Malaysia to Boost Muslim Progress through Higher Education

Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin

As reported in University World News 0058

DUBAI: Malaysia to boost Muslim progress through HE
Date: 11 January 2009

For Malaysia's Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin, efforts to make Malaysia a regional education hub is more than just about attracting an increasing number of foreign students to its 60 or so public and private universities, reports Bernama.com. It is also about assisting developing countries, especially Muslim nations, to progress by equipping their people with relevant skills and knowledge.

"We're providing access to our higher education, places in our universities, because we believe that this is one way of contributing towards the development of our fellow Muslim countries," Khaled said in an interview in Dubai, disclosing that Malaysia is home to 60,000 foreign students, about 18,000 of them from the Middle East and North Africa region.The countries include Yemen, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Libya, Jordan, Oman, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Turkey, Algeria, Bahrain, Lebanon, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.


With about 43 million people in the age range eligible to be enrolled in tertiary education, Khaled acknowledged that the region held great potential for Malaysia in terms of attracting foreign students.Khaled said the ministry was shifting its focus to government-sponsored students although private students would still be welcome to study in Malaysia: "Governments will only sponsor the best students and we need good students to help improve the rankings of our universities," he explained.

Full report on the Bernama.com site

Good Vice-Chancellor?

From University World News - Issue No 0056

GLOBAL: Huge demands on today's vice-chancellors
Writer: Karen MacGregorDate: 07 December 2008

It's a bird, it's a plane...it's Super-scholar! Leadership of universities today, especially large, complex and transforming institutions, is hugely demanding. To succeed, experts say, a vice-chancellor, principal, rector or president must be a strategic visionary, a change-manager and negotiator, fund-raiser, public figure and the bold, jet-setting workaholic chief executive of an unwieldy organisation staffed with critical minds and big egos. Ideally, he or she should also be a respected academic.

Not surprisingly, combinations of such qualities in one individual are difficult to come by. So universities have turned to head-hunters and the world in their search for leaders for what are in reality major corporations that spend billions of dollars, employ thousands of staff, have a high public profile and operate in a competitive global environment.Gone are the days of crusty academics in ivory towers cutting up a generous public funding pie over high tea. "Higher education institutions", said a Universities UK spokesperson, "are highly complex businesses with an annual turnover of over £100 million (US$147million), and are now operating in an increasingly competitive global market."Among the talents and skills identified in recent years by vice-chancellors as critical to their work are strategic leadership, management experience, the ability to understand and operate effectively in local, national and international environments, and the academic credentials and experience needed to understand a university and earn the respect of its scholars.

It is hard, stressful work which some vice-chancellors say requires genuine leadership ability more than just good management skills. And with the internationalisation of higher education proceeding apace, possessing international experience has become a plus."Vice-chancellors," said Professor Brian O'Connell, head of South Africa's University of the Western Cape, "must be strong and strategic leaders. They must accept a public role. They must be incredibly well-connected, especially with respect to donors."

[They] must also be very good with people. University leaders need to be builders, bringing people together and attracting people. They must be resilient, not display ego and understand that in all probability they will be in eternal contestation with clever, forceful individuals each convinced that their programme is the most significant in the organisation."These dynamics, O'Connell said, make sturdy strategies essential: "A strategic framework facilitates decision-making - without one you are subject to the vagaries of clamouring voices, and whichever is the most forceful will win the day.

A vice-chancellor is protected by the clarity of a strategic perspective created in a collaborative process, not imposed."Last month, applications closed for the job of vice-chancellor of the University of Cumbria, one of the UK's newest universities. They were looking for someone to lead with conviction and skill: "a person with an exceptional record of delivery and change management, communication and team-working skills who would demonstrate strategic thinking, a strong intellect and personal track record that will command the respect of all our stakeholders".

Graham Ewing, 'principal' at EQI Global, a recruitment company that has helped fill many senior higher education positions, has said that today's leaders needed to be smart, able to understand and organise complex systems and deliver on a plan, have excellent relationship skills, vision, the ability to calculate risk and the courage to make difficult decisions.

