by Francis Loh
Aliran Monthly Vol 25 (2005): Issue 10

	To attract and keep the best academics ... promotions should be made transparent, peer reviewed and awarded to internationally recognised scholar-researchers. Francis Loh

Is there a crisis in Malaysia’s public universities?

Those in government making the decisions about tertiary education and the vice chancellors of Malaysia’s 17 public universities and university colleges will of course deny it.

Ask the academics, especially the senior academics, and you would hear a resounding `yes'.

For them, however, the crisis has little to do with the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) 2005 ranking and the University of Malaya’s fall in position from 89th to 169th, or even USM’s complete disappearance from that latest list.

The problems in our universities are more comprehensive and predate the introduction of the THES ranking of the world’s top 200 universities in 2004. Why, in another ranking of the world’s top 500 universities conducted by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University, none of the Malaysian universities featured in the 2004 or 2005 list.

What is 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.

For academic excellence to be maintained, more resources – financial and especially human - have to be made available too. Acquiring the human resources involved is not simply a question of increasing the number of academics with the necessary qualifications. Those academics must also be experienced teachers and researchers and be imbued with something fuzzy called ‘academic culture’, namely excitement in the search for knowledge including an eagerness to challenge and debate given wisdom, interest in transmitting that knowledge to younger people effectively, and, in my book, applying that new knowledge to make the world and society a better place.

More than that, one should not be overly concerned about financial gains while pursuing all these. Put simply, the academic performs an important public service in the pursuit and transmission of knowledge for the betterment of society. Ideally, it is a life-long endeavour.

Finding the correct balance between massification and academic excellence is necessary, though this is easier said than done. In Malaysia’s case, it appears that we have expanded the tertiary sector rather rapidly and provided opportunities for many to enrol in the universities. However, it appears also that academic standards have been compromised.

Overcoming NEP quotas and ameliorating ethnic tensions

Box A: Growth in the Universities Public Universities 1962 University of Malaya (UM) 1969 Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) 1970 Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) 1971 Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) 1975 Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UPM) 1983 Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (IIU) 1984 Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) 1992 Universiti Sarawak Malaysia (Unimas) 1994 Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) 1997 Universiti Perguruan Sultan Idris (UPSI) 1999 Universiti MARA (UiTM) in 1999 in the last 10 years six other university colleges, which offer more practical programmes and are located outside the major cities, were established Private Universities and Colleges In the early 1990s, there were approximately 200 private colleges but no private university yet in Malaysia. By 2002, there were 15 private universities, several private university-colleges and 690 private colleges (Lee 2004, p78) In the early 1990s, ‘twinning colleges’ were established including Sunway College, Kolej Disted, Kolej Damansara Utama, INTI College, HELP, International College, Kolej Tunku Abdul Rahman. In the late 1990s, following the amendment of the Education Act in 1995, and the introduction of the new Private Higher Education Act 1996, several major corporations were licensed to run private universities including Telekom’s Multimedia University, Petronas Universiti Tecknologi and Tenaga’s Universiti Tenaga Nasional. Two distance learning universities were also created: Universiti Tun Abdul Razak and the Open University of Malaysia. BN political parties also established universities: the Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (Malaysian Chinese Association); the Asian Institute of Science, Technology and Medicine (Malaysian Indian Congress); and the latest, Wawasan Open University College (Parti Gerakan). Another set of private universities, university colleges or twinning colleges specialising in the provision of medical courses were also established, including the International Medical University, the Penang Medical College, and Malacca-Manipal Medical College. Four ‘branch campuses’ of foreign universities were established: Monash Universiti, Curtin University, Swineburne University and Nottingham University. Several private colleges were next given university college status and allowed to grant their own degrees, apart from continuing to run the twinning programmes which awarded foreign university degrees including Limkokwing University; Sedaya; Inti International; Dist-Ed Stamford College. Six hundred other colleges prepared students for matriculation into local public universities or foreign universities, and various diploma courses including in IT and computer skills, English and other languages.

Following the introduction of the NEP in 1971, ethnic quotas were introduced to improve the intake of bumiputera students into the universities. Because of limited places in the five existing universities (UM, UKM, USM, UPM and UTM), competition to gain entry into the universities was very stiff and exacerbated ethnic tensions. The situation became more acute by the early 1980s, due to huge increases in tuition fees for foreign students attending British, Australian and New Zealand universities. Middle-class non-bumiputera Malaysians could no longer afford to send their children abroad as before, resulting in even greater competition for limited places.

Thanks to the establishment of new public universities, the increased intake in the five older universities, and the establishment of the private ‘twinning colleges’ in the late 1980s, and then the licensing of private universities beginning in the late 1990s, the number of places available for tertiary education doubled and trebled.

