M. Bakri Musa
[Third of Six Parts]
[In the preceding two parts I discussed the rationale for private sector
participation in education. It would lessen the load on the public
sector thus enabling it to focus more on a smaller population. The
nimbleness of the private enables it to meet the rapidly changing and
necessarily diverse needs of increasingly sophisticated Malaysians. Our
public sector institutions are tightly controlled and heavily
micromanaged from the center. As such they are unlikely to lead us to
excellence, making it an imperative to nurture private institutions. In
this third part I examine the role of the private as it is currently.
MBM]
The Current Situation
Currently private sector participation is limited to the polar ends of the
education spectrum. The private sector has unbridled access to preschool,
and increasing liberalization at the post-secondary level. In between
(Years 1-11), private sector participation is extremely limited and
tightly controlled.
There is no coherent or comprehensive attempt to rationalize
the role of the private sector. The result is a hodgepodge mixture of
the various elements instead of a cohesive pattern.
Thus instead of an exquisite cuisine with the various
ingredients contributing to and enhancing the final flavor, Malaysian
education is akin to a stew of leftovers, with a few new ingredients
thrown in to put a fresh taste. The final concoction is more like dinner
at grandma's house on the third day of Hari Raya; not quite rancid yet,
but not refreshing either.
Private Preschools and Schools
The result of unfettered private sector participation at preschools is
this. Some are superb, with the teachers, facilities and results
matching the best elsewhere. Then we have preschools located near
dumpsites or busy streets, and posing significant dangers to the
children. The standard of hygiene is such that outbreaks of
foot-and-mouth disease occur with distressing regularities. As for their
staff and operators, none are subjected to criminal background checks.
More problematic is that these pre-schools are highly
segregated racially, religiously, and socially. Many preach a virulent
form of ethnic, religious and other cultural pride that would be inimical
to the development of a harmonious plural society. Because of the
government's essentially "hands-off" policy, these sinister developments
remain unchecked, and that could haunt us later.
The private sector has a minimal role at Years 1-11. There
are a few private religious (mainly Islamic) and vernacular schools but
their aggregate contribution is marginal, with the exception of a few
excellent, well-endowed independent Chinese schools. There are only
about 60 such schools but they send more students to top universities
than all the other schools combined.
They may be excellent but their influence on the greater
Malaysian scheme of things is severely limited because they make no
attempt to broaden their appeal to the other communities. Nonetheless
the association representing them is among the most powerful, ready and
able to challenge the UMNO ultras.
These private schools receive no formal public funding except
at opportune times as during tight election campaigns. Then the
government would make a grand show of its on-the-spot generosity. This
happens frequently in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Penang and Selangor for
the Chinese schools, and Kelantan and Trengganu for the madrasahs.
If these excellent independent Chinese schools were to change
their mission from being Chinese (meaning, catering primarily to their
own clan) and instead be one that happens to use Mandarin as its medium
of instruction and then actively seeks students and teachers from the
other communities, then these schools would be my ready model for an
ideal private school for Malaysia. For that to happen would require a
monumental shift in mindset of their leaders. I am uncertain whether
they are capable of that.
As for international schools (the other group of private
schools), only Malaysian children who previously attended schools abroad
(as with children of diplomats) are permitted to apply. Admission
requires the permission of the Minister of Education himself, indicating
a high-level decision. Consequently only a few Malaysians are enrolled
although the demand is great. Of course this being Malaysia, children of
the influential have minimal difficulty securing that permission.
Private Post-Secondary Institutions
As for private universities, a seminal development was the Private Higher
Education Institutions Act of 1996 permitting the setting of private
degree-granting institutions, hitherto the exclusive preserve of public
universities. Within the first few years of its adoption there was a
mushrooming of private tertiary institutions, with the number zooming to
nearly 600 from fewer than 50!
Such an explosive development would tax even the most
efficient regulatory agency, and ours is far from being the best.
Consequently many of these colleges are nothing more than rented spaces
over empty shop lots. They also have the lifespan of mushrooms. Many of
the permits were granted to those known more for their political
connections and financial might rather than academic weight.
These 'educational' institutions do not serve their students
or the nation well. They excel only in having the rich part with their
hard-earned money. They are not likely to propel the nation into its
next trajectory of development. On the contrary, they will weigh us
down.
Nonetheless amidst the pebbles there are a few gems, like the
local wing of Monash and the University of Nottingham. These
institutions have their reputation to protect, and they are precisely the
ones Malaysia should encourage and support.
The other noteworthy private colleges are longstanding ones
likes Taylor which began initially by catering to the needs of school
leavers who could not get slots in public institutions. With the
deterioration of public institutions, combined with their exclusive use
of Malay, these private institutions expanded their turf to meet the
demands of Malaysians wishing to enhance their marketability.
Thanks to their entrepreneurialism and innovativeness, the
likes of Taylor have expanded far beyond their initial offerings of
'twinning' and external degree programs. Today they grant their own
degrees, even graduates ones!
