prime Minister’s vision and philosophy. If only they could channel these enthusiasm more productively, like towards actually constructively improve the standards of the university. The above is not the worst of it. There’s more:

The Minister for Higher Education, Dato’ Dr. Hj. Mohd. Shafie Salleh has diligently toiled in raising the standard of higher education. Through the PM’s and Minister of Higher Education’s untiring and sincere leadership, the nation is witnessing the rise of the universities and other institutions of higher learning.

Now, if the above statements are not meant to bodek the Prime Minister and the Minister of Higher Education, I don’t know what it is. Such statements really have no place in a university. Try searching the top universities in the United Kingdom, United States or even Australia – their vice-chancellors would probably rather one walked over their dead body than to condone such blatantly contrived statements of flattery.

Of course, the vice-chancellor cannot but help himself to end his eulogy with the following:

This year alone, it has done the nation proud by being named as one of the 100 best universities in the world.

Now this brings us back to the original debate. The vice-chancellor probably hasn’t had time to have his web development team update his website yet. Anyway, today you’d find the in the Star letters column, the first of probably many letters to be written by the deans of Universiti Malaya, coming to the defence of their beleaguered vice-chancellor. The letter, written by Prof Dr Mohamad Rom Tamjis, the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, was entitled “UM Falls in Ranking But is on Right Track”. Hmmm...

Prof Dr Mohamad Rom Tamjis wanted to highlight certain “points” which the public may not have been “aware of”. He takes credit for the university’s credible ranking of 82nd in the area of biomedicine. Yes, his is the dean of the Faculty of Engineering. Although he wasn’t absolutely clear, he probably correlates the performance in the biomedicine sector to his 10-year-old biomedical engineering programme at UM.

No, Professor, the field of biomedicine is not equivalent to the degree in biomedical engineering. It is the field which in all probabilities is dominated by the faculty of medicine. The other subjects covered will be pharmacology and possibly biology, biochemistry and biomedical engineering. Is this an attempted case of trying to “hijack” credit?

Prof Dr Mohamad Rom Tamjis was also very proud of the fact that

… graduates from this course are well sought after by employers. There are graduates who even changed jobs three times in two years.

Err… is that actually a good thing? I’m now worried about the career guidance tips that our professors are providing our fresh graduates. But that’s probably something to blog about at another time.

Finally, Prof Dr Mohamad Rom Tamjis concluded, predictably as follows:

Testimonies and acknowledgements from international peers are very encouraging. For all these, UM truly deservers world recognition.

Sigh. Is this another case of the practice of the art of flattery and bodek at our local premier universities? Is there truth in the allegations (see comment made by an anonymous reader here) whereby the vice chancellor “only nurtures half witted dimwits who will shower praises upon him”.

Is this letter an attempt by the Dean of Engineering to repay the vice chancellor’s role in promoting him?

The promotion exercise is done as if he is the King bestowing datukships. The promotion board consists of his spineless sidekicks who dare not oppose him. Therefore candidates who are not fit to be promoted are promoted… He promotes underachievers like Rom Tamjis who took two attempts to do his Ph.D to become the Dean of Engineering. I am told that the Peer Assessors at Engineering recommended that he be not even shortlisted for promotion.

Are the above allegations true? Are our local premier universities becoming permeated with the culture of unashamed flattery and grandeur all the way from the vice-chancellor down to the lecturers? I’m not an alumni of Universiti Malaya, but I’m hugely saddened by what is happening to our premier local university suffering under a vice-chancellor who has a penchant for grandeur by being occupied with actions such as directing “all faculties to hang his portrait everywhere”.

Once Bitten ... Twice Not Shy!

When I first read YB Lim Kit Siang's blog today, I thought that my eyes were failing me. Was I seeing the same billboards which so peeved me while I was driving around UM during my summer break - except that it had recently been "updated"? I couldn't believe that the UM VC had the audacity to paste the latest THES rankings over last year's ranking, this time "proclaiming" that UM is in the top 100 in biomedical sciences, social sciences and humanities and that UM is among the top 200 universities in the world. I would have thought that as a part-time poet, he would understand the phrase 'once-bitten, twice-shy'.

