Malaysian Universities in the Top 50?

That's the target set by the new Higher Education Minister - two Malaysian universities among the top 50 in the world by 2010. As reported by the Star:

Higher Education Minister Datuk Mustapa Mohamed said this was in line with the ministry’s emphasis on academic excellence and internationalisation.

“Among the tools available to help us gauge our progress towards these goals are international benchmarks and rankings. We have set ourselves a target to maintain at least two of our universities in the list of the world’s top 50”.

While there are those who will argue against an excessive obsession with world rankings (which I agree - if it's "excessive"), I think it's great that the new Minister of Higher Education states his position at the start of his "reign" on top. It's always healthy to have a healthy dose of comparative competition to challenge oneself to do better, in this case, our local universities.

Some of the other little positives I gleaned from the press report included the fact that Datuk Mustapa Mohamed (Tok Pa) recognised that in order to attract the best talents to the local academia, that includes both students and staff, a strong reputation from internationally published rankings or comparative tables is extremely important. Unlike his predecessor who "appreciated" rankings only when its favourable to the local universities, and criticised them when the local universities rankings dropped, this is a particularly welcome change.

So which are the "2" to-be-selected universities? While the Ministry claims to be identifying them, it's a no-brainer that Universiti Malaya (UM) will be one of them on the list. After all, it's still the only university listed in the Top 200 list. That probably leaves 2-3 universities "fighting" for the second spot. Who are the favourites?

Well, in the year when Malaysia performed credibly in the 2004 Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) rankings table due to misrepresented statistics, it was Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) which was ranked at 111th, behind UM at 89th. However last year, while USM dropped out of the rankings list altogether, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, made a surprise appearance in the Top 100 Science universities of the world at joint 91st. At the same time, the new Vice-Chancellor of Universiti Putra Malaysia, Prof Dr Nik Mustapha Raja Abdullah has openly declared his objective for the university to be in the Top 80 in 5 years' time.

I won't be surprised at some intense lobbying by some of the vice-chancellors now, for the simple reason that the identified university will receive "all the support needed to compete globally" from the Ministry of Higher Education - which basically means plenty more funds.

The only unfortunate thing about Malaysian politics is that despite making such bold declarations, our Ministers will never be accountable for the actual outcome for hardly anyone is punished for "average" or even poor performance. On top of that post-2008 general elections, we might again have a new Minister for Higher Education, and objectives, policies and targets will change once again.

But then again, there's never harm praying for sunshine :).

Crisis in Malaysia's Public Universities? Part II

The Part I post on "Crisis in Malaysia's Public Universities", I've covered one of the key macro-education policy in the country since the early 1990s which has contributed significantly to the debilitating standards of education in this country. This "mistake" in our higher education strategy was highlighted in a long essay by Francis Loh published in Aliran.

The second part of this post deals with some of the other micro issues affecting the performance of our local universities which were highlighted by Francis. Two of the key issues highlighted were the loss of qualified and talented academics for a variety of reasons, and the second, on the declining standards of pre-university education and the consequent drop in the standards of the students enrolled into universities.

For the first reason, based on his experience as an academic in Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) he found that his peers left the academia for various reasons which included:

• Top bumiputeras being headhunted into civil service, government think tanks as well as consultancies.
  
  
• A group of non-bumiputera professionals getting frustrated with the leadership at the universities as well as the lack of promotion prospects and hence "migrated" to the private sector, joining the mushrooming private universities or in certain cases, moving and migrating overseas.
  
  
• Due to the retirement age being set at similar levels to the civil service i.e., 55 years old, many senior academics have also retired leaving few with decades of teaching and research experience in the 17 local public and 15 private universities locally.

The above reasons becomes clear, when Francis cited a study at USM which indicated significantly increased faculty attrition rates from 7% in 1990 to some 27% in 2000. I would personally be fire-fighting every hour of the day should there be a 27% attriction rate in my company!

The quote of the day however, was when he recalled a remark made by a former deputy vice-chancellor of Universiti Malaya with regards to the declining academic standards at the universities.

In the kingdom of the one-eyed king, he would appoint a completely blind minister, who in turn would appoint a deputy who was blind and one-armed.

Sounds familiar? :-)

Apart from the drastic shortage in supply of qualified and experienced academics, Francis lamented on the quality of students enrolled into universities today.

The yearly hype about the number of students who score A's in all their subjects in the SPM and STPM, alas, has clouded the fact that grades have been inflated and the top achievers are not necessarily of the same calibre as their counterparts some decades ago.

This, I suppose, comes as a timely reminder on the exaggerated exuburence with the increase in the number of top students in SPM this year. Actually, many readers couldn't wait but to remind me of the situation in my previous posts! While I dare say that it is a global trend that students will get smarter over time i.e., the number of straight A students will increase over time, I do share some concerns with regards to certain outcomes such as 28.1% of students scoring A in Mathematics (!). Of course, there is also the oft-cited reason whereby the set up of matriculation colleges have resulted in double standards for entry into the local universities.

As part of his conclusion, Francis came up with 4 recommendations for the Ministry of Higher Education, 3 of which I'm in full agreement with regards to their importance.

1. Restore the necessary balance between the "democratisation" of tertiary education, and the pursuit of academic excellence.

As argued in the previous blog post, the decline in university standards particularly at our top universities has to do with declining priority of academic excellence over social factors as well as other trivial pursuits. Four years ago, it was proposed that Universiti Malaya, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia as well as Universiti Putra Malaysia be made into "world-class research universities". However, I have to agree with Francis that this has been "all talk and no action".

However, creating the "elitist" world class institutions does not mean that students who do not qualify into these universities are ignored. Their needs will then be served by the 2nd tier universities which focus less on research and more on teaching as well as inculcating creative and critical thinking skills.

2. Selection of university leaders

In the same vein as Associate Professor Azmi Sharom's call to the Minister of Higher Education a couple of days ago, we have had enough of "one-eyed kings". Francis cited the example that universities in Japan, Thailand and the Philippines have the academic staff participate in the selection of their vice-chancellor. Over here, its simply the prerogative of the Minister of Higher Education who usually appoints individuals who are well connected politically, and therefore 'trusted'. A case in point cited is the recent appointment of the vice-chancellor of Universiti Utara Malaysia, a former director of the Biro Tata Negara. Similarly, I've blogged here on the type of shortlist the previous Minister of Higher Education came up with in the selection of the new vice-chancellor for Universiti Putra Malaysia.

To quote Francis, "[i]f Malaysian universities are to be able to compete internationally, surely the position of the VC should be filled by academics of the highest quality."

3. Promotions should be made transparent and peer reviewed

Well, there's enough said about this already. Browse through previous related posts here.