Alice Sena Lamptey, head of the Working Group on Higher Education at the Ghana-based Association for the Development of Education in Africa, identified vision as a critical quality of vice-chancellors today."As in the business sector, university leaders need to have long antennae with which they scan the environment, understanding how internal and external environments are changing and how best their institution might respond," Lamptey explained.

Sir Graeme Davies, whose career has spanned four vice-chancellorships including current leadership of the University of London, said that being an engineer was likely connected to his interest in management - and it was probably no coincidence that many universities were headed by engineers.Running a university, Davies argued, was somewhat like being a design engineer who must identify a need, conduct an analysis, consider how to manufacture the solution and manage the contract. Vice-chancellors, like engineers, had to pull together different streams of work. "It is intellectually extremely interesting and rewarding, and secondly it is actually very creative," he told New Zealand Education Review.

Also critical today is the ability to raise funds. While this has long been a key factor in the success of university presidents in America, where institutions depend heavily on donations - in 2007, philanthropy comprised 40% of Harvard's budget - the ability to secure funding has become increasingly important elsewhere in the developed and developing worlds.As Newsweek pointed out in August, when Cambridge University appointed former Yale provost Professor Alison Richard as vice-chancellor five years before, her selection was part of a 10-year, $2 billion development plan "and the university publicly stressed the fact that in her previous job she'd overseen a major strengthening of Yale's financial position".

Fund-raising helps to cover what are sometimes enormous salaries. As our article on university bosses' salaries reports in this edition of University World News, remuneration packages can go as high as $2.8 million in the US, and packages in excess of $1 million are not uncommon among that country's private, research-intensive institutions.Professor Philip Altbach, Director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College in the US, said: "University presidents are more and more being called on to be a combination of CEOs and fund-raisers, especially in the United States." But Altbach added: "This is in my view a serious problem since top university leadership tends to ignore the academic values that drive all successful universities."karen.macgregor@uw-news.com

A Good Vice-Chancellor

A comment by a senior professor on my personal blog and I thought it would be good to share it with others.

Dear Prof,

Always a pleasure to read your blog. Something I noticed having seen a few good VCs.

A VC must be visionary. Only then can he/she transforms the university.

A VC must have strong academic credentials. Only then can he/she commands respect from fellow academicians.

A VC must be apolitical. If not there will be camps in the campus.

A VC must also be a people's person. Only then can he/she ganders support from everyone in campus.

A VC must be student friendly. Must always remember no students no university.

A VC is always appreciative of good work done and always urging people to work with him/her not for him/her.

The list maybe endless......

To be passionate helping the students is truly a noble cause.

Best regards.

Please Ladies Have Some Dignity

Read this in the Star today. I am embarassed as a female academic to see such uncool behaviour from the former Vice-Chancellor of UM. Perhaps we do have to look at ourselves. We need to show leadership qualities not get emotional like this. Women a good lesson on what not to do when your tenureship is not extended. Speech is silver silence is golden. The best thing to do is to shut your trap.

Saturday November 15, 2008

Apologise, former V-C tells deputy minister

By SIMRIT KAUR

KUALA LUMPUR: Former Universiti Malaya (UM) vice-chancellor Datuk Rafiah Salim has demanded an explanation and public apology from a deputy minister for questioning her performance as head of the university.
Rafiah said that Deputy Higher Education Minister Datuk Idris Haron, when replying to a question in the Dewan Rakyat on Wednesday, had insinuated that she had not been reappointed as UM VC because of her track record.
“Idris should not have undermined me by implying that they needed someone with a track record and who was high-performing, implying that I was not,” said Rafiah, in reference to the appointment of her successor, Prof Datuk Dr Ghauth Jasmon.
Idris had said that UM needed someone with a high level of performance who could elevate the university’s status, and that Prof Ghauth had vast experience in public universities and had built up the Multimedia University (MMU). Prof Ghauth was appointed to a three-year term to head UM on Nov 8.
When contacted, Idris, who is currently in Jogjakarta, Indonesia, said that he had not implied that Rafiah was not a good VC in his answer.
“I said that the VC search committee had chosen a candidate who was better able to fulfil the criteria set,” he said, adding that he would refer to the Parliament Hansard on Monday.
Rafiah said that her two-and-a-half year term was not sufficient to ensure the success of UM’s transformation plan.
“I have several more projects to be implemented and would have needed at least two more years to see them through.
“This lack of continuity in leadership can hamper UM’s development,” she told The Star.
Rafiah said that despite her short tenure, she had still managed to turn around the university because of the cooperation she had got from UM staff.
The university has managed to climb The Times Higher Education World University Ranking during Rafiah’s time, from 246 in 2007 to 230 this year and was the only public university to get a five-star rating in the Rating System for Malaysian Higher Education Institutions (Setara).
Rafiah, the first woman to head a public university, was appointed VC in May 2006 and her contract was extended for six months from May this year.