Then there are the major private institutions associated with
government-linked companies; Uniten (of Tenaga Nasional) and Petronas are
ready examples. They are private in name only, for like their parent GLC,
they are under heavy government control.
The major political parties too, UMNO excepted, sponsor their
own private colleges. MCA has its Tunku Abdul Rahman College (TARC).
The name is its only sop to Malay sensitivity. Meanwhile MIC has its
TAFE and AIMST colleges, including (if you can believe it) a medical
school! Unlike the Chinese, the Indians love acronyms for their
institutions. Also unlike the Chinese, the Indians make no effort to
appeal to Malay sensitivity by giving their institutions local-sounding
names.
TARC is the oldest, biggest, and most successful. It was
MCA's second choice after Malay ultras scuttled its demands for Merdeka
University. Unable to grant degrees, TARC initially focused on preparing
its students for globally (principally British) recognized professional
qualifications. Because of that, and its emphasis on English, TARC
graduates are in demand in the marketplace.
It is the supreme irony, one that has not dawned on many, that
those Malay ultras had actually advanced the cause of the Chinese by
denying them a university. If those ultras had acceded to MCA's demands
of a Chinese-language university, what Malaysia would have today is
another of the old Nanyang University, with its graduates well versed in
the ways of ancient China but totally unprepared for the modern
marketplace. TARC on the other hand produces sub-professionals with
recognized foreign qualifications, precisely what the market needs.
Deficiencies of Private Colleges and Universities
Private Malaysian colleges suffer from three major deficiencies. First,
with few exceptions, their academic offerings are wanting. Their degrees
and diplomas are heavy on such utility disciplines as marketing,
accounting and engineering. As for engineering, I am uncertain of the
difference between their degree and a technical diploma. In perusing the
syllabus, it is clear that the engineers they produce are mere
technicians, not educated professionals.
How could these institutions produce educated professionals
when they lack a core liberal arts faculty or unit? How can you teach
your students English and learn to think critically when you do not have
the basics such as an English or Philosophy Department?
To date no private university has a Department of Malay
Studies. I would have thought that having a branch campus in Malaysia
would have been an excellent opportunity for Monash and Nottingham to
strengthen or establish their Department of Malay Studies.
Most of these private institutions are nothing more than
glorified trade schools, catering strictly to the demands of the
marketplace. Not that there is anything wrong with that, only that is
not what I have in mind with a traditional university.
The liberal arts may have little marketplace value, but in the
end that is what separates the graduates and professionals you produce
from mere technicians. What makes the great American universities great,
including the highly 'technical' ones like MIT and Caltech, is their
strong liberal arts core and commitment.
I would have thought since these private colleges have limited
resources they would husband them and be more focused in their mission.
Far from it! They typically have a smorgasbord of academic offerings,
from vocational training to secretarial courses, and from diploma to
pre-university, twinning, as well as degree and even postgraduate
studies. All on the same campus and with the same staff!
Running any one of those programs well would tax even the most
talented educator. These private colleges are trying to be all things to
all people at the same time, or at least to people who could afford their
fees. This miss-mesh strategy is clearly aimed less at improving
individual programs, more on maximizing revenue.
Their anemic academic offerings are matched only by their
mediocre physical facilities. Many lack the amenities one normally
expects of a campus: No auditoria, sports facilities, or students'
dormitories. While even the smallest American campus would have a sports
team and a string quartet, even the largest private Malaysian universities
do not offer these. For these institutions, anything not related to their
students passing their final examinations is deemed irrelevant.
The biggest criticism is that these private institutions
contribute to the greater segregation and polarization of Malaysians.
They are essentially non-Bumiputra institutions; there is minimal attempt
at diversifying the student body or faculty. Worse, these institutions
justify their stand by arguing that they are remedying the imbalance of
public institutions which are predominantly Bumiputras. Obviously to
them, two wrongs would make it right.
Diversifying the student body and faculty is a worthy goal in
itself; it is not a sop to Malays. How can these institutions, private
or public, prepare their students for an increasingly diverse global
marketplace when the learning environment is so insular and limited? You
would think that with the predominant Bumiputra population, private
institutions would strive to cater to this market niche and at the same
time expose their students to the predominant culture.
This racial segregation is worse because it is voluntary.
There is no attempt at remedying the situation. Educators in both
private and public sectors are content with the status quo. This
segregation does not serve our students; it is also inimical to the
healthy development of our plural nation.
Our private colleges are satisfied merely in being followers.
While it is good for them to have affiliations like twinning and transfer
programs with foreign universities, Malaysian institutions must carve
their own tradition and path. At present most are content with being
'feeder schools' to foreign institutions.
What we need is the development of indigenous private schools
and universities that would meet the unique demands of our nation. We
can achieve this by adopting the right policies and with appropriate
governmental support. In the next three essays I will explore how this
could be achieved.
Next: Part Four: The Experience Elsewhere
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
No comments:
Post a Comment