By Dr S. Husin Ali

Every year, when the time comes for selecting students into the university, some controversy always arises. This year the controversy centres around the case of over 7 thousand places that apparently could not be filled by bumiputera students, while at the same time 500 non-bumiputera students who achieved excellent results for their SPM or STPM were not given a place or their first choice. Actually this controversy results from existing weaknesses in the ruling Barisan Nasional education system, which is still unsatisfactory.

At present the percentage of students able to enter tertiary education is relatively small compared to the intake at the primary and secondary levels. In Malaysia, the percentage is even lower than that in many foreign countries, including Thailand and the Philippines. Actually, more public universities should be established in this country to cater for more students.

For the bumiputera, increase in university intake cannot depend entirely on opening more elite schools for them. In fact, existing schools that are lacking in good equipment and trained teachers, particularly in poor backward areas, need to be improved. Better schools with good and well-paid teachers are better for ensuring more students to enter the university. At the same time, better food and environment for learning would also help.

Four days after this controversy raged, the Education Minister that there were vacant places that could not be filled by bumiputera students. He stated that all places had been filled and, in fact, there was no shortage of bumiputera students but instead excess by about 11 thousand students. The minister’s statement raised many questions. How could the situation and student number change so soon? What was the basis for the authorities to announce so confidently, in the first instance, that there were still vacant places whereas there were more than 30,000 qualified STPM applicants who were rejected? The delay of the ministry to give satisfactory explanation eroded public confidence, because it appeared as if the ministry did not know the exact number of intake to the institutions of higher learning (IPT). We need to have transparency in all these matters.

Following the ministry’s announcement on the additional intake, there were allegations that the 55:45 quota was not followed properly, and it was shown that the bumiputera intake had actually risen to about 69 percent. On the other hand, there were groups expressing that the bumiputera ratio should be increased to 66 percent, to reflect the country’s population composition now. They even raised the question of the small number of bumiputera in private institutions of higher learning (IPTS). At the same time there were also those who suggested that the bumiputera ratio be lowered to 50 percent or even less.

When the present 55:45 quota was introduced about 23 years ago, the objective was to achieve greater ethnic balance. There was the basis for this at that time because of the wide socio-economic gap ethnically. Even at that time there were already shortcomings in the implementation of this quota because it gave greater advantage to those who were already in privileged positions.

Presently, the ethnic gap is narrower, with the increasing size of Malay upper and middle classes. At the same time the intra-ethnic gap among the bumiputera, as well as the non-bumiputera, is also widening. The average household income of the 20 percent bumiputera households is about seven times more than the average household income of the lowest 40 percent, and the average income of the lowest 40 percent bumiputera households is around RM600 monthly.

It is now timely to emphasise the importance of introducing a system that gives priority to the needs of those groups in the lower socio-economic strata. On the basis of need, greater emphasis should be placed on those with low incomes, in the poor urban as well as rural areas of Sabah, Sarawak and also the Peninsular. This is not only more just, but also more beneficial to the bumiputera, because they constitute the biggest group with the lowest incomes. At present, the socio-economic backgrounds of students admitted into the IPT or rejected, do not seem to be taken into account.

We believe that the excellent achievement of students should be duly recognised, and so it is not fair to deny university places to excellent students. At the same time, we are also of the view that it is necessary to give due consideration to students who come from families that are poor or cannot afford, but who fulfill the basic requirement, although their achievement may not be excellent. There might still be a place for the quota system, but it is more urgent now to think about the question of justice.

If the quota system is to be continued, then it must be done in a just manner. This means that (a) we must provide places for all those who achieve excellent results, (b) we must take into account the socio-economic backgrounds of the candidates’ families to ensure priority be given to those who cannot afford, and (c) we must widen the scope of the ‘privileged position’ so that it will not be confined only to bumiputera. We must be willing to accept the fact that the bumiputera quota must slowly change according to changing socio-economic conditions in our society.

At present we believe that both yardsticks, namely excellence (considered as merit) and also need (related to low socio-economic position), can be used simultaneously to determine the university intake. All students with excellent achievement must be given places, while those who cannot afford socio-economically should also be given due consideration. We hope that at one time in the future, we will be able to establish a system of determining university intake based on merit as well as necessity, and not based entirely on ethnicity.

In order to solve the present controversy and to ensure that it will not happen again in the future, we wish to propose the following:

Firstly, an authoritative Independent Commission should be established immediately to investigate thoroughly all aspects related to the university intake this year and the past 20 years, and to recommend the setting up of a good university intake system that can be accepted as just and fair to all qualified students, without regard of ethnicity or religion.

Secondly, the Commission could also study a three-tier system for university intake as suggested hereafter.

First tier: all excellent students (on the basis of STPM and SPM results) must be given university places based on their performance (or merit) alone. We believe that in this category not only Chinese, but also Malay Indian and other students will be included.

Second tier: all students with good results, but do not fall into the first category, must be chosen on the basis of their merit and socio-economic backgrounds. In this tier it is necessary to consider carefully how the quota system, if it still exists, could and should be implemented with greater transparency.

Third tier: students who do not fall within the two tiers above and all students who have the minimum qualification, must be considered mainly on the basis of their socio-economic background i.e. necessity. The groups that must be given priority should include students from the interior, rural or backward areas, especially the Orang Asal, rural dwellers and estate workers from Sarawak, Sabah and the Peninsular.

The Commission should, after studying carefully all implications, recommend the percentage from each tier. The ratios should be determined in a flexible and not static manner, allowing them to change according to changing conditions. Further, we suggest that all poor students should be given grants, while the others be provided with loans, if they require them.

Education is a very important factor in the process of social engineering. Although by itself it cannot ensure national unity, yet it is recognised that education is one of the key factors that can help in this process. It is important that education is handled professionally and should not be politicised by anybody. There must be transparency in the intake into the IPT and the award of grants. There are still many weaknesses in the present education system. That is why it needs reform.

As has been announced earlier, in the month of July the BA Education Bureau will be organising a conference to discuss reform in our education system.

Dr Syed Husin Ali
President, PRM

29th May 2001