With all due respect to Francis Loh, there is absolutely nothing earth-shattering about the above conclusions or the recommended course of action for the Ministry of Higher Education. They have been the standard prescription given by all parties, academics (like Azmi Sharom) and lay men (like myself) alike. We have all been harping on the same issues repeatedly. I'm almost half-fearful that I'll begin to lose my loyal readers since they might just get bored that I'm repeating the same themes in this blog about education in Malaysia over and over again. Unfortunately for me, until these issues get resolved in the local institutions of higher learning, I will have to harp on them until such a point in time that they are no longer relevant.

Dearest Tok Pa, save my readers the misery of reading the same stuff written by someone with an irrational obsession to improve the educational standards in this country. Work on the above "simple" conclusions, and you will easily become the best minister of education since... errr... forever. The country will be so totally indebted to you.

Crisis in Malaysia's Public Universities? Part I

Regular readers will note that this writer have been very vocal in his opinions that the liberalisation and rapid expansion of the education sector is having some debilitating effects on the overall quality of education in Malaysia. Well, for those who wishes to explore this line of thought further with a more empirical study of our higher education system, look no further than the very very long and extensive essay by Francis Loh, published in Aliran last month.

Some readers have also requested here earlier (yes, I was aware of the article as I subscribes to Aliran) that I "review" the article and maybe blog a little about it. So apologies for the slight delay, but it is after all a very long article :-)

Francis defines the nature of the crisis

In its essence, this is a problem arising from the age-old need to maintain academic standards while expanding tertiary education so that it caters not only for the elites but for the masses as well, a process that educators term the 'massification' or 'democratisation' of tertiary education.

According to research by Molly Lee in her thesis "Restructuring Higher Education in Malaysia" at Universiti Sains Malaysia in 2004 the number of private colleges increased from 200 to 690 private colleges from the early 1990s til 2004. In addition, while there were no private universities then, there are now 15 private universities and 12 university-colleges.

As a result, enrolment in tertiary education "skyrocketed" in the 1990s. Tertiary students increased by some 350% in a period of less than 20 years!

The total number of students registered in tertiary institutions was only 170,000 in 1985, increased to 230,000 in 1990, and hit 550,000 in 1999. The increase especially in the private universities and colleges was staggering rising from 15,000 in 1985, to 35,600 in 1990, to 250,000 in 1999. The enrolment rate of the 19-24 age cohort in the universities has risen from 2.9 per cent to 8.2 per cent over the 1990s.

Interestingly enough Universiti Teknologi Mara had some 80,000 students in all its campuses nationwide. That will certainly make it one of the largest universities in the region in terms of student population, a recognition which is not necessarily positive. Such a sprawling university often results in poor maintenance of standards, uneven teaching qualities as well as neglected students.

Therein lies the problem. While the insatiable demand for "education" has resulted in the mushrooming private sector, weak regulations and incompetent monitoring has resulted in a severe drop in quality in teaching and research. While licensing can be fairly easily obtained to set up an education institution, and buildings can be constructed with liberal financing, the supply of qualified lecturers and academicians remains short and restricted. To compound the shortage, the mass commercialisation of higher education has resulted in the growth of "corporate and bureaucratic culture".

In 1999, we had less than 11,000 academics in public universities. However, the number of academics in these universities in 2000 grew by less than 20% to 13,000 - despite twin dramatic increase in the number of universities as well as students. In addition, according to Lee, "only 21.6% were PhD holders, 72.1% Master degree holders, while the rest were first degree holders". If the statistics are bad in the public sector, it's actually significantly worse in the private sector.

Out of 8,928 academics in 2000, only 4 per cent had PhDs, 25.6 per cent had Master degrees, another 58.3 per cent had Bachelor degrees, and 11.9 per cent did not even have a first degree (!)

Part of the reason for the dismal statistics in the private sector has probably got to do with the fact that many private institutes of higher education are clearly cutting corners by hiring less qualified candidates as academics at the universities. After all, if students are still willing to sign up by the thousands despite only have masters and degree holders as the lecturers, there's really not much commercial incentive to recruit better qualified but significantly more expensive PhD holders.

The corporate culture began to get embedded as a result of the corporatisation of the public universities following the passing of the new Education Act 1995. This corporatisation of the universities was part of a larger turn towards the adoption of neo-liberal market-driven economic policies in Malaysia, indeed, throughout the world, during the 1990s...

Hence the universities began to seek new sources of funding. One of the ways to do so was to increase student intake particularly at the post-graduate level. Various post-graduate programmes were launched and local and foreign students recruited to enrol in them. Often, in order to ensure that enough students enrol for the courses, entry requirements have not been as stringent as they should be.

Yet another way to seek outside sources of income is to launch 'twinning programmes' with local private colleges that are not allowed to grant their own degrees in that area. Business, IT and computer, and communications courses are among those that have been 'twinned'...

More than that, the university administration is also particularly keen to develop programmes and courses that can cater to the market. More so than before, there is increased emphasis nowadays in designing and offering courses which have a 'practical component' and are 'hands-on'. Invariably, there is less emphasis given to 'theoretical' courses which require critical and creative thinking.

Hence from the above statistics, it has become blindingly clear on the mistakes made on the macro-education policies for higher education in Malaysia. The "uncontrolled" nature in which education has been liberalised in the country without corresponding growth in qualified teaching faculties inevitably leads to a drastic decline in overall standards of higher education in Malaysia. Without looking into all the other "micro-level" problems besetting our universities (highlighted by Francis and will be blogged about next in Part II), we have already "lost" the battle at the macro-policy level.

To Tok Pa, our new Minister of Higher Education - this will definitely be one of the key issues which must be addressed in the up-coming Ninth Malaysia Plan to avert (or at least stall) the continuing deterioration of standards at our institutions of higher learning.

School Places... Going, Going, Gone!

"A Chinese primary school is offering places to the highest bidders, starting with a minimum donation of RM300." That was the first sentence of a report by New Straits Times last week.

WIth Chinese primary schools being so popular nowadays compounded by the fact that the increase in demand is not matched by new schools, it is certainly not surprising that the above is a common practice. Apparently, some even forked out RM500 to "get a better chance of securing places for their children". As reported, despite the "condition", the number of students registered still exceeded the available places by some 25%. And I'm fairly certain that this practice isn't taking place only in this school, SRJK (C) Foon Yew 5 in Taman Mount Austin in Johor Bahru.

Hundreds of parents who turned up at today to register their children for the 2008 intake cried foul when they learnt of the condition.

"What kind of system is this? This is a school, not an auction house," said one parent... Registration should be on a first-come-first-served basis, not by means of a donation." They got more upset on learning the RM300 merely bought the right to register, not guaranteeing a place.

While I wouldn't call it "daylight robbery" as one "Madam Lee" put it, the practice is certainly unethical for it certainly makes a mockery out of universal availability of education to all irrespective of wealth and place in society.