Indeed, enrolment in tertiary education skyrocketed in the 1990s. 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. UiTM was the largest with 80,000 students enrolled in its various campuses. The five older universities, each, enrolled more than 20,000 by 2000. 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. No longer was tertiary education an elitist affair as in the 1970s and 1980s.

Apparently, there are now more than enough places available to accommodate local demand for 40,666 foreign students are currently enrolled in these private institutions as well. Hence, the expansion of tertiary education in Malaysia has not only made available opportunities for the children of middle-class Malaysians to further their education. It has further helped to overcome the problem of ethnic quotas stemming from the NEP, and consequently, lessened ethnic tensions as well.

Erosion of standards and an academic culture

However, a major price has had to be paid, namely the erosion of academic standards. First, the recruitment of academics, let alone qualified and experienced academics, has not kept up with the dramatic increase in student numbers. Second, the academic culture which puts a premium on the search for knowledge, for transmitting that knowledge effectively, and for applying that knowledge for the good of society has been displaced. In its place is a hybrid of corporate and bureaucratic culture.

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. With corporatisation, the universities were increasingly made responsible for maintaining their operating budgets (although the federal government continued to make available capital development grants to them).

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’. Consequently, academics have been enticed, in the form of additional income, to prepare teaching modules and supervise and mark assignments and examination scripts for these private colleges. Significantly, promotion points are also awarded to those academics who ‘contribute to the university’ in this manner. It is obvious that academics end up having little time to conduct research and to publish, perhaps also to teach the students in their own public universities effectively.

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.

It needs to be clarified, however, that corporatisation is not necessarily deterimental to academic excellence. In the US the best universities are private ones wherein the academics are allowed to play major roles in running the universities. Corporatisation can enhance a competitive spirit and the pursuit of academic excellence too. In Malaysia, however, corporatisation has led to a reduced role for the Senate, which used to be made up of all professors in the universities. Instead, corporatisation has focused on the monetary aspect of things.

Need to recruit more academics

In 1999, when enrolment in the public universities hit about 300,000, the total number of academics in the public universities was only 10,920. Another 5,000 taught in the polytechnics and teachers training colleges. Out of a total of 13,033 academics in public universities in 2000, only 21.6% were PhD holders, 72.1% Master degree holders, while the rest were first degree holders (Lee 2004: 55).

The situation in the private sector is even more dismal. 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 (Lee 2004: 55). However, it is not only difficulty in recruiting people with PhDs that accounts for the low number of qualified academics in the private sector. It has also to do with ‘the bottom line’. For higher education has also become big business.

These providers of private tertiary education are even less imbued with that academic culture. Employing fewer academics with the necessary qualification is simply cheaper. In fact, academics in private colleges often teach more hours than those in the public sector and often teach courses in which they have very little training. Moreover, the private colleges do not grant their academics research leave, let alone research funds. Attempts to set up an academic staff union among those employed in the private colleges have been stymied by employers and the activists concerned harassed.

Frustration among academics

For at least two decades now, there has developed much frustration within the academic community about falling standards, declining professionalism and a loss of the previous academic culture, poor remuneration especially for younger academics and increasing political interference in the running of the public universities. (Note that these problems are shared by both bumiputera and non-bumiputera academics and are not directly related to questions of ethnicity per se).

These concerns were clearly expressed in a workshop organised by the Malaysian Social Science Association in UM in KL in October 1985, attended by more than 200 academics from various universities. By that time there were already eight public universities in existence. There was much anxiety about increasing interference by the government in university affairs including the appointment of top university administrators with questionable academic credentials.

A former deputy VC of UM who addressed the gathering explained the erosion of academic standards in this manner: 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…’. Many present thought this analogy an apt one.

The same complaints about declining standards and increasing bureaucratic interference were again voiced at another gathering of about 150 Malaysian academics in USM on 13-14 October 1989 (see Akademia: Menjelang Tahun 2000, Penang: PKAPUSM, 2001).

Fifteen years later, with the massification of tertiary education and the lack of proportional increase in the numbers of qualified academics, the signs of this decline have become even clearer.

Where have all the academics gone?

First, a group of Malay academics who might have ended up as the most senior academics today had in fact left the universities a decade or two ago. Some did join one or another of the new universities on promotion. But many were seconded to government departments or agencies, recruited to head government think-thanks or set-up consultancies, joined the corporate sector, or entered politics. (Except for three individuals, all of my Malay colleagues who were present in the School of Social Science USM when I first joined in 1979, have since left).

Second, another group of non-bumiputera academics (especially doctors, engineers, economists and others in the professions) of various ages, who grew frustrated with the leadership of the universities, the lack of promotion prospects, increased workload despite little improvement in pay compared to their counterparts in the private sector, have resigned or taken early retirement to join the private sector. Some have continued their academic careers as academics cum administrators of the private universities and colleges or moved overseas to join sometimes very reputable universities, research centres, or international bodies like the United Nations.

