Corruption: Starting Young

Want to learn to ropes in engaging in "money politics" to advance one's personal interest? Take part in the student council elections in our local Universiti Malaya (UM) as an "pro-establishment" candidate and you'd be in for a treat.

In an exclusive report by Malaysiakini, it was exposed that "scores of university students were booked into a four-star hotel in Petaling Jaya last weekend as part of a gratuitous gesture by the government."

Malaysiakini was able to verify that the students checked into the Crystal Crown Hotel on Sunday. They later dined at the hotel restaurant. Thirty-two rooms - including several located on the highest level known as the ‘executive summit floor’- were booked.

And who paid for the bill which was in excess of RM5,000? None other than the office of the "semuanya OK" menteri besar of Selangor, i.e., the taxpayers' money. What's the relation between the campus elections in UM and the state of Selangor? None. So what's this? Outright abuse of public offices.

In addition, it was alleged that a "character-building" Entrepreneurship workshop was organised by UM administration on Sept 12-13 at the Pearl International Hotel, Kuala Lumpur mainly for the pro-government faction, including those shortlisted as candidates.

UM deputy vice-chancellor (student affairs and alumni) Prof Dr Mohd Razali Agus and other officials , including from Umno Youth, were also present. In all public universities, these deputy vice-chancellors double as the election committee chairperson.

Isn't this akin to election commission officials giving "secret" briefings to election candidates from certain parties, demonstrating contempt of the electoral processes?

And why are officials from political parties involved in these sessions? Based on the University and University Colleges Act (UUCA), isn't the university officials, and possibly the students themselves in breach of the Act which prohibits political participation and be subjected to expulsion from the university?

For goodness' sake. This is a students', and I emphasize again, students' elections. Why shouldn't they be given the chance run a simple, honest, unbiased and democratic elections? Why instead, are we taking the opportunity to corrupt the minds of our future leaders by using unjust and underhand tactics? Is it so that when they grow up, they can get used to the same culture as the current "pro-establishment" political organisations?

Datuk Rafiah Salim, you spoke well during your extensive interview with the Sun, as highlighted here on this blog. Are you aware of the shennigans going on in your university, orchestrated by your deputy vice-chancellor (student affairs and alumni) Prof Dr Mohd Razali Agus? Are you in agreement with his actions or are you who we'd like you to be as per your interview?

For the sake of the future of our youth, and our nation, stop corrupting our young and destroying our future.

Check out the earlier blog post on campus elections, here and here.

Asian Youth Ambassadors Dream Award

Remember Suzanne Lee? I wrote on her enviable exploits and adventures here and here a while back. Well, she has been nominated and shortlisted for the "Most Outstanding Youth of the Year" for the Asian Youth Ambassadors (AYA) Dream Award (Anugerah Impian Malaysia).

Asian Youth Ambassadors (AYA) is a non-profit organisation founded in Malaysia for the primary purpose of “inviting, inspiring, instructing and involving young people to dare to dream and be responsible in fulfilling those dreams for the good of all”.

AYA’s main priority is a commitment to raising leaders of godly standards and excellence, believing that sound and solid leaders determine the overall health (spirit, mind and body) of a whole generation as it does a whole nation.

The AYA Dream Award is organised in conjuction with New Sunday Times. From the AYA website:

The AYA Dream Malaysia Awards is about our future - and the people who are farsighted enough to invest in it. The Awards is in line with AYA’s objective of building tomorrow’s leaders today and to create a better and brighter future for Malaysia by inspiring, inciting and inculcating responsible attitudes and actions especially – but not exclusively – in the hearts and minds of our youths.

This Awards serves as an encouragement to emerging individuals and responsible institutions to persevere in their dreams of improving the quality of life for themselves and for those around them in spite of the difficulties and obstacles they encounter.

And the "Most Outstanding Youth of the Year Award" seeks to give recognition and to reward young individuals aged 18 to 33, who have overcome and may still be overcoming obstacles in their lives to be where they are today.

Yvonne Foong, the winner of the award in 2005, is a patient of Neurofibromatosis Type 2 (a rare and painful disease that causes tumors to grow all over in her body). Thus, she has started a fund raising effort, aiming to raise USD58,600 for her surgery to remove a tumor (Acoustic Neuroma) that caused hearing loss in her left ear. Her other up-coming fund-raising effort is to publish her own book, called “I’m Not Sick, Just A Bit Unwell”. Currently, she is also actively involved in conducting writing workshops held by various bookstores.

So, guys and gals, if you think that Suzanne deserves a shot at the AYA Most Outstanding Youth Award for her effort and achievements, put in a vote for her here by the end of October. The online votes contribute to 60% of the overall votes.

Good luck, Suzanne! :)

Fancy winning a Proton Savvy?

I know, I know, it's a Proton car but from what I've heard, the Savvy is a pretty popular model with relatively long waiting lines. How do you win this car, you ask? And what does this have to do with education in Malaysia? Well, read on.

The Perdana Leadership Foundation, is organising an essay writing competition for secondary and tertiary students entitled 'Nurturing the Minds of Future Leaders'.

From the Foundation's press statement:

"Lower secondary (Form One to Three) students are to submit essays on the contribution of one of Malaysia’s past prime ministers (700 to 1,000 words).

Upper secondary (Form Four to Six) students are to focus on methods to develop a united Malaysian nation (1,000 to 1,500 words).

For undergraduates (under 25 years old), their essays must discuss five lessons learnt from Malaysia’s history (from Merdeka to the present day) in 1,500 to 2,000 words."

The prizes seem pretty attractive. Again from the Foundation's press statement:

"Apart from the grand prizes of a Savvy, scooter and bike for the undergraduate, upper secondary and lower secondary categories respectively, laptops, mobile phones, iPods, MPH book vouchers and savings certificates are also up for grabs.

The top winners will also get to do “work shadowing” at a corporation nominated by the foundation.