And what did the schol administrators say? In the same article, the school's headmaster, Ms Wong Wei Choon admitted that the "school had to resort to this method because of the overwhelming number of families seeking places for their children". Furthermore, apparently the scheme was approved by the school's parent-teacher association (PTA). These donations rae mean to be used to build some 32 classrooms to ensure sufficient classrooms from next year on.

Interestingly, in typical Malaysian fashion, the day after the report was raised, the school board called for a press conference denying the entire affair. Was the principal "misquoted"?

SRJK (C) Foon Yew 5 board chairman Cheng Chean Chiang said... the donations were entirely voluntary with no parent being compelled to fork out the money. "It is absolutely not true that we had sold places in the school to the highest bidder... We merely asked for donations to build extra classrooms. But this is not compulsory. Neither did we set a RM300 minimum limit for contributions."

Mr Cheng argued that registration was strictly on a first-come-first-served basis. In which case, I'd like to ask, why allow registration of 750 students which was 150 in excess of the 600 available places? Was the school going to put the 150 "extra" students on a wait-list? Or was the school just interested to collect extra non-refundable RM45,000 for the school funds?

Principal Wong then attempted to reason that "If there was bidding, as claimed by some parents, do you think hundreds of parents would throng the school to get a place for their children? Some even camped overnight to register first. Many waited in the queue for well over 10 hours. If there was bidding, nobody would do this." Oh, Principal Wong, you are being really sly here - I am certain that there are many who will still queue for a place in the school despite knowing that there is going to be a "donation" required of a place in the school. RM300 while not a trivial amount, is certainly not a serious enough financial obstacle to registration. After all, these parents are likely to spend much much more for their children's education in the future years (not to mention exhorbitant amounts on tuition fees!).

If the school is that transparent that registration is done on a first-come-first-served basis, then it should come clean with the acceptance of students criteria and process. Since 750 students have been registered with the 600 places be alloted based on a draw of lots, irrespective of the donation quantum? Will students who do not live in the vicinity of the school be "disqualified" based on the relevant guidelines? Will the school provide details on the amount of donations collected during the registration exercise - whether it exceeded RM225,000 which will indicate that all generous registrants have paid the "donation" of RM300?

If the donation exercise was indeed voluntary - why can't it wait till the students have been accepted but was instead carried out during the registration exercise?

The Johor state education director Jailani Rusni said there was no provision in the law allowing any school to solicit donations as a condition for registration. He requested that parents facing this problem should lodge a complaint with the state education department. The question is, will the Ministry of Education take any actions against these schools? Given the stance taken by the Minister of Education in the more critical (and criminal) issue of corrupted headmasters - whereby the vested interest parties in Chinese education sort it out amongst themselves - we are definitely unlikely to see the end of this practice. After all, a large part of the reason for the above practices is due the lack of approval and support by the Ministry to build new and more Chinese primary schools.

Corruption in Chinese Schools: Not My Problem

I wrote about the issue of corrupted headmasters a couple of days ago, A certain Mr Ong Koh Hou offers a reward of RM500,000 for information and evidence of corruption by headmasters in Chinese primary schools and the Federation of Chinese School Headmasters (FCSH) responded by going beserk.

In an interesting side comment our Minister of Education, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein gave to the press yesterday, he "said the issue was between school boards and the headmasters, and the ministry had no intention of getting involved... Let them sort it out internally". Huh?

Dearest Minister, this is a serious issue involving potentially hundreds of millions in the Malaysian Chinese vernacular schools, which as far as I'm aware, is still under the purview of the Ministry of Education. Corruption in schools is not a Chinese community issue. You can't wash your hands off it!

The Ministry should instead set up special committees involving senior Ministry officials, parent-teacher associations (PTAs), the police force as well as the Anti-Corruption Agency to investigate and audit the financial transactions of the individual schools. Those parties - headmasters and teachers - found guilty of corrupt practices must be sacked from the civil service.

Headmasters' corruption is a very serious issue. We often complain about traffic police officers requesting "duit kopi" for traffic offences which are valid or otherwise. However, I actually think that systematic corruption in our schools may actually be even more lucrative than that of the junior police officers. There probably used to be a time whereby the sale of "exercise books" and all provided some side income for the headmasters. However, today, I am pretty certain that some headmasters take home more from these "side incomes" than their actual pay.

More importantly, our young ones should not be exposed such systematic corruption right where they are supposed to be educated to be righteous individuals with rock-solid integrity. If they were to learn that even the headmaster, the de facto leader of the school, condones and is involved in petty corruption, it is then unsurprising that this dreaded culture becomes one accepted by the students as they grow older.

Be brave and bold, Datuk Seri.

Discipline Ill-Disciplined Headmasters

This comes direct from the Minister of Education itself. Referring to earlier incidents such as when the principal of SMK Abdullah Munshi withdrew her netball team from a tournament "merely because some of the players did not want to wear the tudung while playing" (blogged here) as well as discipline teachers who cut the tudung of 65 SMK Teluk Sentang students "to teach them a lesson that they should wear longer tudungs"...

An exasperated Hishammuddin wants all national schools to get the message: follow the Education Ministry’s disciplinary rules and regulations or face stern action. "As to those who do not follow the rules set by the Government... I am asking anyone who feels discriminated against or is dissatisfied with any school’s regulations which do not comply with the standard rules, to inform us immediately," he said.

For Datuk Seri Hishammuddin's "threat" to be effective or taken seriously by defiant headmasters and teachers, there are several things which the Ministry of Education must do.

First of all, there must be punishment meted out to those who do not follow the rules set out by the Ministry of Education. The rules have been in place since 1992 "prohibiting schools from compelling female students to wear the tudung". Hishammuddin himself has admitted that "some schools continue to ignore his directive" despite having "repeatedly said that it is not compulsory for students to wear the tudung".

The simple reason why these headmasters and teachers can choose to continue to ignore the rules is because no serious actions are ever taken against them.

For instance, will the principal of SMK Abdullah Munshi, Pn Fazillah Shaharim, ever be punished? And what will the punishment be? As stated in the New Straits Times report, "no clear directive or action has been taken by the ministry against schools which are enforcing their own brand of discipline that go against the standard rules set by the Government."

Secondly, the public will like to ask, what is the best way of reaching the Ministry to inform the Minister of recalcitrant headmasters? Is there a special hotline? What are the hours of operations? Do we have to write in official? And will we ever find out if any of the complaints and allegations get investigated? Or do we have to call the infamous Deputy Minister who made global headlines by asking all unhappy foreigners to go home directly, since he is now given the responsibility to discipline errant educators?

The two issues above are simple practical issues which need to be resolved to ensure that events such as listed above whereby students are unfairly penalised to ensure that they do not repeat themselves in exasperating frequencies. Go on, Datuk Seri, make the delivery system of the Ministry of Education one Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi would be proud of.

A PhD at 21?