Apparently not. Didn't the whole debacle about UM dropping from 89 to 169 warn him about the variability of the THES rankings? UM could easily fall out of the top 100 in these subject rankings. Indeed, the methodology for these subject rankings are so vague as to make the variability even greater and hence more suspect. The subcategory rankings are only based on peer reviews and citations score. What if UM falls out of the rankings in these subject rankings next year? The fact that the VC once again pub

licized these subject rankings ensures that he can be made to account for them next year.

Sadly, my sense is that there will always be something in the THES rankings that VC can 'boast' about. This is because it is in THES interest to be more 'inclusive' in terms of having more countries represented rather than less. Given the fact that UM is the leading university in country, it is likely to feature in the top 100 or top 200 in one of the THES rankings, whether it is the overall rankings or the subject rankings.

The VC's tactics is typical of someone who's fighting for his short-term survival. As long as he can 'escape' the recent attacks on him by subterfuge, in this case, subject rankings, he can live to fight another day. Meanwhile, the long term decline of our premier public university continues.

Selamat Hari Raya

Tony and I would like to wish all Malaysian Muslims 'Selamat Hari Raya'. For those of you who are driving back to your hometowns, please drive patiently, safely and carefully. For those of you who are staying in KL, enjoy the empty roads!

UM Vice Chancellor: Foot in Mouth Disease

Both Kian Ming and myself have kept ourselves busy in the last couple of days to blog on the crisis our higher education institutions are suffering from, epitomised by Universiti Malaya's dramatic fall, down the world rankings table. What we are trying to do is not to let the issues rest, so that our government leaders will take the necessary actions to remedy the situation. Even if it's not going to be a complete overhaul, any remedial steps taken to rectify the situation will be an invaluable step.

We were just exchanging emails a few days back discussing the various angles which we can blog about for this issue. We were a tad concerned if we can put sufficient spotlight on the state of our public universities in angles interesting enough to keep readers going. But I suppose, we were definitely unduly concerned, for the current vice chancellor of Universiti Malaya (UM) has the affinity to stick his foot in the mouth.

First, he had the immediate response of "I'm not worried", and subsequent to that, after he probably had some time to "digest" the numbers, he held a press conference to claim that UM "has improved" despite the fall in rankings using some warped logic to hoodwink the public, and possibly his "superiors".

Now, to our horror, we have found out from the Star report on the same press conference held on Monday, he expressed "great happiness" that UM was placed among the top 100 universities in three out of five categories and "its improved marks are achievements to be proud of".

One of the first Malay proverbs which I have learnt to use in primary school was "muka tembok", and this is probably one of the most apt adjectives to describe the UM vice-chancellor, Prof Datuk Dr Hashim Yaacob.

Here are some additional quotes for you, and you can decide for yourself if I am being to harsh in my judgement.

Prof Hashim said that “at first glance,” it looked like UM had done badly in this year's ranking but a more thorough study would show that its performance had improved.

The vice-chancellor noted that there were more than 30,000 universities worldwide and UM still managed to be in the top 200. “I want to share my happiness with you that although there are so many universities in the world, we are number 169,” he said, citing other top universities which had dropped by many notches.

Prof Hashim said that while he did not dispute the methodology used for the survey, not all the criteria used were of importance to, or in the interest of, UM. Two examples are the marks given to the percentage of international faculty as well as international students of the university.

As I've demonstrated in my earlier post, the "thorough study" Prof Datuk Dr Hashim did does not show that its "performance improved".

The VC himself have probably lowered further the bar of mediocrity by now saying that "UM still managed to be in the top 200". He might as well have argued that we are still in the top 1,000 universities out of 30,000 in the world! The entire spotlight he has brought unto himself as a result of the rankings debacle, is entirely due to himself. Had he not trumpeted his "achievements" of being 89th in the world that loudly in the past year, the backlash might not have been that fast and furious.

After all, in another reputable rankings table compiled by the Shanghai JiaoTong University (SJTU), UM was not even present in the top 500! And yet, this has received little mention because it has never been highlighted widely. Can the VC answer why UM is not in the top 500 universities of the world consistently since the SJTU rankings were published some 3-4 years ago?

I agree with Prof Datuk Dr Hashim that criteria such as international students may not be that relevant for Malaysian universities, however, it only works out to 5% of the overall score - so it really doesn't explain the dismal performance of the university.

On top of that, I am certain that he knows, if not before, then now, that the reason for UM's "fantastic" performance in the previous year was due to the international students and faculty score for UM which were errorneously compiled by the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES). The fact that he chose to specifically deny knowledge of the error in public reflects the vice-chancellor's intellectual dishonesty and his intent to mislead the public and his superiors. He stated outright that "...he could not explain why UM had dropped so much in the overall rankings when it seemed to have improved in some areas."