The schools of these winners will also win a computer workstation"

I think it's always interesting to examine the thoughts and mindsets of the younger generation given that they've grown up in different political, economic and societal settings than us and hopefully, are less cynical, more hopeful and have more "out of the box ideas" in looking at Malaysia's history and applying it to our country's future.

I hope that the winners would be ones who give us original and creative ways of answering the questions posed by the respective essay titles rather than ones which puts forth the same old ideas in good, well-written English (not that writing well ought not to be encouraged). I'm just afraid that essays which are slightly more 'critical' and 'non-mainstream' would be disregarded because it might be perceived as going against the thinking of the Foundation or even going against some of the mainstream ideas of former Prime Ministers! This shouldn't be the case. After all, isn't critical thinking part of the purpose of this essay competition?

I've put across some of these thoughts to a friend of mine who works at the Foundation. Hopefully, the essay of the winners, when they are announced (closing date is December 31st), will be posted on the Foundation's website and we'll be able to see that they express a diverse range of ideas and thoughts.

Good luck!

Choice of School

He he, getting a bit of press time recently, all in the interest of the public good :). There's an article in the New Straits Times today with regards to the governments attempts to make the national schools more attractive for non-bumiputeras, in which both Kian Ming and myself were quoted extensively :).

Chok Suat Ling wrote on the likely impact of the measures highlighted in the most recent Budget which provided for Mandarin and Tamil to be made compulsory subjects in selected national schools. The ministry also announced plans to establish 300 elite schools which will be given more autonomy to boost their standards.

Here's what we stated:

When asked if the Chinese will 'return' to the national schools if the standards improve:

For education commentator Tony Pua, many [note: 'many, not necessarily 'most'] parents who opt for Chinese schools are not swayed by the language factor but because the quality of education in national schools is perceived — rightly or wrongly — to have declined over the years.

"Returning the schools to previous standards will naturally bring back the non-Malays," says Pua, an Oxford graduate who writes a popular blog on Malaysian education issues called educationmalaysia.blogspot.com.

And Kian Ming says:

Ong Kian Ming, a Fulbright scholar at Duke University in the United States, says the latest measures will work to attract parents at the "margins". "Those parents who are already set on their children learning Mandarin will definitely send their children to Chinese schools and these measures, at least in the short term, will not change their minds.

"But for parents at the margins — those more concerned about the quality of teachers, facilities, and proximity of the school to their home — minimal incentives such as a more attractive and flexible curriculum, better facilities and teachers, and a more elite status, can work to attract them."

On having more non-bumiputera teachers and administrators:

Ong says when parents see administrators and teachers being predominantly of one race, it increases their insecurity.

"Having more non-Malay school heads, who are able to reach out and reassure non-Malay parents, would also help tremendously," he says. He reckons that it would be difficult to find more than 10 per cent of schools having non-Malay headmasters or deputy heads in a random check.

Did the non-bumiputera parents 'abandon' the national schools, resulting in the increased Islamisation?

Ong disagrees. Non-Malay parents, he contends, did not "abandon" national schools.

"Parents are rational creatures and will not abandon national schools for no rhyme or reason. Why would they abandon national schools if they provide a good education environment?"

The onus is on the government to change the perception that national schools are of inferior quality compared to Chinese schools, he says. Ong also notes that many measures or policies proposed by the government are not backed up by action or sustained for long.

"Parents know this. They will not send their children to national schools until they see the results or changes with their own eyes."

And as Suat Ling rightly concludes:

...one thing experts agree on is that the measures proposed will not bear fruit overnight. It took several decades for national schools to reach where they are now, and it could take just as long to turn the tide.

And hence it is important for the Government to persist with its quality and unity policies and not send mixed signals to the community over an extended period of time. I've written quite extensively on this issue, and it has certainly stirred a great deal of debate, as well as raising many additional pertinent issues. I've written more than a year ago two posts with regards to where I would like to send my own daughter for her education.

The first outlined the criteria that should be used in order to decide whether I should send her to a national or Chinese school. And the second, I attempted to evaluate which type of school will be able to best deliver the criteria outlined in the first part. And then, there's a much overdue third, which I've yet to write, on where I'd send my little girl, largely due to the fact that I'm as yet, undecided. :)

Of course, there's plenty of post on the importance of national schools in harnessing national unity, some of the recent ones being on the role of the 2007 Budget as well as my own Merdeka wish. Happy reading! :)

Another One Slips Thru'

There's been a spate of letters to the Star this month by quite a few talented Malaysians, especially academics who were expressing their unhappiness over the local higher education administration system. And I've not written much about our local talents in foreign soils, except in passing, since one of the most popular posts - A Very Frightened Malaysian Abroad.

Sylvia, a PhD student at highly rated Australian National University (ANU) wrote about how Australia is an attractive destination for Malaysia's talented emigrants, and how it is a "home away from home" without the discriminating factors (I disagree on this, but that's not relevant here). Joanna, a Malaysian student in Melbourne, wrote earlier that many of her non-bumiputera peers are already set in becoming permanent residents at the land Down Under. And of course, Dr Chris Anthony, who writes to the Star every other week, called on the need to restructure our university academic and administration system to fully tap yhe vast potential of all Malaysians. This was in response to our higher education minister's call to recruit more non-bumiputeras in the academia.

But the letter that really caught my eye was by an anonymous writer (I'm sure it won't take much for the Minister of Higher Education to reach him, if Tok Pa so wanted to), "Malaysian Oxford Don" (MOD), who looks likely to give up on Malaysia for a country and an education system which sufficiently appreciate his talents.

MOD received his Masters from Imperial College and is currently pursuing a PhD at Oxford University. Some of the colleges were so impressed that he was engaged first as a tutor at Magdalen College, and subsequently with a more substantial lectureship with Brasenose College. He has even been requested to assist with admission interviews for the college, and needless to say, his supervisor was surprised that he was unable to secure scholarships from Malaysia to pursue his doctoral education.

Now, he has been offered the "Highly Skilled Migrant" programme by the British Home Office. MOD has his heart in Malaysia because his family is still here. However, it looks like due to our country's inability to retain its own brains, we will soon lose him to a developed country which valued his services and talents more than we do.

