A Question of Choice and Consequences
I came across these words while I was re-reading "The Early Years: 1947-1972", which is a compilation of writings by a young Dr. Mahathir Mohamad:
"If the finer gradings of examinations are not perfect then they should not be the only yardstick for the purpose of further education. Certainly, they should be given due consideration but consideration should also be given to the needs of the country.
After all, the university was founded to serve the needs of the nation and it is hardly compatible with these needs to perpetuate and deepen the chasm that divides the Malaysian people.
I am reliably told that in India the practice for some universities to pick out the best applicants to fill 30 percent of the places available. The rest is divided between the different communities served by the particular university. It would seem that neither the problem nor the answer is confined to Malaysia.
I am well aware that disparity exists at all levels of education and that the outlook of the bumiputera is not conducive to the production of candidates for scientific and technological studies.
To change the outlook of a person, to orientate them to new sets of ideas and values does not take a year or two. In a democratic country like ours, it takes generations."
This was written by a youngish Dr. Mahathir on 23 March 1968. He was just 43 years old, back then.
(About 2 weeks earlier, he wrote an article that on racial disparities, which predicted the outbreak of further racial riots and violence, based on the outbreak of Sino-Malay riots that had happened in Penang and Singapore. Less than 15 months later - the tragic racial riots incident of May 13, 1969 happened)
About 4 years later, under the post-NEP Razak Administration, Dr. Mahathir became the Minister of Education up till 1976, before becoming Deputy Prime Minister to Tun (then Dato' Seri) Hussein Onn.
It explains much of what has happened to our higher education system, since then. None of it is incidental - the choice was clearly made that the university will serve the (political and economic) needs of the nation, first and foremost.
And in the last 25 years or so, the subservience of the local university system to "the needs of the nation", has been even more prolific, in implementation.
It was probably the most correct of decisions in the socio-economic reengineering of Malaysian society and in the creation of a large tertiary-educated Bumiputera class.
If you had to decide on issues like this back in 1972 - most of us would have gone down, the same path - without the benefit of hindsight.
But the damage done to the local university system and to the quality of graduates, teaching, learning, critical and constructive thinking and research in such institutions - have been immensely high.
University of Malaya, once one of the most well-regarded universities in Asia - is now, practically nowhere in the Asian rankings of universities.
Perhaps, the choice could not have been avoided - given the context of the Malaysian situation in the late 60's/early 70's.
Perhaps, policy aside, the implementation could have been better if there were less political intervention in universities and instead, more private sector involvement.
But now that the damage is done and the production of high quality human capital is paramount - how do we reverse and mitigate the effect of 35 years of making the university system, (not to mention the "sacrifice" of at least, one educated generation) entirely subservient, to the national socio-economic reengineering agenda?
Let's hope that, as Dr. Mahathir would put it - "to reorientate them to a new set of ideas and values" - that it will not take us, generations to do so. There isn't the luxury of time, in today's viciously competitive and globalized world.
"If the finer gradings of examinations are not perfect then they should not be the only yardstick for the purpose of further education. Certainly, they should be given due consideration but consideration should also be given to the needs of the country.
After all, the university was founded to serve the needs of the nation and it is hardly compatible with these needs to perpetuate and deepen the chasm that divides the Malaysian people.
I am reliably told that in India the practice for some universities to pick out the best applicants to fill 30 percent of the places available. The rest is divided between the different communities served by the particular university. It would seem that neither the problem nor the answer is confined to Malaysia.
I am well aware that disparity exists at all levels of education and that the outlook of the bumiputera is not conducive to the production of candidates for scientific and technological studies.
To change the outlook of a person, to orientate them to new sets of ideas and values does not take a year or two. In a democratic country like ours, it takes generations."
This was written by a youngish Dr. Mahathir on 23 March 1968. He was just 43 years old, back then.