While the VC is probably not the smartest academic in town, I would not give him so much credit to be that stupid not to be able to read simple comparative numbers. Make no mistake about it, I believe that the VC is fighting for his academic life and he knows it. He's just hoping that no one else has the sense or the ability to expose his untruths, and the crisis will just blow over with everyone no longer making references to the debacle.

For the moment, we'll just keep writing, particularly on more expected outbreaks of foot in mouth disease from the VC. For those who has been following this blog for a while will note that this was not the first time the VC has been infected. The level of interest on this issue has been fantastic, and we've been receiving record pageviews on this issue, despite having raised them during the weekend and over the public holidays when traffic is typically much lower. Let's all do our little bits to help change our institutions of higher learning for the better.

UM needs a strategic vision and well-defined goals to achieve that vision

One of the many problems inflicting public officials in our country is that they are often reactive, not proactive. UM’s VC is an especially good recent example of this. He reacted when the 2004 THES rankings came out last year by ordering multitudes of posters hailing the fact that UM was one of the top 100 universities in the world. He reacted again recently when this year’s THES rankings came out showing that UM’s ranking had slipped to 169 by saying that he was not too worried.

The sad fact is that many among the Malaysian public have lost confidence in the quality of our public universities. What is sadder still is the fact that we don’t see how UM will pull itself out of its continual decline into the ranks of mediocrity that is exemplified by the likes of the VC.

As the leader of the leading public university in Malaysia, the VC has to set the strategic vision for the university backed up by well-defined goals and targets that will guide the university towards that vision. Indeed, this is what UM’s website had to say about the mission of the VC:

“To provide strategic leadership and facilitate learning in the pursuit of knowledge and human development through well-designed and quality programmes, research activities and consultancy services”

My questions are these: Does the VC have a strategic vision for the university and does he know how to get there?

Most world class universities have a corporate planning department that helps the VC chart a course for the university in the near term by coming up with 5 year plans. I have my doubts that the VC even has a 5 year plan since taking up his position in April, 2003. If he has, he should certainly make available a copy for the public through his UM website, which is rather sad looking and sparsely populated.

Running a university is already a very complicated task. The job is made even harder when someone like the VC does not have a clear idea of how he’s going to take the university to the next level of excellence. Beyond mere platitudes, I cannot recall when and if the VC has identified clear goals for UM to reach as part of his larger strategic vision.

Given that UM is nowhere near Harvard or Cambridge or even NUS or the University of Tokyo in terms of funding, teaching resources and the like, these goals do not need to be very ambitious. Indeed, while I believe that the UM needs a drastic overhaul if it is to have any chance of competing against the best Asian universities (forget about touching the best universities in the US and UK), I think there is some low-hanging fruit which can be plucked. If even these relatively easy goals are not defined and then achieved, it is unlikely that the larger ones will have any chance of success.

Let me just list a few:

a) Set targets for each department to ensure that a minimum % of its lecturers are qualified up to the PhD level and raise these targets over time. It shocks me that a university that ranks in the Top 200 universities in the world still has many departments were more than 50% of its lecturing staff don’t even have a PhD. This has something to do with the fact that UM sponsors many of its lecturers to do their PhDs overseas and then return to teach at the UM after completion but this churning cannot go on forever. I have heard of situations where lecturers are only sent off to do their PhDs in their mid to late 30s after lecturing at the university for 5 to 10 years. In any of the major state universities in the US, it would be inconceivable that someone could be a full-time lecturer without having received a PhD.
b) Set targets for each department to achieve a desired ratio of professors to associate professors to junior faculty (senior lecturers / assistant professors and below). Many lecturers are promoted to the associate professor level and stay there until retirement. While some of this could be due to non-academic factors (such as race and having the wrong ‘politics’), much of it can be attributed to the fact that there is no pressure to produce enough good work to be promoted to full professor.
c) Base promotions on objective academic measures such as publication of books and articles in journals giving higher weightage to publications that are of a higher repute and books which receive critical acclaim. Do not base promotions purely on ‘administrative duties or contributions’ which is often a buzzword for sucking up and politicking.