And how did that happen? MOD joined our local academia for a couple of months only to find that his opportunity in being granted a postgraduate scholarship limited, and was disturbed by the unequal opportunities presented to Malaysian academics based on one's ethnic group.

The government may harp on the much needed brain gain programme as much as they like. Last year, our Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak related that "Malaysia needs to put in place a sustainable brain gain programme to attract skilled talents to meet ashortage of about 30,000 to 40,000 researchers, scientists and engineers in 2010." However, if the country continues to persist with discrimatory policies and unequal opportunities, particularly in the academia, then the country will never be able to meet its objectives.

I've written earlier that the irony of denying or limiting scholarships to non-bumiputeras in the academia only serves in the long term to inhibit the growth and progress of bumiputeras in our local universities.

By discouraging talented non-bumiputeras from pursuing further education at reputed institutions overseas, doesn't it then result in fewer qualified lecturers for the Malaysian public universities, which will then retard the local universities' abilities to provide quality education for our local undergraduates, who are largely (more than 65%) bumiputeras anyway?

What may be regarded as a discriminatory affirmative action policy to support the "weaker" majority ethnic group in the country is paradoxically and ironically, at the end of the day, resulting in the very objectives of the policy not being met. By denying the benefit to a few non-bumiputeras from further education, the higher education policy is in effect denying the delivery of better quality education to thousands of bumiputeras over the years. The impact cannot be insignificant.

If the Ministry of Higher Education is reading this post, then I'd like to call upon the Minister himself to get in touch with MOD, particularly in one of his frequent trips to the United Kingdom and demonstrate how important MOD is to the country. For that matter, why not offer a PhD scholarship to MOD retrospectively, given that he has obviously proven his worth in one of the top schools in the world (and I don't mean rank 169th). MOD's contribution to the local academia could and should not be underestimated.

A Mockery of Student Elections

Here's an updated post, thanks to information provided by Malaysiakini on the student elections to be conducted in the coming week. Read the full Malaysiakini article here, while I'll highlight just some of the silliest shennigans at our local public universities which makes an absolute mockery of democracy and elections.

Special Tests

In University Malaya (UM) potential candidates must possess a grade-point average of 3.0 and above to be eligible, while International Islamic University (UIA) requires candidates to pass an “English Proficiency Assessment”. UIA, once stronghold of anti-establishment camp, also lists “students who understand the university's expectation (vision and mission) and appreciative to the government's aspirations” as one of the requirements to be candidates.

While I might not be so critical on the policy to have students acheiving a minimum grade-point average to be eligible, an "English Proficiency Assessment"?

It will be most interesting if our actual General Elections is ruled by such regulations! :) Imagine if the Election Commission sets the rules such that candidates must at least be degree holders with minimum CGPA of 2.8 and above, and pass the English proficiency test - would more than half of our existing Member of Parliament be disqualified? Hmmm... it may not be such a bad idea after all, for it'll rid the parliament of some of the useless junk.

Extortion

At Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), candidates need to fork out RM30 for a nomination form, a RM100 (faculty seat) or RM150 (general seat) deposit and RM300 if they wish to file a protest after the polls.

Unbelievable. So, now only the "rich" students can contest in elections. And obviously students are discouraged from filing protests and objections judging by the exhorbitant RM300! These are students, for goodness sake!

Let us for a moment, just go back to the principles and rationales behind holding elections for student councils. Surely amongst the many honourable principles are:

• To promote student leadership
  
  Students will be given the opportunity to speak up and lead their fellow students. They will learn to better express their opinions which will clearly help them in their future careers. They will learn independence, critical thinking and resourcefulness, the very "soft skills" which our universities want inculcated in our students.
  
  
• To demonstrate the democratic process
  
  Students will be given the opportunity to understand an electoral process. They will also see the moral and ethical values in a justly conducted elections. This is in the hope that they will become morally upright future leaders with integrity.

Is our current student election process in our local universities achieving any of these 2 major objectives?

You've got it. Absolutely none. In fact, I would argue that the current processes is doing the exact opposite, breeding corrupt, spiteful and untrustworthy leaders without integrity. Instead of learning to treasure our democratic institutions engraved in our constitution, they will only learn the mechanics of making an absolute mockery of it.

Abdul Razak Ahmad wrote in the New Straits Times today that the newly established Malaysia Institute of Integrity is launching a programme on "Integrity in Politics", "a programme specially tailored for politicians, it made Malaysia perhaps the only country where politicians are being actively goaded to become a more, well, honest lot."

Apparently one such participant of the programme has this to say of the programme:

[He] was reported by a national language newspaper of pondering on the need to focus on "integrity", which he half-jokingly said was a harmful "foreign agenda" — of the Jewish variety, to boot.

Anyone see the connection with our local universities where the future leaders graduate from, starting with the "blame the Jews" culture as well as an election system without integrity?

With elections conducted like this, why bother have elections in the first place?

Campus Elections: Why Bother?

I have not written much about campus elections in our local universities to date. I wanted to do so last year but never got around to do it. But I thought I should make it a point to pen something down this year, before it passes by once again.

It is clear that besides attempting to teach our students all the wrong things such as the art of flattery as well as the employable skills in thuggery, we are also training our 'future leaders' how to make a mockery of democracy and elections. Even the typically tame Suhakam, Malaysia's officially sanctioned human rights organisation claimed that the rules and regulations and practices governing campus elections are unfair and "cruel".

Some of the best reports on campus elections are found in Malaysiakini.

I won't go through the trouble of listing down all the curious democratic practices of our universities in detail here, but to highlight just some of the more eccentric ones.

Firstly, the Ministry of Higher Education announced that the students are only given up to 3 days to campaign after nomination to campaign before elections. Given the short period of time, it is not surprising that most students wouldn't know head or tail about who the heck they are actually voting for. It's clearly the same tactic for our typical general elections whereby the enlightened citizens are given only 10-12 days to hear out the candidates from nomination to election day. Hence, we start our training of future leaders young so that they are fully tuned to short-changing the electoral processes in the future.