This story in the Star inspired as well as made me a little depressed.

"Chan Yaoban, 21, who graduated with a PhD in Mathematics and Statistics yesterday, is the youngest student to be conferred a doctorate since the university began awarding the postgraduate degree in 1948."

I was just entering college when I was 21. I'm now 30 and am only in my 2nd year of my PhD program. When I graduate (fingers crossed) in 2009 I'll be almost 34. Where did I go wrong?

But seriously, Yaoban's achievement is pretty remarkable. Not only because he managed to get his PhD at such a young age but what he's doing with his brains and knowledge.

"Chan continues to work at the university as a post-doctoral fellow on a joint project with the Australian National University to develop a statistical method to identify protein anomalies in the brain, with a view to diagnose schizophrenia and bipolar disorder."

The article didn't mention his current citizenship status but it's likely that he's either a New Zealand or Australian citizen. I'd be certainly interested if his parents kept his Malaysian citizenship for him and applied for an NZ or Aussie PR. And if I were an enterprising VC in one of the local varsities, I'd try to recruit him to work back home in Malaysia.

His story is very similar to the story of Dr. Chua Choong Tze, currently teaching at the Singapore Management University (SMU) which was highlighted in an earlier blog by Tony. I managed to find this old Straits Times article on Dr. Chua and I thought that I'd reproduce it in its entirety because it highlights a few salient points.

Just 23 and an assistant professor at SMU (Straits Times, July 20th, 2003)

"AT A time when most fresh graduates are pounding the streets looking for jobs, one 23-year-old man has a six-figure paycheck waiting for him. Dr Chua Choong Tze, who finished his studies in May, will start teaching at the Singapore Management University (SMU) next month.He will be an assistant professor of finance and the youngest assistant professor in Singapore.While his boss, SMU provost Tan Chin Tiong, would not say exactly how much the university is paying him, he let on that, on average, a person with Dr Chua's credentials can earn at least US$100,000 (S$177,200) at any good American university for a nine-month contract.And he added: 'We are out there recruiting top people, we are paying top United States university salaries.'Dr Chua, who has a doctorate in statistics from the prestigious Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, is something of a whiz kid.He was the first person in his department to complete his bachelors, masters and PhD degrees in five years. Most students take five years just to complete their doctorate.He comes with glowing credentials from his professors, including his Wharton adviser, Dr Dean Foster who said a member of the US National Academy of Sciences had said Dr Chua's five year schedule was only reasonable for 'the greatest statisticians'.For his doctoral thesis, Dr Chua created a new interest rate model that attempts to give more accurate forecasts of interest rate movements.Prof Tan said: 'Dr Chua's age doesn't come into the picture. A top PhD in finance is a rare commodity.'His credentials are impeccable. And big-name professors have written very strong recommendations for him.'Dr Chua, a Malaysian, has long had his heart set on Singapore. His wife, elder brother, who is an accountant, and friends all live here.He studied at Raffles Institution and Raffles Junior College on an Asean scholarship - an Education Ministry scholarship that brings the best brains in the region here.The younger son of tax officers, Dr Chua graduated with first class honours in economics in two years.He doubled his workload and completed his basic degree in half the usual time to save money. It was the height of the Asian financial crisis then, and his parents could 'hardly afford a US education'.He started working on his PhD in his third year.He said of his doctoral classes: 'It was scary at times. Sometimes, I had no idea what was going on in class. I basically had to catch up myself.'And unlike most PhD students, he started on his dissertation while attending doctoral classes.He wanted to finish his PhD fast, to come home to his Singaporean fiancee - now his wife - a 23-year-old civil servant he met at Wharton.As a PhD candidate, Dr Chua also had to spend time teaching other students.Still, he found time for romance, hanging out with friends and at least seven hours of sleep a day. Holidays were spent travelling to Europe and around the US.'There's enough time to do all these things. You just don't waste time doing stupid things like chatting on ICQ or surfing the Web for no reason,' said Dr Chua. 'I'm very focused.'This articulate young man will stand in front of hundreds of students around his age, teaching them all about corporate finance.'I think my age is an advantage as we are from the same generation, and it's easier to build a stronger rapport.'Teaching is about engaging students and making things relevant,' he said.Dr Chua will also concentrate on his research work, which includes improving his interest rate model.And he wants to do more.He said: 'I'm interested in youth development... I want to make a difference, cliched as it sounds.'"

A few points to note.
1) SMU went all out to recruit him including offering him a generous financial package
2) Singapore had a head start on recruiting him because he was formerly an ASEAN scholar at RI and RJC (both Tony and myself are alumnus of both schools) and his wife, brother and friends are all in Singapore
3) He wants to make a difference over and beyond his immediate field of expertise. (He's on the board of management of a charity called Youth Challenge in Singapore)

I'm really happy for Malaysians like Dr. Chan Yao ban and Dr. Chua Choong Tze. They've obvsiouly harnessed their intellectual and have reaped the rewards early in life. But more importantly, they seem to want to put their intellect to serve the larger community. I wish them all the best. My only slight peeve is that they are not directly serving the community in their homeland of Malaysia.

More Azmi Sharoms Please

You know what? I'm a little kinda surprised that Associate Professor Azmi Sharom has not had his behind kicked out of Universiti Malaya (UM). :) Even more “shocking” is that they haven't found a replacement for him as the Deputy Dean of Law Faculty at the university. He really must have some guardian angel looking after him. Otherwise I wouldn't think that the world-class honourable vice-chancellor, Datuk Kapten Professor Dr Hashim Yaakob (Multi-Gold medalist at some trade fair in Geneva) has not found an excuse to banish Azmi to the private sector?

Readers may remember an article in published in the Sun during the peak of the UM rankings debacle, also blogged here, where Azmi made little attempts to hide his disdain of the university's administration with his typical colourful language and dry humour.

Now that UM is at 169, the same thing should be done instead of the hopelessly silly PR exercises of spin doctoring which has the appearance of the self same peacock waving its moulted feathers in desperation.

Well, Associate Professor Azmi is at it again. This time he wrote an open letter to our new (and hopefully much improved) Minister of Higher Education, Datuk Mohamad Mustapa (more affectionately known as Tok Pa).

Azmi pleaded with Tok Pa to take steps to right the many wrongs in our universities. He highlighted several issues which stands in the way of making our universities truly “world-class” as opposed to Datuk Kapten Professor Dr Hashim “world-class”. He highlighted 4 simple points:

• Universities are not hampers

Universities are not rewards to be handed out. It has happened in Terengganu and the same has been promised to Kelantan. “Vote for us and we will give you a university.” This may make political sense, but it does not make any academic sense.

• Universities are not fast-food joints

They should instead be high-class restaurants. Universities have to be elitist in order to produce quality research and graduates. An elitist university means that only the best candidates are taken in as students and only the best staff are hired. Classes and exams can then be pitched at a higher standard.