I am assuming that this can be done without resorting to underhanded tactics such as decreasing the requirements to obtain a promotion to associate or full professorship.
A university’s greatest assets are its faculty members. If faculty is not given incentives to perform and disincentives if they do not perform, it is hard to see how these assets can be developed and grown over time. And I haven’t even talked about efforts to recruit renowned professors from the region and beyond. Let’s start with the low hanging fruit first. If even these cannot be plucked, then we can only watch while UM slips further and further down the ranks of the mediocre. The sad reality is that nothing in the behavior of the current VC shows that firstly, he’s capable of identifying such low-hanging fruit and secondly, that he’s capable of plucking them even if they have been identified.

International Islamic University: Tudung or Not To Don?

I have at least 15-20 draft blog posts to be written at this point of time. Unfortunately, it just gets humanly impossible to get rid of the backlog without becoming a full time blogger - I'm always amazed how Jeff does it. This is not helped by the urgent need to blog on the case Universiti Malaya plummeting down the world rankings table to raise awareness of the issue (yes, there's more to come!).

However, I thought I must put time aside to blog the equally important and long outstanding issue of International Islamic University (IIU) requirement that all female non-Muslim students must wear the tudung.

Recently, 25-year-old Foo Yueh Jiin, an International Islamic University law graduate didn't attend her convocation in August because she decided to make stand against the university's rule that non-Muslim undergraduates don a tudung like their Muslim counterparts for the ceremony.

As reported in Malaysiakini, Foo thinks the regulation is 'a shame' and should not be imposed on non-Muslim female graduates.

Foo was the only one among the ten non-Muslim female graduates in her batch who protested the regulation. She had applied for an exemption from the campus authorities but was instead told, "The other graduates before you could comply with the regulation, so why not you?"

Foo also added that her female juniors are facing pressure from the campus authorities compelling them to wear tudung irrespective of whether they were Muslims or otherwise.

This case has attracted plenty of response from all parties. Sisters in Islam has issued a statement that:

"Muslims who form the majority must not impose the 'tudung' on women, even if this takes the form of a university dress code. Islam urges its adherents to respect people of other faiths and their practices, and also not to use coercion in matters of religion. This is an important point to bear in mind in our multi-ethnic and multi-religious society."

Members in the opposing ends of the political divide, MCA Youth Chef Liow Tiong Lai and DAP's Member of Parliament for Batu Gajah Fong Po Kuan both expressed their support for Foo's stand and urged IIU to "re-think the controversial regulation".

Sdr Lim Kit Siang has raised in his statement that while the issue was raised in Parliament in 2003, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, Dr Mahadzhir Mohd Khir gave the categorical assurance that non-Muslim students in IIU were encouraged but not compelled to don the tudung.

It would appear that the IIU Senate had subsequently in 2004 introduced the rule on the compulsory donning of tudung for non-Muslim for the IIU convocation in clear disregard of the parliamentary undertaking by the Education Ministry and the fact that Malaysia is a nation with citizens from diverse ethnicity, religions, languages and cultures.

Even an UMNO MP has pointed out that asking non-Muslims to have the option to decide whether to don tudung was most insensitive in itself!

Student leaders have now followed up with the issue and have demanded that IIU review the tudung ruling. Spokesman for presidents of IPTA student representative councils, Mohd Efendi Omar [who's also the president of Universiti Malaya's student representative council], said they were not taking sides but felt that it should not be made compulsory for non-Muslims.

“For Muslims there is no question about it, but there should be sensitivity when involving non-Muslims. If they (non-Muslims) feel comfortable wearing the tudung, then they should go ahead, but they should not be compelled to do so if they don't feel comfortable.”

Police reports have also been lodged by various NGOs against the IIU Senate as the ruling was deemed to have breeched the Federal Constitution.

Despite the overwhelming sentiment against the IIU policy, our minister in-charge of National Unity in the Prime Minister's department Datuk Maximus Ongkili, said the decision by the IIU earlier this year was "not a religious one, but merely part of university procedures". He was quoted in the Star on the 26th October:

In a multi-racial country, each community must respect one another. But at the same time we must respect the laws of the country, institutions and organisations to ensure there is no disturbance to the community. As the rule was approved by the university senate, it is not religious in nature but a matter of uniforms that must be followed. It does not breach basic human rights."

This report was also carried in the AFP news, which does not reflect well on the institutions of higher education in Malaysia and will not serve Malaysia's objectives in attracting more foreign students.