Secondly, in the past, it was alleged and admitted by the university authorities in colleges such as Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, whereby names are taken down and related to serial numbers. The fear that students who voted for the non-endorsed candidates can be traced and threatened is further made worse by the introduction of electronic voting in several universities. The new system requires a student to key in his/her identity card and student card numbers.

And yet, the authorities can declare that voting remains secret with a straight face:

"All voting will be secret. We take down the names so we can use the information should any incident take place," said head of the Rahim Kajai Residential College Dr Mohd Hussein when contacted. However, he declined to specify on the type of ‘incident’ which would warrant the disclosure of voter information.

And thirdly, there are so many cases of threats and abuse occurring in the public universities such that even government sanction human rights organisations such as Suhakam are forbidden from observing and monitoring the electoral process. Suhakam commissioner, N Siva Subramaniam, had earlier met with the Minister of Higher Education.

“We explained to him (Mustapa) the need to have a free and fair elections, where students can participate according to the principle of democracy... as far as the minister is concerned, he is unsupportive of the ideas (forwarded by Suhakam),” Siva said.

“At times, electing a prefect (in schools) is more a more democratic (process) than campus polls. Anyone can contest. But when it comes to campus polls, we can see (that the regulations are) tight, cruel and strange.”

And here, the students learn the lessons on how intimidation, the lack of transparency and unabashed rigging in the election process can bring about victory for the chosen parties. What I fail to understand and find hard to believe is that the university will expend such a large amount of resources to have its own preferred student (note: student(!)) leaders elected. I mean, what's the worse a non-endorsed student leader can do in a university? Threaten national security? Rape and pillage the university library?

To quote our 'resident' academic, Dr Azmi Sharom in one of his earlier articles, entitled “Let's Be Fair To Our Youths” published in the Star last year:

[Students] should then be allowed to sort [their own activities] out themselves. After all, they are old enough to drive, get married, buy tobacco; surely they don’t need minders to hold their hand to find their faculty on campus.

[The university administrators] must also not behave like gods on Olympus, brooking no dissent or disagreement with our divine knowledge. Instead, we must provide the necessary atmosphere for lively debate to take place. Whether the students are going to take part or not is not in our control, but we should provide that space for them to think. It’s up to them to use it.

If we are seriously going to achieve a “first-world mentality,” we need to have “first-world minds” – minds that are questioning, ethical, inquisitive, principled, critical, innovative and inventive.

The way our students are treated today does not encourage that. They are told to just obey, or face the consequences. They are witness to practices that fly in the face of good governance, integrity, democracy and human rights. They are faced with so many restrictions that a culture of fear has seeped into their consciousness, freezing the brain and stilling the tongue.

Frankly, given the state of affairs, I'm surprised that the Ministry do not just ban elections outright and just make appointment of the endorsed candidates into the student council. It won't be setting any precedents either for we all know that our local councils are all political appointees after all.

Budget 2007 (III): Quantity vs Quality

This is the third instalment of my analysis of the Budget recently announced by the Prime Minister recently. The first covered the outline of the Budget relating to the education sector, whilst the second was an assessment of the impact of the allocation on the respective ethnic groups in the country. This third of five instalments will cover Malaysia's persistent emphasis on quantity at the expense of quality in the education sector.

It has been announced in the Prime Minister's budget speech that The Government will establish Universiti Darul Iman Malaysia in Terengganu and Universiti Darul Naim in Kelantan, as well as upgrade Akademi Tentera Malaysia (Military Academy of Malaysia) into Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia (National Defence University of Malaysia).

Very simply, that brings the total number of public universities and university colleges to 19. As it stands, we also have a total of 22 private universities and university colleges to date. This number hasn't yet included the new colleges which will be granted university college status this year. This means that the nation has at least 41 university and university colleges not including tens of institutions offering degree programmes in partnership with foreign universities serving a population of 26.4 million. That works out to a ratio of approximately 644,000 to each university.

On the other hand, our neighbour with significantly higher standards in education measured by all indicators except for that produced by the Selangor Menteri Besar, possesses only 3 universities in total serving the population of 4 million. This works out to a ratio of 1.33 million per university.

As earlier highlighted in this blog, that essentially means that we have more than double the number of universities relative to Singapore.

With only 3 universities, Singapore has 2 universities in the Top 50 and Top 200 of the THES and Shanghai Jiaotung University global rankings table respectively. Singapore Management University (SMU), being relatively new, is understandably omitted from the rankings. On the other hand, Malaysia which has more than 40 universities, has none in the top 150 and the top 500 of the respective rankings table (See post on "Latest Global University Rankings").

If this does not represent a clear emphasis for quantity over quality, I'm not sure what other evidence can be used to demonstrate otherwise.

In addition, it is of greater importance for countries like Malaysia to utilise its limited resources to fully exploit the potentials of its younger generation in order to significantly raise productivity and innovation in the future. As it stands because of the number of institutions the Government will have to support, the already precious and limited funds are distributed across way too many institutions.

Although the Singapore education budget is in absolute terms, smaller than that in Malaysia – S$6.16 billion (RM14.2b), it spends S$1.24 billion (RM2.86b) on its 3 universities. National University of Singapore (NUS) itself receives some S$700.7 million (RM1.65b) from the Government. Comparatively, Malaysia's premier university, Universiti Malaya (UM) receives support of only [RM will provide exact figure later] million from the Malaysian Government. It is not surprising then that NUS can pride itself to be a true world-class university, attracting the top students and academics of the world and produces some of the globally recognised top class analysis and research globally. UM on the other hand, had to rely on paying to take part in dog and pony trade shows to collect meaningless coloured medals.

The fact that the government has only allocated RM195 million to “upgrade and improve the facilities” of the existing 16 or so universities and university colleges, averaging only RM12.2 million per institution, indicates how our funds our being stretched unnecessarily by the quantity of institutions.