Still others, bumiputera and non-bumiputera, struggled through but have finally retired. In a study of USM, it was found that the attrition rate of faculty members was 7 per cent in 1990, climbed to 19 per cent in 1995, and reached 27 per cent in 2000.

The point is that there are few remaining senior academics with decades of teaching and research experiences in the 17 public universities and university colleges, and the 15 private universities today.

Increasing bureaucratic culture

Instead, there exists a large pool of medium-age academics, many of whom have been rapidly promoted to the top administrative and academic positions in the public universities, though most do not have the research and publication records of the seniors whom they have replaced. Compared to senior academics again, many are also not imbued with that academic culture to conduct serious research and to challenge and debate the given wisdom. Sadly, most are also not very effective transmitters of knowledge either. Instead, they are more excited about managing the university well, that is in accordance to the diktat of the government. And that means embedding the corporate-cum-bureaucratic culture in the universities.

Below this second pool is a third pool of younger academics. But it appears that the public universities are no longer able to recruit the best and the brightest students, bumiputera or non-bumiputera, of any age cohort, to train as academics nowadays. Many, especially the non-bumiputera, prefer to set up their own practices if they are in the professions, or to join the private sector, rather than invest so much time and effort to further their studies to the PhD level. Top bumiputera students, some graduating from the best universities in the world, also find the corporate world or politics more attractive.

That said, this younger pool of academics, especially those trained overseas, seem more interested in research and are more imbued with an academic culture than their middle-age counter-parts. Their prospects for promotion, however, dictate that they quickly adopt the bureaucratic-cum-corporate culture as well. For to accumulate the necessary points for promotion and to fill up the annual SKT evaluation forms to the satisfaction of the administrators, these young academics attempt to take up as many petty administrative positions as possible, teach as many course as possible including those offered to twinning colleges, supervise as many post-graduate students as available, and even present as many papers and publish as many articles as possible, regardless of quality.

However these juniors will not necessarily become like their immediate seniors. There are already complaints about the bureaucratic culture – not least the different levels of government examinations, the many rules and regulations as epitomised by the compulsory Aku Janji pledge and the many ceremonial activities - which their immediate seniors have embedded in the public universities. Why, some are also critical of the lack of academic excellence and the absence of serious research activities among these seniors. It is possible that these junior academics might play a role in reversing the current bureaucratic-cum-corporate trends.

Poor preparation for university education

Apart from the increased enrolment in the universities, both public and private, another problem which haunts the universities is the decline in the quality of students, many of whom are not adequately prepared for university education. This is really an indictment of the secondary school system itself. 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.

As well, despite all the claims that entrance into the universities is nowadays based on meritocracy, in fact, we continue to admit students not only based on their results in the more stringent STPM, but on the basis of ‘matriculation’ from ‘approved’ colleges too. The standards are not comparable.

The shortening of the academic programmes in the public universities from four years to three years for an honours degree have had dire consequences for the students as well. It is therefore not surprising that some 60,000 graduates, almost all from the public universities have not been able to find jobs due to complaints that they are not adequately prepared, lacking linguistic (English) and technical skills, plus lacking initiative and creativity.

Conclusion

The recent hype about the fall in position of UM and USM in the THES 2005 ranking has very little to do with the crisis in the Malaysian universities. But it is an important wake-up call to tackle the fundamental problems we have identified in this article.

By looking at the four principal stake-holders involved in the public universities – the government, university administrators, academics and students, we suggest that the following reforms be undertaken.

First, the government should restore the necessary balance between the massification or democratisation of tertiary education and the pursuit of academic excellence. About four years ago proposals were made to turn four universities namely UM, UKM, USM and UPM into ‘world-class research universities’ that would receive more funding from the federal government. Until now, however, it has been ‘all talk, no action’!

Yet, to rehabilitate our universities, it might be necessary to develop a two-tiered system, such that the first-tier of Malaysian universities are able to compete with the best universities in the region in terms of research output and publications by the academics, reputation for dedicated and excellent teaching, and the production of top-class graduates. This is especially pertinent in light of globalisation and the upgrading of the universities in some Asia-Pacific countries, making it more difficult for us to compete economically.

On the other hand, the second-tier should focus on democratisation so that tertiary education does not cater only for the children of elites. In this regard, the emphasis in the so-called second-tier universities should not be on research but on educating the students to be creative and critical, thoughtful and useful citizens as in the American liberal arts colleges, some of which are world-class institutions but would not be included in the THES ranking.