The rationale given by Datuk Maximus Ongkili is so lame. He has even added the remark in yesterday's report in the Star that “They were aware of this requirement before they chose to study in IIU.” So, it's the fault of Foo and her coursemates that they "chose" IIU to further their studies!

The comment by our minister in charge of national unity is insensitive and doesn't make sense. He might as well say that if my company decides to enforce a policy to wear the "kijab" for everyone, then everyone has to follow because it's my company's internal policies and the employees are made aware of the requirement prior to them joining the company! Does it mean that any organisation is able to enfore it's own ruling on dress codes as long as it is argued that it's the uniform and it's "non-religious" in nature?

In addition, Datuk Maximus Ongkili is correct in pointing out that "[i]n a multi-racial country, each community must respect one another." This means that non-Muslims should be tolerating, understanding and respecting Muslims. At the same time, Muslims should be recipocrating with tolerance, respect and understanding for non-Muslims. However, it appears to me that our educational institutions are preaching the need for non-Muslims to conform to Muslim practices, which goes against the principle of mutual understanding, toleration and respect for each other.

As the minister in-charge of national unity, Datuk Maximus Ongkili should definitely be more aware of the implications of the above ruling. These are the rulings which gives our public institutions a bad reputation which directly affects the sentiment of the Malaysian minorities. If these actions are not checked, it will not be surprising to find complete seggregation of our young Malaysians by institutions - which is the exact opposite aim of the minister's portfolio.

In primary schools, the non-Malays attend the vernacular schools, in secondary schools, the non-Malays seggregate themselves and are seggregated from the Malays through various informal practices and now, our universities will be seggregated by those which Muslims/Malays attend like IIU and Universiti Teknologi Mara, and those the others attend like Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR). This is the perfect formula for national disunity.

Datuk Maximus Ongkili said that "if there were individuals who felt their basic rights were infringed by such rulings, they could lodge complaints to the relevant bodies." Isn't he the best person to lodge these complaints to? Or is this a case of shirking responsibility or avoiding tough "sensitive" issues by leaving to the others?

This negligence applies to the others as well. The deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Fu Ah Kiow declined to comment when contacted by the Star - is his position threatened like his boss, Datuk Shafie Salleh as well?

Lest I be regarded as being a Chinese chauvinist intolerant of Muslim practices - I was one of those who expressed absolute disagreement with Singapore's recently enforced policies to forbid the wearing of tudungs in Singapore schools. It is my firm belief that Muslims should be allowed (but not compelled) to wear school uniforms in accordance to their beliefs. This will also promote a healthy understanding of Muslim practices by the majority Chinese in Singapore. However, being allowed to practice one's personal religious beliefs is completely different from enforcing one's beliefs and practices onto others.

Our ministers have often asked to be given "a chance" to do their jobs. This issue has been outstanding since early September already. Can you please take your "chance"?

Universiti Malaya VC: We Have Improved!

What do our university administrators do when faced with damaging internationally recognised published information?

1. Claim the exact opposite!

And do it with a straight face. Yes, our Universiti Malaya vice-chancellor (VC), Prof Datuk Dr Hashim Yaakob maintained that its performance "has improved despite falling from 89th to 169th spot in a ranking of the world's top 200 universities compiled by The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES). This was reported in Bernama yesterday evening.

2. Dig deep for silver linings, and harp on it!

"UM is ranked among the 100 best universities in the arts and humanities category at number 45, social sciences at 83 and bio medicine at 82."

Yes, the above is true and you can see the individual tables here. Although there are plenty of doubters out there, UM did well to secure the top 100 placement for the above faculties. However, you can expect the UM VC to continue to harp on the above to drown the criticisms raised on the drastic "fall" in UM rankings.

One must wonder, why is it that having ranked "top 100" in 3 of 5 faculties, did UM perform so poorly on the overall rankings table? The answer is simple. For the overall rankings, THES takes into consideration several other factors such as "Recruiter Review", "International Faculty & Student", "Faculty Student ratio" and "Citations" score. These other factors contribute to a whole 60% in terms of weightage.

Without taking into consideration these other important factors (to varying degrees), UM actually performed credibly overall in terms of "peer review", ranking joint 77th-85th. Well, if the UM VC reads this blog, he'll probably harp on this point as well :)

To put "Peer review" into perspective, it's sort of a "who's who" rankings survey of academics. Hence, UM performed credibly in this criteria by having certain prominent academics cited by his/her peers. However, this doesn't do the university any good, if the number of students he has to teach is too big, which results in a weak "faculty student ratio" score. Hence a universities' ranking should not be based entirely on the "peer review" score, as rightly tabulated by THES.