As a result, the only possible outcome from the policy which emphasized on quantity at the expense of quality, is the production of many (note: not all) local graduates who are not sufficiently equipped with communication, critical thinking and analytical skills. It is hence unsurprising that the Government has to make itself the dump for the unemployable graduates.

While admittedly, the quantity policy is one which is difficult to reverse, it is important for the Government to demonstrate its political will to reverse the trend, even if its baby steps, to show that it is recognising that its policy has resulted in creating degree factories producing many substandard products.

Blame the Jews

As part of the compulsory classes to obtain their BA(Hons) and MA Thuggery degrees, students are required to attend a workshop conducted by Biro Tatanegara (BTN). As part of the workshop programme, students are taught the mechanics of relating all perceived evils in the world, or for that matter, any party who doesn't belong to the "right" camp, to Jews.

I'm actually a bit taken aback by the fact that the government actually conducts these type of blatant brainwashing sessions with our university students!

...Malaysiakini reported that first-year students of Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) were told at a seminar organised by BTN that foreign elements which want to see chaos in Malaysia were funding certain student groups. The speakers drew a link between these local student groups, ASA and the National Endowment for Democracy, a non-profit organisation which they said was sponsored by American and Jewish elements.

During the seminar, the speakers had singled out several Chinese-based student groups such as the Malaysia Youth and Student Democratic Movement (Dema), USM's Chinese language society (USMPBT) and USM student progressive front (USMSPF).

USMPBT chairperson Loo Chuan Boon has clarified that USMPBT received its funding through Chinese guilds and associations and fund raising programmes.

I mean why the heck will Jewish or American elements want to even bother funding a Chinese-based society within a internationally insignificant university belonging to a internationally almost insignificant country?

You can also find out more about BTN on their website, in which they described the above session, compulsory for all freshmen as a seminar to "enable participants to experience, cherish and sharpen the culture and value of dynamic leadership". And for your information, Biro Tatanegara is part of the Prime Minister's Department.

I can only say that these stooges at the BTN are just absolutely out of their minds.

Rankings Watch

A reader of this blog, Richard Holmes, has been keeping a close track of the latest worldwide university rankings (Shanghai Jiao Tong, Newsweek and of course, the now infamous, THES rankings). He's written some insightful stuff on his blog on the methodology used by the different organizations that compile these rankings. I'd like to highlight some of his analysis here.

Firstly, a comparison of the Newsweek and THES Top 100 finds that many of Asian universities that were present in the THES are absent or experienced significant falls in the Newsweek rankings. Ditto for many of the Australian and European universities. Why this discrepancy? From Richard's post here, we find:

"The Newsweek ranking is also notable for what it leaves out. It does not include the THES peer review which accounted for 50 per cent of the ranking in 2004 and 40 per cent in 2005 and the rating by employers which contributed 10 per cent in 2005. If we compare the top 100 universities in the THES ranking with Newsweek’s top 100, some very interesting patterns emerge. Essentially, the Newsweek ranking tells us what happens if we take the THES peer review out of the equation."

"So what is going on? Basically, it looks as though the function of the THES peer and employer reviews was to allow universities from Australia, Europe, especially France and the United Kingdom, and Asia, especially China, to do much better that they would on any other possible measure or combination of measures."

A possible underlying reason on why universities from these regions (Australia, Europe and Asia) were ranked higher on the THES ranking compared to the Newsweek ranking? Richard gives one:

"Is it entirely a coincidence that the regions that are disproportionately favoured by the peer review, the UK, France, China and Australia, are precisely those where QS, the consultants who carried the survey, have offices and are precisely those regions that are active in the production of MBAs and the lucrative globalised trade in students, teachers and researchers?"

It seems that one of the linchpins of the THES ranking system is the peer review score. QS, the organization which does the compilation of the results, have been very reluctant to release detailed information in how they obtain these peer review scores. Richard, doing some digging on this own, has unearthed some of the methods used by QS to obtain their sample size for the peer review.

He refers to two websites - one from the Special Astrophysical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Science and the other from the University of Auckland, New Zealand. Both sites tell us something more about how QS solicits and entices respondents to answer the QS survey. Richard comments:

"But the most interesting thing is the bit at the top of the Russian page. The message was addressed not to any particular person. but just to "World Scientific Subscriber" . World Scientific is an online collection of scientific journals. One wonders whether QS had any way of checking who they were getting replies from. Was it the head of the Observatory or some exploited graduate student whose job was to check the e-mail? Also, did they send the survey to all World Scientitific subscribers or just to some of them or only to those in Russia or Eastern Europe?"

"So now you know what to do if you want to get on the THES panel of peer reviwers. Subscribe to World Scientific and, perhaps, a few other online subscription services or work for an institution that does. With a bit of luck you will be recognised as a real smart person and get a chance to vote your employer and your alma mater into the Top 300 or 200."

It was interesting to read the following from the University of Auckland website:

"We note that the Times Higher Education Supplement’s ranking of The University of
Auckland rose from 67th in 2004 to 52nd in 2005. But we note also that this survey establishes its rankings by appealing to university staff, even offering financial enticements to participate (see Appendix II). Staff are likely to feel it
is in their greatest interest to rank their own institution more highly than others. This means the results of the survey and any apparent change in ranking are highly questionable, and that a high ranking has no real intrinsic value in any case. We are vehemently opposed to the evaluation of the University according to the outcome of such PR competitions."

Every ranking methodology has its own shortcomings. By understanding better how these rankings are compiled, we can better understand why some universities are present or absent in these rankings, why some of them move up, why some of them move down, how some aspects of these rankings can be 'gamed' or manipulated, and so on.

I highly doubt that our local universities will drop out of the Top 200 in the 2006 THES rankings. Given that QS representatives have made several visits to Malaysia and the region to market their services, it is likely to be in their interest to 'maintain' a least a few Malaysian universities in the top 200. Hopefully, the new VCs in UM and UKM would be less prone to the disease of 'bannertidis', which we saw in the previous UM VC.