There is also an urgent need to ensure that our young people are equipped with the necessary technical and other specialised skills to maintain machines, construct houses and mega-malls, fix electrical breakdowns, run restaurants and hotels, fashion furniture, develop the entertainment industry, and to be creative artistes too. We have too many students currently enrolled in business and commerce, for instance, which do not equip them with skills necessary to secure employment or to be creative in finding a livelihood for themselves. In this regard, the government and society should give due respect and financial recognition to those who have these specialised skills as in many developed countries; whether they possessed degrees or not shouldn't be important.

A related consideration is the need to democratise or decentralise decision-making in educational matters, a point recently made by the UNESCO Asia and Pacific director, Sheldon Shaeffer, when he addressed a SEAMEO conference in Bangkok (NST 13 Nov 2005). ‘System-wide reforms often leave the core process of teaching and learning virtually unchanged simply because they are planned from the top of the system’. Rather, there should be greater ‘bottom-up’ reforms.

The second stakeholder is the university administration. Unlike, say, in Japan, Thailand and the Philippines where the academic staff participate in the selection of their vice chancellor, here in Malaysia, academics have no say whatsoever as to who becomes the vice chancellor. It is simply the prerogative of the minister of education who usually appoints individuals who are well connected politically, and therefore `trusted'. A case in point is the recent appointment of the UUM VC, a former director of the Biro Tata Negara. If Malaysian universities are to be able to compete internationally, surely the position of the VC should be filled by academics of the highest quality.

Indeed, the deputy VCs and deans too should be people of impeccable academic credentials if they are to win the respect of the academics. Again, in Malaysia, unlike in Japan, Thailand and the Philippines, the academic staff has no say in the matter. With no role to play, and without being consulted, it is no surprise that poor morale prevails.

To attract and keep the best academics – the third stakeholder - promotions should be made transparent, peer reviewed and awarded to internationally recognised scholar-researchers. The internationally recognised measure of excellence is also publishing in the top journals, not winning medals in trade exhibitions which has become a fetish with some Malaysian academics. World class universities seldom pride themselves on the basis of gold medals won in these exhibitions. The THES ranking, rightly, does not award points for them either.

As well, promotions should not be on the basis of ‘contribution to the university’ per se, which is the codeword for holding an administrative position, say the deanship. If these criteria for promotions are adopted and a belated improvement of the remuneration scheme implemented, it will attract the ‘best and the brightest’ of all ethnic backgrounds back to the universities.

As for the students, the final stakeholder, it is necessary to re-introduce the 4-year honours programme if standards are to be improved.

Weaker students can still be admitted but standards must be maintained once they are in. If necessary weaker students should be required to stay another year or more.

The university should also ensure that the students become IT-savvy and speak and write English well by making the study of the language compulsory, not least because we operate in a global environment nowadays. Last but not least, the students should also be given greater freedom to conduct their extra-curricular activities, which in fact are now closely monitored and organised for them by the university authorities. It is ridiculous that university students should be subjected to so much haranguing as recently occurred in the elections to student councils. Indeed, the Universities and University Colleges Act (UUCA) which facilitates a feudal-like hold of the authorities over the students, has no place in Malaysia in the 21st century.

With these reforms in place, the public universities might recapture their lost lustre and regain their places among the best universities in the Asia-Pacific region, no matter whether the ranking is conducted by the THES, Shanghai Jiao Tong University or any other institution.

Box B: Massive Increase in Student Enrolments Enrolment in tertiary education skyrocketed in the 1990s. 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. UiTM was the largest with 80,000 students enrolled in its various campuses. The five older universities, each, enrolled more than 20,000. The increase in the private universities and colleges was staggering rising from 15,000 in 1985, to 35,600 in 1990, to 250,000 in 1999, accounting for about 45% of the total number of tertiary level students. The enrolment rate of the 19-24 age cohort in the universities has risen from 2.9% to 8.2% over the 1990s. No longer was tertiary education an elitist affair as in the 1970s and 1980s. Table 1: Estimates of tertiary-level students in Malaysia, 1985-1999 Types of institutions 1985 1990 1995 1999 Public institutions 86,330 (51.1%0 122,340 (53.0%) 189,020 (51.5%0 296,889 (51.5%0 Private institutions 15,000 (8.9%0 35,600 (15.4%) 127,594 (34.7%) 250,000* (43.3%) Overseas institutions 68,000 (40.0%) 73,000 (31.6%) 50,600 (13.8%) 30,000* (5.2%) TOTAL 169,330 (100%) 230,940 (100%) 367,214 (100%) 576,889* (100%) Source: Lee 2004: 21 (* estimated figures)

(Note: Much of the data referred to in this article has been taken from Molly Lee, Restructuring Higher Education in Malaysia, Penang: School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 2004)