Furthermore, the resulting smaller student numbers mean seminars and tutorials can be truly conducive to discussions, and lecturers will have less of a teaching burden in order to concentrate on research. This is not to say that higher education as a whole must be elitist. There are other forms of higher education institutions that can cater to school leavers who don’t make the cut, such as polytechnics and community colleges.

This point I like, although I must say, I'm not a fan of high-class restaurants.

• If you love your universities, you must set them free

You must be aware of the University and University Colleges Act – that wonderful piece of legislation designed to ensure that university students are little more than secondary school pupils. You may not be aware, however, of the Statutory Bodies Discipline and Surcharge Act which affects academics who are the employees of statutory bodies.

According to this law, we can’t say anything for or against government policy without getting ministerial permission first. The simple fact of the matter is that universities should first and foremost be the birthplace of ideas and original thought, discussion and debate, and this can’t be achieved with such laws hung around our necks.

• Universities need Mandelas

If there is one thing that Malaysian universities need, it is good leadership. And by a good leader, I mean a Vice-Chancellor who has the qualities of an outstanding intellectual, manager and diplomat, who can ensure that academic principles are paramount, not political expediency.

That promotions are given based on merit, not patronage. That students are treated like adults, not children. And finally, that the university is run on the highest ideals of civilisation and intellectualism, not self-aggrandisement and base toadying.

“Self-aggrandisement and base toadying” - he can't be referring to his vice-chancellor right? No, no, Assoc Prof Azmi can't be that dumb to shoot himself in the foot! Oh, and before he signed off, he made one additional request:

Why don’t you just leave the day-to-day running of the universities in the hands of the universities? I bet the Ministry has enough on its plate without having to decide about trivial things like professorial promotions and the approving of leave for academics to go to conferences and holidays overseas.

Tok Pa, are you listening? Don't forget to also read his earlier article. Plenty of useful pointers there.

It's quite unbelievable that the university authorities as well as the powers that be can tolerate a reasoned, moderate, rational, vocal, even-tempered and academically passionate persona like Associate Professor Azmi Sharom in university campuses. Too bad the stem-cell cloning research thingie in South Korea didn't turn out to be what it was. Otherwise, we could just have put Assoc Prof Azmi into the duplication process :).

Sporting Tudungs

I'm not a Muslim and I'm in no position to determine if wearing tudungs for students in schools should be made compulsory, optional or unnecessary from a religious perspective. However, as stated clearly in the Star today:

It is not compulsory for students to wear the headscarf or tudung in school, Education Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein said. “According to education ministry rules and regulations, it is very clear there is no compulsion for students to wear the tudung."

So, it is fair for me to comment that the overzealous nature of certain principals of national schools in making compulsory certain religious-type practices deserves to be punished publicly to ensure that there won't be other similarly overzealous practices repeated.

The worst of these practices surfaced when two netball teams from Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Abdullah Munshi were forced to quit the Jelutong district inter-school competition in Penang. The principal of the school, Pn Fazillah Shaharim made the decision after being told that some players in the under-15 and under-18 teams had removed their tudung while playing.

Apparently, the school rules prohibit students from removing the tudung during school hours or in activities where they represent the school, as reported by the New Straits Times yesterday. On top of that, they are required to wear long-sleeved shirts and long pants during sporting activities.

Besides the fact that this principal is overzealous in enforcing religious practices, she obviously has no interest in nurturing sporting talents in the school or country for anybody will be able to tell you that it is particularly impractical to be clothed from head to toe in active sports, especially if one is serious about the sport. The principal obviously think that the fact that the schools team was strongly tipped for the finals was absolutely irrelevant - reducing the team members to tears upon knowing their fate.

In her response to an "investigation" by the Penang State Education Department, the principal claimed "disciplinary problems among the players also necessitated the pull-out. Apparently some of the players have "disciplinary problems such as playing truant." However the fact that certain players defined the principal's "advice" to wear tudungs was not denied.

The report sounds like a complete farce to me. The "disciplinary problems" issue is obviously an after thought given the full media glare she is now facing. Now, even if it is true that certain players have "disciplinary problems", why were they registered for the tournament in the first place? Shouldn't their names have been dropped from the team before the start of the tournament? Why only withdraw the two teams in the middle of the tournament, and only after finding out that certain players did not put on their tudungs?

I have serious doubts that the players were actually playing truant at all for the principal appears to have no credibility. If Puan Guru Besar is so religiously pious, please do not hide behind a facade of lies and excuses for your supposedly "righteous actions".

This Pn Fazillah Shaharim obviously do not have the students interest at heart and clearly do not understand what the students go through when they worked for one another to win competitions. Her actions will only serve to break the hearts and spirits of the students. Had I had a headmistress like Pn Fazillah Shaharim, she'll be what everyone of us in school would call one mega-mean b*tch.

Headmasters Go Beserk

Two days ago, I wrote on the issue of corrupt ed headmasters which seems to have dominated the Chinese press over the few days. A certain Mr Ong Koh Hou, chairman of the board of directors of SJK(C) Chin Woo offered a reward of RM500,000 on parties who are able to provide the relevant evidence of headmasters who have profited from sale of products and services to students.

The "rebuttal" from the Federation of Chinese School Headmasters has been fierce and relentless, practically bordering on the absurd. According to Chinese dailies today, the decision by the Federation of Chinese School Headmasters would take effect by the middle of the year and include a stop to sales of non-compulsory material, such as revision books.

Earlier, Chairman of the National Union of Heads of Schools, Mr Kang Siew Koon, said they would take action against those who claimed there were headmasters who could be pocketing as much as RM150 million in commissions from suppliers. Shouldn't they instead "take action" against those headmasters to pockets unethical commissions instead?

I strongly believe that the actions of the Federation is completely unbecoming of educationists and betrays their duty and responsibility to the students they lead.

By threatening to stop sales of non-compulsory items, computer and tuition classes as well as payable extra-curricular activities such as school trips, the headmasters are essentially holding students, parents and the entire Chinese education system to ransom. So there are certain weaknesses in the current school administration system allowing certain headmasters to profit unethically from it. But instead of taking the proper stance of wiping out corruption (or proving the allegations false) to enhance the current system, these idiots decide that its the students that should be punished for such corrupt practices.

And I thought these type of imbecile activities are limited to immature 5 year olds.

A certain computer company dominates the provision of computer classes for many states in Malaysia. The standard rates charged, as mentioned in my earlier post is RM10 per student for 10 months a year. A little bird from the company itself, which employs many former educationists and headmasters, told me that the company basically hands out commissions to these headmasters in envelopes containing wads of cash at the normal rate of RM1 per student per month. The amount actually works out to RM10,000 per annum for a school of 1,000 students.