A good university would be able to stand on its own feet, whether or not that is reflected in such worldwide rankings. That is what our local universities should be working towards, instead of short term shortcuts to 'game' the system and obtain a higher ranking.

I'd like to thank Richard Holmes for pointing me out to his website and his efforts at illuminating us as to the methodology of the THES ranking system.

Just like Harvard?

I couldn't help but laugh when I saw this article in the Star - "Harvard varsity-like campus for Terengganu". I was even more amused when it was reported that 'Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Idris Jusoh said the concept of the centre would be the same as Harvard – just minus the lecturers.'

I wonder if our dear MB has even been to Harvard or if he understands what the concept of a university is. Harvard was a renowned institution of higher learning when there was no such thing as wireless internet access and other modern technologies. Ditto with Cambridge and Oxford. The core of any university is the intellectual output that it produces and where does this output come from? It comes from the academia, the 'lecturers' as our dear MB puts it.

And how about the other things which makes a university a university? Such as students and student activities, libraries, laboratories, sports facilities and so on?

I wonder if he realizes how absurd his statements sound. Imagine building a state of the art 80,000 seater football stadium complete with the latest facilities and saying that "This stadium is the same as Chelsea or Man United - just minus the players".

Our politicians should refrain from such hyperbole. He was talking about something called the "International Training Centre", not even a full fledge university. It is an RM20 million facility which hopes to be a place where 'consultants from management-related industries' will 'conduct lectures', a place to 'mould students to be more skilful', where there will be 'video conferencing facilities to encourage distance learning' and a place 'to conduct courses to upgrade the skills of civil servants'.

Somebody should infrom MB Jusoh that RM20 million isn't sufficient to run a single laboratory in Harvard, much less the whole university.

My guess is that this centre will be another white elephant - underutilized, poorly maintained with many of the state-of-the-art facilities not functioning properly.

And that's certainly not 'just like Harvard'.

Budget 2007 (II): Unity or Segregation?

As mentioned in the earlier post on an overview of the budget, I have stated that it is a decent budget, which actually exceeded my personal expectations. After all, my expectations would have been fairly moderate given the lack lusture and somewhat unexciting budgets of the preview few years under Pak Lah's administration.

However, there are always room for improvements . Specifically in the education and training segments - I'll like to offer my penny's worth on 4 key 'constructive criticisms', starting first on this post with regards to "National Unity or Segregation".

I have written recently in my Merdeka post "49: Older, Not Wiser?" on the emphasis given to national unity highlighted in the 9th Malaysian Plan (9MP).

In Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi's foreword, he stated that the "National Mission underscores the need to pursue programmes that enhance the nation’s capability to compete globally, to strengthen national unity and to bring about a better distribution of income and wealth and higher quality of life among the people."

And amongst the "first steps" in National Mission extensive effort will be made to achieve the "overriding objective of the nation, that is national unity and integration."

I'm disappointed to the extent that there was absolutely no specific mention of "national unity" at all in the Prime Minister's 30-page long budget speech in Parliament, despite a few mentions in relation to the "National Mission". Is it then still a priority to the current government, which seems to be embroiled in several racial issues at this point of time?

In addition to that, and as highlighted in the earlier post on the budget, both the speech and the Economic Report 2006/7 made mention of specific substantial allocations to Mara colleges, institutions and colleges.

To accommodate this increase, 22 new primary and secondary schools will be operational next year, while an additional 198 schools will be built, including fully residential secondary schools. For this, about RM1 billion is allocated. At the same time, RM90 million is allocated for the construction of two new Maktab Rendah Sains MARA (MRSM) and for the purchase of equipment for existing MRSM facilities.

...214 million for programmes under MARA including Mara Skills Training Institutes, Advnaced Skills Training Institutes, Giat MARA programme and Universiti Kuala Lumpur. Budget Speech 2007

A higher increase of 38.5% was allocated for educational infrastructure including the construction of pre-schools and primary schools, 12 Mara Junior Science Colleges, University Kuala Lumpur and 22 industrial training institutes. Economic Report 2006/7

While many would argue on the inherent discrimination and injustice in the substantial allocations to institutions and programmes which specifically benefits only the bumiputeras - akin to first class travel for bumiputeras and budget seats for non-bumiputeras, I'd like to focus on its impact on national unity.

As reported in Malaysiakini yesterday - "House erupts over Chinese schools", there was a heated debate on the role in which the existence Chinese primary schools hinder the promotion of national unity in Malaysia. While "officially" denying that it was the government's stand, it is clear from the governments policies in non-allocation for additional Chinese primary schools that they are not in favour of vernacular education, despite the overwhelming demand, particularly from the Chinese community.

The questions I have for the Prime Minister, and accordingly the Ministry of Education are simple:

What is the point of attempting to foster national integration and unity at the primary schools by attempting to encourage more non-bumiputeras to enrol into national schools, when it comes to secondary schools, the Government then decides to ship off the bumiputeras to their own dedicated schools and communities?

What is the point of taking positive actions such as the teaching of mother tongues in the national primary schools commencing next year, in the hope of bring the various races and communities together under one roof, and then breaking them up again 6 years later?

While obviously not all bumiputeras get to attend the Mara Junior Science Colleges, the rate at which the government are building them, you'd soon find that all academically superior bumiputeras are segregated from the rest of the communities, leaving the less academically inclined bumiputeras in the company of Chinese and Indians in national secondary schools. The problem gets worse in Form 6, where bumiputeras attend matriculation colleges for separate entrance into the local universities.

Some might argue that a few years back, a 10% quota allocation has been provided to non-bumiputeras to attend MJSCs and matriculation colleges. Despite the fact that the quota is derisory, I have heard from unconfirmed sources in the MJSCs that the non-bumiputera community in MJSCs is no where near the 10% mark. In certain MJSCs, there are practically no non-bumiputeras allowed, including some of the best performing MJSCs.