(About 2 weeks earlier, he wrote an article that on racial disparities, which predicted the outbreak of further racial riots and violence, based on the outbreak of Sino-Malay riots that had happened in Penang and Singapore. Less than 15 months later - the tragic racial riots incident of May 13, 1969 happened)
About 4 years later, under the post-NEP Razak Administration, Dr. Mahathir became the Minister of Education up till 1976, before becoming Deputy Prime Minister to Tun (then Dato' Seri) Hussein Onn.
It explains much of what has happened to our higher education system, since then. None of it is incidental - the choice was clearly made that the university will serve the (political and economic) needs of the nation, first and foremost.
And in the last 25 years or so, the subservience of the local university system to "the needs of the nation", has been even more prolific, in implementation.
It was probably the most correct of decisions in the socio-economic reengineering of Malaysian society and in the creation of a large tertiary-educated Bumiputera class.
If you had to decide on issues like this back in 1972 - most of us would have gone down, the same path - without the benefit of hindsight.
But the damage done to the local university system and to the quality of graduates, teaching, learning, critical and constructive thinking and research in such institutions - have been immensely high.
University of Malaya, once one of the most well-regarded universities in Asia - is now, practically nowhere in the Asian rankings of universities.
Perhaps, the choice could not have been avoided - given the context of the Malaysian situation in the late 60's/early 70's.
Perhaps, policy aside, the implementation could have been better if there were less political intervention in universities and instead, more private sector involvement.
But now that the damage is done and the production of high quality human capital is paramount - how do we reverse and mitigate the effect of 35 years of making the university system, (not to mention the "sacrifice" of at least, one educated generation) entirely subservient, to the national socio-economic reengineering agenda?
Let's hope that, as Dr. Mahathir would put it - "to reorientate them to a new set of ideas and values" - that it will not take us, generations to do so. There isn't the luxury of time, in today's viciously competitive and globalized world.
posted by Stingrayz | 12:28 PM
3 Comments:
If not for all the monopolistic cronysm and the nepotism in enriching the selected few that raped the country dry over the last 2 decades, while the larger mass of bumis were still kais pagi and suseptible to the ethnicly biased economy, and corporatizing govt services business entities at the expense of public interests, I thought the 43 year old's plans swung pretty well.
(The longest sentence I've ever written, by far)
i guess there are no shortcuts. you can open the door for someone but you can't force them through. or bar others to go through while that 1 person takes his time.
you can give out scholarships and incentives but you should never, ever lower down your standards. otherwise you might end up with a doctor who got a c6 in bio.
fade0:
Haha! Good long sentence. :)
But yah, I agree with you.
In some of these things, it was clear that we had a choice (like allowing monopolistic behaviour and corporatization/privatization), although privatization made up a core part of growing Bumiputra corporate equity.
In some others (like what was done to the local university system), I'm not quite sure that we had much of a choice.
There is no faster way of creating a middle-class and producing the "political stability" effect, within one generation.
Of course, where it is done, implementation and selection of the right people in both, could have been much better and could have somewhat mitigated the effect, much earlier.
(Gosh, I'm starting to write long sentences like you too!) ;)
Desparil:
I agree.
The thing with trying to social engineer 2 different races, with different cultural values, emphasis on education and work/life ethos - is that you can mitigate the gap, but you can never equalize.
It is a fact (and many university lecturers will tell you this) that standards have been lowered, to get more passes in more faculties.
They either lower it at the front-end (that was one of the reasons why the matriculation was started out) or they're lowered at the back-end (when you graduate them).
(I remember Dr. Terence Gomez, the UM political economist lamenting the fact that upon his return from his Ph.D, that some of his 3rd year students - could not structure a coherent argument)
And most times, it is because the manpower requirement demands it or the political imperative does.
(And by the way, I'm quite sure that you've at least, have encountered one doctor that had a C6 for Biology)
And I think that this is Dr. Mahathir's point.
The university system HAD to serve the needs of the nation - within a short specified time-frame (read:the NEP).
And a part of that price, has definitely been the lowering of standards.
The question is: if we raise the bar now, how many would really get through the "real" benchmark of being a competent graduate? (and I'm not even talking about having real world working experience here)
And will our political masters (servants?)be able to live with the possible results and consequences?
Post a Comment
<< Home