I am aware of certain headmasters who accepts these contributions and place them in a special fund in the school for the purposes of the students in the school. But there are clearly plenty of headmasters who probably took it all home.

The little bird told me that with the practice having gone unchecked for the past 20 years or so, headmasters have been taking it for granted. That actually means that these "commissions" are treated openly in the schools administrative and accounting books. Hence it may just be this "openness" which the headmasters are now scrambling to sweep under the carpet, preventing them from taking the upright stance of offering their books for inspection.

If there were someone out there who offered RM500,000 for evidence and reports of corrupt policemen or civil service officers, the public will applaud such a measure. Similarly, Mr Ong should be applauded for offering the reward for exposes on corrupt headmasters. Headmasters should not be an exception to the rule, and should not be immune from investigations of malpractice and corruption.

The concern now is MCA politicians are now coming into the fray seeking the respective parties to "settle the issue amicably". I would not be surprised if an "amicable" settlement is found where headmasters will get to carry on their duties as little emperors and the students and parents continue to suffer in silence. I'd love to be proved wrong, but the politicians would seem to be more interested in negotiating "peace" than to stop unethical headmaster practices. The issue is not about "peace", it's about doing the right thing.

I'm totally and absolutely disgusted by the actions of the Federation of Chinese School Headmasters in putting the selfish personal interests first and the students last. Their behaviour reeks of gangsterism - maintain status quo, or we'll withdraw all "protection". They are a disgrace to the education system and do not deserve the recognition as "educationists".

Skills vs Intellect

I can probably spend a long time writing an article with regards to our education system on whether it should focus on skills or intellect. But given the schedule I have, I should probably just jot down the key points in my head and let the debate continue here.

I have a major concern with regards to the trend of secondary and higher education in Malaysia today which is heading towards one more focused on skills and probably less on intellect. We see it today with the types of degree courses which are being offered by the private colleges, and closely followed by some of the public universities. In the extreme, we have degree programmes such as Animation, Event Management or even the "Internet". Note that by "intellect", I'm referring to everything relating to critical thinking, intelligence, resourcefulness as well as analytical skills.

At the same time, we hear these so-called "experts" in the market harping on the fact that the reason for the oft-quoted 60,000 unemployed graduates is a "skills mismatch". Hence it is unsurprising that candidates and school administrators alike start to look at "skills" as the key barometer in the determination of a good degree programme. As a result, the less tangible "intellect", a key output from a university education - and to me, the most important output - is pretty much neglected and forgotten. You will find our Ministers often calling for the Malaysian education system to inculcate greater "skills" in our students to "ensure" employability, but never about harnessing and strengthening "intellect".

As a result, my biggest concern will be the fact that many students, particularly top students, will be misled to choose courses which focuses on "skills" as opposed to strengthening "intellect". For instance, I interviewed a first class honours graduate from Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) just a few days back. She completed her degree in computer science specialising in Multimedia. One of her "regrets" was the fact that she thought the teaching of multimedia is "outdated" at because they actually have to build their multimedia programmes from scratch using basic programming languages such as 4GL. She and her friends "envied" the fact that students in many private colleges specialising in multimedia were "taught" to use the "latest" tools such as Macromedia Authorware and 3D Studio Max to complete their multimedia assignments.

I told her that her thinking is completely wrong for 2 simple reasons. Firstly, at UPM, whether by design or otherwise, the course has resulted in students having to utilise a larger proportion of their intellectual faculties (what I'll normally refer to as "brain exercise") as opposed to students who get to take the easy way out using Authorware or 3D Studio. There has also been a comment somewhere on this blog when a reader argued that with calculators, it's no longer practical nor necessary for students to understand and remember formulas - after all, what's the relevance of addition and substraction when I can just press a couple of keys in on the calculator which costs me less than RM10? Well, the reason is simple, yet often forgotten - the formal education which we receive is not about picking up "skills", it's about strengthening our intellectual capacity and critical thinking skills so that we will be able to pick up skills really fast when we actually commence our productive careers in the "real world".

Secondly, I told the candidate that their obsession with multimedia tools are misplaced. What is important is the understanding and application of multimedia concepts and not on learning how to use these tools when pursuing higher education. As an analogy, if I were to hire a journalist, it is based on whether he or she can write a good story and not whether he or she can use a word processing tool like Microsoft Word! Such tools can be picked up separately either as extra-curricular interest or even after one begins his or her career. For if one has a good foundation in the necessary concepts - whether in writing or in multimedia design, being skilled in such tools will be a piece of cake.

My recruitment philoshophy (which isn't shared by all employers, by the way) is to place "intellect" over experience, which is the default barometer for "skills". While many employers seek out experienced hires, some 80% of my recruits are fresh graduates or those with less than 2 years' experience. When often asked by the candidates, what are my key hiring criteria - my reply has been consistent for the past 7 years.

• Firstly, the candidate must have a brain i.e., intellectually strong.
  
  
• Secondly, the candidate must be able to learn really fast, as well as be willing to learn really fast. Some out there are unfortunately able to learn very fast, but not particularly willing to do so. While for some of the others, they are most willing to learn fast, but are unfortunately limited in their ability to do so.
  
  
• And thirdly, the candidate must possess the necessary soft skills such as communication, attitude, presentation etc.

Experience and ready skills is an added but not overwhelming advantage for it is my belief (which has been proven many times) that with the necessary intellect and ability, the lack of knowledge and experience will be overcome within the shortest period of time. Having the necessary experience however without the underlying intellect will only give the candidate an initial headstart which will soon prove insufficient to move ahead once the juniors catch up.

Hence, my simple advice to secondary school students out there - have a serious think about the "skills" versus "intellect" dichotomy in our education system. Pick courses which will further enhance your intellectual strengths, critical thinking and analytical skills as opposed to those which focuses on learning specific "tools". This trend in our higher education system to focus excessively on skills is resulting in a change of definition of "universities" to become glamourised polytechnics.

Don't worry too much about skills and experience at this stage of your education. I'm not saying they are not important, except that they play only a secondary supporting role at this stage. I graduated from university with zero practical skills - hell, I didn't even know how to use a word processor properly until I started working!

Loyalty to Company?

It was some 6 months ago when the New Straits Times headlined a report that Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak advised new graduates "not to stick to one firm", as blogged here in August last year.

Our deputy prime minister (DPM) Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak recently advised (according to the New Straits Times) the graduates from University Tunku Abdul Rahman (UTAR) "Don't just stick to one firm".

Hence it was kind of a surprise, when he now reminded workers to "stay loyal to the company that trained you" as reported in the Star yesterday.

He said they should not job-hop for better pay after acquiring training. “These workers should show their gratitude by giving their services to the company,” he said when opening the RM21mil Naza Kia Academy (NKA) at the Naza Automotive Complex here yesterday.