Clearly, the Government has not been consistent in its policy for national unity and the current budget continues to demonstrate that inconsistency. Are we looking forward to the day whereby the so-called "national schools" are for non-bumiputeras while special Mara colleges are built for bumiputeras? What then is the difference from the current vernacular school system?

I'd like to repeat the quote I took from Tunku Abdul Aziz's Merdeka day article in the New Straits Times:

I place great store by equal opportunity in education, especially because it is immoral and ethically unacceptable to discriminate against innocent and vulnerable youngsters... How, in heaven’s name, can we expect them not to feel that they are from another planet? You cannot expect loyalty from impressionable young people when they feel marginalised. Equality of opportunity must be the cornerstone of national unity.

With continued segragation in educational opportunities between different races in Malaysia, true national unity will just be a mere pipe dream, no more than the self-congratulatory and staged open houses during the festive seasons.

Read also an earlier blog post on comments by Emeritus Professor Khoo Kay Kim of Universiti Malaya on the same issue here.

TheStar-ACMS Conference: Impressions

The full report on the recently concluded TheStar-ACMS Conference on Globalising Higher Education in Malaysia can be found here. This post summarizes my main impressions of that conference. But before I go into the details, I should make a disclosure here for the purposes of transparency.

I was a fellow at the Asian Center for Media Studies (ACMS) in the early part of 2004, just before I left for Duke. I wrote a series of articles examining and analysing the 2004 elections for the Star as part of my undertaking as a fellow. I also have good relations with Datuk Ng Poh Tip, the executive director of ACMS, and Dr. Lee Kam Hing, a well-respected academic (formerly of the UM) and one of the brains behind the setting up of ACMS. Having said that, I will try to be objective in this post regarding the aforementioned conference.

Firstly, I think that such a conference was both timely and necessary. Some of our more cynical readers might think that this kind of conference was a lot of hot air (and a way for ACMS and the Star to make some money on the side) but one has to understand that the process of change usually occurs slowly in Malaysia. By bringing together different academics from internationally reknowned institutions such as Harvard and the University of Sydney, local politicians and policy makers (such as our DPM and Higher Education Minister as well as our VCs) can once again be reminded of how far behind we are in terms of higher education and what needs to be done to rectify the current situation.

I think that while we have shed off our colonial shackles for almost 50 years, we are (or at least some of us) still more inclined to listen to a 'white man' from Harvard or Cambridge, than a fellow Malaysian who is as knowledgable and articulate on these issues. That being said, it was nice to see our very own Prof. Azmi Sharom as one of the panelists and Prof. Wang Gungwu giving the keynote.

Secondly, it was also a way for the strengths and weaknesses of our local universities to be analysed and publicly debated in a setting that is relatively 'safe'. There are many ways of making the weaknesses of our local universities known. This blog and other forums out there is but one method. Policy makers in Malaysia don't necessarily respond well with complaints and criticisms being shoved down their throat. But if these criticisms are pointed out in a non-threatening and analytical way, such as is the case in these conferences, it is more likely that our policy makers would be inspired to take action. Of course, we also need push factors like members of the public making hay at the appropriate times (e.g. when the former UM VC pasted billboards all over town proclaiming the 'achievements' of UM).

We need conferences like these to be part of the deliberative process of change and understanding. However, the downside of such conferences is that too much is done to avoid politically sensitive issues such as some of the causes of why our local universities are not performing up to standard - recruitment and promotion policies, research incentives, the role of UUCA and Akujanji, and so on.

This not wanting to tread on toes mentality is just not restricted criticism directed at the public universities. I would have liked to see a session on the future of private higher institutions of learning in Malaysia (and not the marketing overseas session that they had). Will these institutions continue to be money making degree churning institutions or will they have genuine research activities? This question is particularly relevant to those full fledged private universities such as Monash and Nottingham who have set up shop here in Malaysia or who have licenses to issue their own degrees such as LimKokWing.

I certainly would have liked to attend this conference. I've not met or heard Wang Gangwu before so that would have been a treat. It would also have been interesting to see the interactions between the different panelists. And it would have been a good opportunity for me to catch up with some old friends and perhaps make new acquaintances. My feeling is that this won't be the last conference on higher education that ACMS-The Star will organize. Maybe next time.

The full program details and presentations can be found here.

Budget 2007 (I): Education & Training

The budget for 2007 recently announced by the Prime Minister was a pleasant surprise. Compared with the budgets of the previous years, which appeared timid and cautious, this budget reeks a little bit more ambition. Having done some detailed "homework" studying the budget for the past couple of days, there's actually quite a fair bit to discuss, even on the education and training sector alone.

Given that the budget for the next year appears to be a tad more adventurous, I'd also raise my personal standards and propose more drastic reforms which the country can undertake to improve the education system in Malaysia. This is not an attempt to disparage a credible budget from the Malaysian government, but instead should be viewed as an opportunity to further raise the bar in the subsequent budgets.

With all the thoughts that's swirling around my head, I thought its best not to try to dump everything into a single very long post, but instead break them into chewable chunks. Hence this post will first focus purely on a general analysis of the content of the Budget gleamed from the Budget speech by the Prime Minister as well as the Economic Report 2006/7. Readers may be interested also to have a look at the commentary posted here on the Budget allocation for Education the previous year.

In this budget, the Prime Minister has set out 5 key objectives to be achieved from its policies, which are essentially variants of the budget in the previous year. They are:

1. To move the economy up the value chain;
2. To raise the capacity for knowledge and innovation and nurture ‘first class mentality’;
3. To address persistent socio-economic inequalities constructively and productively;
4. To improve the standard and sustainability of quality of life; and
5. To strengthen the institutional and implementation capacity.

The most relevant to our discussion here will obviously be the 2nd objective, that is to raise the capacity for knowledge and innovation, and nurture 'first class mentality'. The budget policies designed to achieve this objective includes:

1. Improving access to quality education and training at all levels

To further strengthen the education and training system, a sum of RM33.4 billion is allocated for operational and development expenditure, accounting for 21% of the overall 2007 Budget. Of this, RM6.7 billion is for primary education, RM6.2 billion for secondary education, RM10.4 billion for higher education and RM10.1 billion for training programmes.