3. When all else fails, clutch at straws

This one is quite funny (well, to me anyway). The UM VC claimed that the survey by "the newspaper showed the university's overall score had increased to 23.5 from 16.6 last year."

Numerically speaking, the UM VC is correct in adjusting last years' score of 166.4/1000 to 16.6/100 for comparison against 23.5/100 this year. However, what has not been taken into consideration is the fact that the 23.5 score was achieved with a "moved" goalpost this year as opposed to last year. Comparisons are hence definitely inaccurate and meaningless without understanding the underlying changes in methodology and normalisation.

A clear indication of how the scores tabulated has changed between last year and this year, is in the way the "peer review" score was derived. Statisticians will easily spot the difference by identifying the major difference in the steepness of the curve between last year and this year. For example the normalised peer review score in 2004, had a 80 points (out of 100) difference between the 1st and the 32nd university, whereas this year, it takes 166 universities to make the same 80 points difference. Given reasonable assumptions - that universities throughout the world don't change so drastically over 1 year - THES has definitely changed the way they calculated the peer review scores - rendering our UM VC's claim as ----. (Those interested in discussing details of the above, can always email me).

The UM VC has either shown himself to be dishonest in his usage of statistics to portray an "improved" status or has very poor analytical skills in deciphering data. Either way, he has portrayed Universiti Malaya and its administration in extremely poor light.

So, what next, Prof Datuk Dr?

Given that he is able to "read" tables comparing last year's 166.4/1000 score against this year's 23.5/100 score, I'm certain the VC is fully capable of comparating the scores of the other indicators as well.

For example, why did the VC not highlight the drop in the international student score from 68/100 to 7/100, as well as the international faculty score from 29/100 to 12/100? This is likely to be the simplest comparison which will provide the most straightforward answer to UM's lofty rankings in the previous year's table.

You know what? I actually think that in "real terms", UM did indeed improve its rankings. This is because, in "real terms", UM never made it to the Top 200 list for 2004. By doing a simple replacement of the international student and faculty scores with this year's numbers (7 and 12), this will have resulted in a final score of 86.6 for the previous year. That would have meant it would have been out of the list as the 200th ranked university had a score of 102.9. Hence, UM managed to "improve" it's rankings from outside 200 to 169th due to a better peer review score this year.
It's just "sad", to quote our Prime Minister, and too bad that our university administrators will never face up to the courage of admitting that their "achievement" last year was on the back of spurious data. After all they have spent so much effort and funds to publicise their "world-class" achievements, it must be too "malu" for them to say otherwise now.

As a result, instead of celebrating our entry into the Top 200 universities for the first time, the relevant parties are spending much time over outright denial and clutching at straws.

The UM's motto is "Ilmu Punca Kemajuan" or loosely translated as "Knowledge is the Source of Progress". With the university academics and administrators continuing to hide behind a facade of false knowledge, it is no wonder that we are not expected to progress. Instead now, we are hearing parties friendly to the university administrators such as the Malaysian Youth Council (MYC) YAB Dato' Seri Dr. Mohamad Khir Toyo claiming that:

"MYC is of the opinion that the criteria used by The Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) are more appropriate to measure the performance of universities in the West in line with the objectives of their establishment and functions."

And hence by default, the table is not relevant to Malaysians. I will not be surprised if UM VC leads in coming up with an alternatively compiled survey to indicate that UM is indeed in the top 50 in the world. After all, he has the precedent set by YAB Dato' Seri Dr. Mohamad Khir Toyo to follow when the latter made up his own statistics to show that Selangor is indeed a "developed state".

So, what next, Prof Datuk Dr? Display intellectual honesty for once, admit the university's weaknesses and seek to improve real performance? Or clutch at more straws and create UM's own world universities rankings table?

Happy Deepavali

Here's wishing all Malaysian Hindus a very very happy Deepavali from Kian Ming and myself.

The festival of light comes at the most appropriate time figuratively, amidst the darkness over the crisis of our higher education system. Let's all do our parts to keep the candles lit, in the hope that the education authorities will see the light and ensure that the future remains bright. :)