Is this conflicting advise which is being given by our Deputy Prime Minister due to a "change" in mindset or a change in speech writer or simply just flip-flopping depending on who the audience was? Either way, I can only say that both pieces of advice are misplaced.

While I've argued extensively why candidates should not necessarily job hop in my earlier post, that does not mean that workers should be blindly loyal to the companies. There are many reasons why one should stay loyal to a particular company, and the provision of training is just one of them (albeit an important one). There are many other factors to be considered. These include a conducive working environment, career growth opportunities, choice of industry, lifestyle as well as financial renumeration packages.

While its probably impossible to find the "perfect" company, it is useful to identify good companies as those who are willing to share its profits and gains during the good times, and those who do their very best to protect its workers during leaner times. Workers are under no obligation to stick to a single company, especially one who fails to reward and recognise performance accordingly.

It is also interesting that our Deputy Prime Minister "warned" companies not to "pinch" workers trained by another firm. There appears to be a symtom in our government today that we should try to artificially prevent market forces from operating in our business environment. We have the Ministry of Domestic Trade giving out daily warnings against traders from increasing prices due to higher costs and now, we have Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak attempting the stifle the recruitment process for experienced hires, possibly to prevent inflationary pressures.

The honourable Deputy Prime Minister should note that companies do not pay a higher premium for new recruits without a greater potential return in terms of contribution by the new worker. Given such a situation, if the incumbent employer do not offer an overall employment package which commensurates with the potential and capabilities of the worker, then isn't it fair game for him or her to seek an opportunity which will best serve his or her interest?

Our Deputy Prime Minister also argued that a "mismatch" of skills in the workforce had "contributed to the unemploymnent of more than 60,000 local graduates". I've discussed this topic here earlier. Skills "mismatch", if at all relevant, contributes only to a small portion of the unemployment issue. A survey conducted earlier has indicated that as many as 30% of the umemployed local graduates are computer science and information technology degree holders. These skills are in obvious demand in the country - it is not a mismatch. The clearcut issue in this case is that many of the local institutions of higher learning, both public and private have failed to offer a sufficiently rigourous education to produce the necessary quality in the workforce which the industry requires.

The key to this problem is not to build more schools, encourage increased training expenditure by the local companies, coming up with more "market oriented" creative degree programmes or discouraging the practice of "pinching". The key is to drastically reform our higher education system, both public and private which is engrossed in loud proclamations of "world class delivery" when in reality, the actual output leaves just so much to be desired.

Corrupted Headmasters

A certain Mr Ong Koh Hou has advertised in the Oriental Daily a reward of RM500,000 for anybody who can come up with concrete evidence of corrupt practice by any Chinese school headmaster nationwide.

This news was also reported in the New Straits Times last week here and here. Somebody seems to have finally decided that enough is enough and the practice has been going on in the vernacular schools for far too long.

"I cannot understand why no one has attempted to address the problem, which has badly tarnished the image of the vernacular school and affected the morale of both students and parents in the past 20 years. I am offering this reward to encourage all, including school committees, parent-teacher associations, parents, teachers and textbook suppliers to come forward and furnish us with evidence of corruption. We are doing justice to all Chinese schools," claimed Ong in the advertisement.

And the corrupt practices isn't just about headmasters stealing stamps or stationery supplies. By general estimates, it appears that a headmaster of a school with 1,000 students will take home some RM150,000 per annum with rebates given by the suppliers of textbooks, stationery supplies, tuition and computer classes, addtional reading materials and workbooks as well as other recreational activities.

Based on a conservative estimate by Petaling Chinese Primary Schools Parents’ Association vice-chairman Teh Hon Seng, some headmasters takes a 30 per cent cut of the annual expenditure of approximately RM780 per student per annum. He said this had led to some suppliers "locking" the supply of books, stationery and computers to schools, making it difficult for parents to buy them elsewhere. And there are over 1,000 Chinese schools with a total of some 650,000 pupils. Mr Ong added that "these headmasters do not allow parents to buy textbooks and exercise books from outside except through them and have tied up with suppliers to rake in huge profits."

This piece of news isn't new or surprising. Most of us have known about it for the longest time. We probably just didn't know the scale of corruption which is happening in our vernacular schools.

I can give my own little piece of experience in my dealings with a particular Chinese school way back in 1998/99. At that point in time, I have not started my own business for very long. And my other half who have just graduated with her degree in jurisprudence (law) was helping me out while completing her Certificate of Legal Practice (CLP) papers on a part-time basis. In an attempt to expand and scale my business (which was still pretty much in its infancy), we were looking to bring internet and computer classes to school.

The model was very simple and it wasn't new even then. We would supply the schools with 2 fully-furnished labs of the latest computers (I think it was Pentium III then), networked to the internet and a supply of the latest multimedia educational software as well as of course, trained teachers. In exchange, we will charge the students RM10 each for a period of 10 months a year. Given that the idea wasn't unique and we weren't the first players at the scene, our competitive advantage was pretty much just the fact that we were providing significantly better products, service and quality than the previous vendors for the exact same price. It was a struggle selling the idea to Chinese schools in Johor Bahru, Batu Pahat, Kluang, Paloi and more. But we were finally (we thought so anyway) getting a breakthrough with my wife's alma mater, Ai Chun Chinese Girls School in Batu Pahat which had yet to set up a computer lab. The negotiations was long and protracted, but we have finally managed to secure the consent of the principal as well as the Parents-Teachers Association.

However, the timing of things just so absolutely sucked. The principal was due for retirement and a new principal was put into place. This new principal was transferred from another school in Kluang who was already using the services of the main competitor. Our proposal was thrown out without being given any further consideration. We argued that our model would provide the latest version of the computers which included CD-ROMs and internet enabled capabilities while the competitors didn't. We added that our imported teaching software was not just about teaching computers but also assisting with the curriculum subjects such as English, Science and Mathematics while the competitors were still offering DOS-based programmes. We were ready to invest in an air-conditioned and renovated computer labs to make learning absolutely conducive for the students, and we were offering it for the exact same price as the competitor.

But it all didn't matter. The straight in your face reply which we got from the headmaster was that the students didn't need the latest computers. It wasn't necessary to have all the "expensive" software. Air-conditioning is a luxury, and Internet was still in its infancy. And that was that. A few months later, our competitor set up their lab in the school and the students were charged the same exact price for markedly inferior products and services.

Was there money that exchanged hands? You tell me.

Chairman of the National Union of Heads of Schools, Mr Kang Siew Koon, said they would take action against those who claimed there were headmasters who could be pocketing as much as RM150 million in commissions from suppliers.

"We deny the whole thing, we will hold them responsible for making such a statement," he said. As for Ong Koh Hou, a 57-year-old businessmen who offered the RM500,000, Kang said the union would have to take action against him, but declined to say what they would do.