This represents a significant increase of RM4.4 billion to be spent in the education sector compared to the previous year, which in itself is a substantial increase from 2005. However, the overall proportion of expenditure on education remains the same at approximately 21% of the budget.

Breaking down the numbers further, out of the RM33.4b allocated, RM6.6b or 19.8% is designated as development expenditure. This represents an increase of RM1.6b over the previous year. In fact, development expenditure increased by a greater percentage from 17.2% previously. This is good to know.

2. Strengthening Primary and Secondary Schools

Depending on whether you read the budget speech or the economic report, you'd get slightly varying statistics as to what will be achieved in this area. From the budget speech:

To accommodate this increase, 22 new primary and secondary schools will be operational next year, while an additional 198 schools will be built, including fully residential secondary schools. For this, about RM1 billion is allocated. At the same time, RM90 million is allocated for the construction of two new Maktab Rendah Sains MARA (MRSM) and for the purchase of equipment for existing MRSM facilities.

From the Economic Report:

A higher increase of 38.5% was allocated for educational infrastructure including the construction of pre-schools and primary schools, 12 Mara Junior Science Colleges, University Kuala Lumpur and 22 industrial training institutes.

Irrespective, it does mean that a lot more schools are going to be built, although a higher than proportionate amount goes to building MRSMs. Earlier, it has also been mentioned by the Deputy Minister of Education that three new matriculation colleges, "costing about RM200mil each, would be built under the 9th Malaysia Plan at Banting in Selangor, Marang in Terengganu and a yet-to-be-decided site in Kelantan." I'm not sure if this is part of the current year's budget.

As part of the overall budget, teachers will also benefit from RM782 million for training as well as RM101 million as part of a plan for 67 housing projects in rural areas.

RM288 million is also allocated for the Bestari school programme, which involves the procurement of computers and peripherals for Access Centres in some 1,000 schools. Interestingly, nothing is mentioned on the software content for courses. Hmmm... anyway, I've written about smart schools here previously.

It is also announced that Chinese and Tamil language will be taught at 150 and 70 national schools respectively from 2007. We'll see if this gets executed in time. There has already been a delay in the implementation this year as blogged here.

3. Strengthening Higher Learning Institutions

Not much was mentioned with regards to the institutions of higher learning except that construction works is expected to commence early 2007 for the 2 new universities - Universiti Darul Iman and Universiti Darul Naim in Terengganu and Kelantan respective. An additional allocation of RM195 million is provided to upgrade and improve facilities in existing universities.

On the bright side, students who obtain at least 10A1s in SPM or its equivalent from families with monthly income of RM1,500 and below, are given scholarships to pursue tertiary education.

4. Enhancing Skills Training

• 450 million is allocated for the construction and upgrading of polytechnics and community colleges.
  
  
• 148 million for the construction of 2 new industrial training institutes and four Advanced Technology Training Centres
  
  
• 214 million for programmes under MARA including Mara Skills Training Institutes, Advnaced Skills Training Institutes, Giat MARA programme and Universiti Kuala Lumpur.
  
  
• Tax relief on purchase of books increased to RM1,000 from RM700.

5. Increasing Employability of Graduates

Different departments of the government is clearly giving different statistics, and the Department of Statistics indicatred that there are about 31,000 unemployed graduates as at the end of March 2006. As a result, the government is implementing various training schemes such as the Capital Market Training Scheme under Securities Commission and "Programme to Enhance Professionalism" by Malaysian Development Corporation.

That's about it actually from the current budget (ok, that's actually quite a lot already). A fair bit of good stuff, but obviously there is room for further improvement. I'll give my views of these various aspects in subsequent pieces. Happy reading :)

The Singaporean Graduate

This obviously isn't a priority issue in the Malaysian education system. There are plenty of other more substantial issues to blog about today, such as the recent budget and Tok Pa's interview in the Star, but the writer in me wanted to do this first. So humour me :).

I've received personal emails through this blog asking me why I have not followed the bulk of my Asean scholar peers in growing my roots in Singapore. Many have perceived that I would be more than welcome in Singapore, based on my credentials. Some 70-80% of my cohort of Asean scholars have set up families in Singapore. My best mate, a pediatrician who has just joined the private sector in Singapore, married a Singaporean and has a daughter 6 weeks younger than my own.

One of the many reasons was highlighted by Seah Chiang Nee in the Star today.

The bout of high-level unemployment in the past decade has brought out some bad features of Singapore’s pampered generation that lingers even today.

There are two parts of the same problem. First is an over-dependence on parents or living off them after graduation and secondly, a general reluctance or inability to hold on to a job for the flimsiest of reasons.

“They often use excuses like the job’s too tiring, salary too low, long working hours, workplace too far, or simply it’s not interesting enough... Why should I work when my parents can support me?”

Critics place part of the blame on over-indulgent parents who believe that supporting their jobless children is helping them and is part of their parental duty. “They have more money than sense. Far from helping, they’re ruining their lives,” a businessman friend said.

Seah rightly highlighted that the group of graduates with such an attitude is currently still confined to a small minority. However, I am certain that he, and many others will agree that it is definitely a growing trend today. I have met and known many friends and acquaintances in Singapore, whose kids that are still in primary school. And I dare say that it's more the norm whereby they are spoilt brats with a terrible attitude, than otherwise. I shiver to think of the type of grown ups they are going to be.

No, besides a plethora of other reasons, I certainly would prefer if my daughther (and any other kid(s) I'm going to have) not have middle-class peers who are just going to show them how to be spoilt and materialistic.

And would I send her to school in Singapore? Quite definitely not in her primary school years. While not many will argue with the fact that the Singapore education system is "academically" superior, she'll definitely have a richer experience in Malaysia in a multiracial and less affluent environment despite all its obvious shortcomings. :-)