"We find it peculiar that there are so many different types of corruption in the country, but he chooses to pick on headmasters, and those only of Chinese schools. Why is he doing this, when the RM500,000 could be used for more beneficial purposes?" he asked.

Mr Teh Hon Seng responded by asking headmasters to declare their assets. Also, a quick pointer for Mr Kang, just because there are plenty of other corrupt individuals in other agencies does not make corrupted headmasters acceptable and immune from persecution. His violent sounding outburst only serves to demonstrate guilt.

What Mr Ong is doing now with his RM500,000 reward is highly commendable. But I'm not sure if it'll be able to stamp out the practice of corruption. He even noted that "most Chinese dailies, which have supplied newspapers to Chinese schools under their readership programme, did not dare highlight the matter due to mutual business interest."

I dare say that the practice of kickbacks is so systemic in the vernacular Chinese schools that it'll take with not only cash, but someone with the necessary influence and dogged determination to wipe it out. But maybe, just maybe, if a couple of headmasters are thrown into jail for a couple of months, it might just deter others from continuing with such practices.

It's Raining Doctors

Well, according to an analysis by Malaysian Medical Association (MMA), we should be expecting a glut of doctors soon based on current trends. The MMA annual report for 2004 states taht at the current rate of growth, there will be a surplus of about 4,000 doctors by 2020. The New Straits Times reported that Datuk Dr N. Athimulam, the chairman of MMA's committee on medical education

observed that 1,200 new doctors graduated annually from local institutions, with seven more institutions of higher learning going to offer medical courses in the next few years.

Dr Athimulam said universities in Ukraine and Russia were producing about 15 to 20 Malaysian doctors now, but several hundred students were in their third, fourth and fifth years of study.

According to Dr Athimulam, the doctor-population ratio will rise from 1:1,361 to 1:400 by 2020. This, in theory is an extremely "commendable" ratio, comparable to the developed countries. However, while Dr Athimulam's concern is understandably the fact as "competition gets tougher... [n]ew doctors entering the market [will find] it hard to stay in the business", my personal concern is the quality of doctors and health service we will receive in the near future.

Dr Chris Anthony from Butterworth wrote in his letter to NST today, that the number of medical schools in Malaysia (17) "exceeds the number of medical schools in Singapore (one), Canada (16), Ireland (five) and Australia (11)."

He went on to criticise the local medical schools on two key points:

In the enthusiasm for increasing the number of doctors quickly, we have overlooked the two important prerequisites for the training of doctors. They are, first, adequate numbers of experienced qualified teachers who themselves are practising clinicians and a well- equipped teaching hospital.

If one were to scrutinise our medical schools, both public and private, hardly any of them fulfil these two criteria.

As it is, we have already heard comments on the quality of some of the output from the private medical schools leaves plenty to be desired. Director-general of Health Datuk Dr Ismail Merican said that there are many doctors in hospitals "who did not have clinical skills such as patient care, familiarity with the signs and symptoms of diseases, diagnosing illnesses, and doctor-patient communication" and focused his criticisms on the insufficiency of clinical training by many private colleges. See blog post here.

To compound my concerns on the quality, it was highlighted above that we are expecting a drastic increase in medical graduates from Ukraine and Russia in the coming years from the usual 15-20 graduates per annum currently. Once again, with all due respect to the universities in Ukraine and Russia, their education system in general do not inspire too much confidence. In addition, I understand that the universities which most Malaysians attend over there are often not the top universities of those countries. From what I dare speculate, these universities are merely taking the opportunity arising from excessive demand for medical education to gain valuable foreign exchange. It does appear that sometime down the road, it will become necessary for me to sight the qualifications of the doctor first before allowing myself to be examined by him or her.

As highlighted in the previous posts, MMA has as far back as 2002 called for major reforms and improvements to our local medical education system.

The Malaysian Medical Association (MMA) has raised, as far back as 2002, concerns with regards to the rapid increase in private medical colleges in Malaysia. They have raised their concern on the lack of trained and qualified lecturers, the worrying lecturer-student ratios in excess of 1:25 compared against 1:5 in the National University of Singapore as well as the non-standardisation of medical curriculum and examinations resulting in uneven standards, among other issues.

More critically, the Ministry of Higher Education should play a larger role in setting the necessary entry requirements and standards for the selection of students in all private medical colleges to prevent these colleges from placing their commercial interests above that of producing quality doctors.

In an issue which I'll blog about in another post, I'm extremely concerned that the Ministry of Higher Education has to date leaned heavily towards the commercialisation and privatisation of higher education in Malaysia, to the extent that the interest of the students, the public and the country in general has not been properly taken into the account.

Hence, it's unsurprising that Dr Athimulam urged the Government to "go slow" on permits for institutions of higher learning to conduct medical courses before it comes to a stage whereby we have "unemployable" doctors as well.

See also other related posts "Medicine: A Calling" and "No Cure for Medical Schools".

Holy School!

Is the action of a ustaz "allegedly" selling "air penerang hati" or holy water to improve pupils' memory the result of the increasing integration between religion and secular education in our national schools system?

Thankfully, some, in our civil service still speaks sense when the State Education, Human Resources and Multimedia Committee chairman of Perak, Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir said "immediate action should be taken to stop the sale of such water to students", as reported by the Star.

He also urged parents to ensure that their children did not fall victim to the ustaz,

“It is a norm among Malay parents to ask for who was clearly out to take advantage of the students. air penerang hati for their children from people with good religious background... Usually, parents will give a token sum of money to the person who blessed the water for them. But in this case, the ustaz himself produced the water although there was no request made and sold it directly to the children without the parents’ knowledge.”

However, in the first place, should the principal be the responsible party to ban such practices in our schools? Why should the ustaz be allowed to offer this holy water directly to school students and part them from their probably small and limited amounts of pocket money, especially if its without the knowledge of the parents?

Or is it such that the words and actions of all ustaz are holy and must be adhered with and complied to without hesitation by all Muslims? I'm clearly not the expert in Islam here, and maybe our Muslim friends can help enlighten us on air penerang hati as well as the actions of the ustaz.

However, more interestingly, the Perak Mufti, Datuk Seri Harussani Zakaria, one who is not a stranger to controversy - see report by Malaysiakini which highlighted an online poll on the Mufti's office website which offered "“Hunt and kill them or launch war" as an option against those who insult Prophet Mohammed - said that "there was nothing wrong with selling the holy water".

“It’s a form of prayer to enhance memory, just like gingko biloba is a memory booster... It is not wrong to sell it unless the ustaz is dishonest about how he produced the water. If he lies, then he will be answerable to God.”

With all due respect to the Perak Mufti, I think comparing holy water to a herb with health benefits is taking the analogy to a level beyond reason. The holy water "tonic" is one based totally on faith, while the other is based on scientific earthly properties of the herb - it isn't even a case of comparing apples to oranges, it's like comparing deities and us earthly humans!