The internationalization of higher education: Are we on the right track?

By Jane Knight

in Academic Matters. The Journal of Higher Education, October/November 2008.


Globally-respected internationalization scholar Jane Knight explores recent trends in the internationalization of higher education and raises searching questions about the unintended consequences.

by Jane Knight

Headlines from recent higher education newspapers paint a colourful picture of some new developments in internationalization—“Ten universities in the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand, and Australia begin sharing education content on iTunes U.” “China could be vulnerable to ‘education dumping’ by overseas universities seeking to exploit the rapid expansion of higher education in the country.” “European Higher Education Fairs ‘conquer’ Vietnam.”
As we progress into the 21st century, the international dimension of higher education is becoming increasingly important and at the same time, more and more complex. There are new actors, new rationales, new programs, new regulations, and the new context of globalization. Internationalization has become a formidable force for change as evidenced by the following developments and initiatives:
• The creation of new international networks and consortia• The growing numbers of students, professors, and researchers participating in academic mobility schemes
• The increase in the number of courses, programs, and qualifications that focus on comparative and international themes
• More emphasis on developing international/intercultural and global competencies
• Stronger interest in international themes and collaborative research
• Steep rise in the number of crossborder delivery of academic programs
• More interest and concern with international and regional rankings of universities
• An increase in campus-based extracurricular activities with an international or multicultural component
• The investment in recruiting foreign students and dependence on their income
• The rise in the number of joint or double degrees
• Growth in the numbers and types of for-profit crossborder education providers
• The expansion in partnerships, franchises, branch campuses
• The establishment of new national, regional, and international organizations focused on international education

As internationalization changes to meet new challenges it is important to examine the key concepts that inform and shape the internationalization process and some of the unexpected developments and results. The multiple and varied benefits attributed to internationalization are acknowledged, but the primary focus here is on the unintended consequences that need to be addressed and monitored.
Confusion and complexity in what internationalization means
Internationalization is a term that means different things to different people. While it is encouraging to see the increased use and attention given to internationalization, there is a great deal of confusion about what it means.
For some people, it means a series of international activities such as: academic mobility for students and teachers; international networks, partnerships and projects; new international academic programs and research initiatives. For others it means the delivery of education to other countries through new arrangements such as branch campuses or franchises using a variety of face-to-face and distance techniques. To many, it means the inclusion of an international, intercultural and/or global dimension into the curriculum and teaching learning process. Still others see internationalization as a means to improve national or world rankings of their institution and to recruit the best and brightest of international students and scholars. International development projects have traditionally been perceived as part of internationalization, and, more recently, the increasing emphasis on trade in higher education is also seen as internationalization. Finally, there is frequent confusion about the relationship of internationalization and globalization. Is internationalization the same as globalization? If so, why, how, and to what end? If not, how is it different or what is the relationship between these two dynamic processes? Thus internationalization is interpreted and used in different ways in Canada and countries around the world.
A changing agenda?
In addition to questions about what exactly does it mean, there are other important issues being raised about internationalization. Questions such as: What is the purpose for internationalization? What are the expected benefits or outcomes? What are the values that underpin it? What are, the positive consequences? What are the unintended results? What are the negative implications? What about new risks attached to internationalization? How are institutions and policy makers responding to the competing interests within the domain of internationalization? What are the funding implications? How are governments and non-governmental organizations addressing the issue and moving forward? Are for-profit and non-profit internationalization strategies compatible? Does internationalization have a role in the brain drain, homogenization/hybridization of culture, and international labour mobility? Clearly, there are important issues and questions to address. As the internationalization agenda changes, it requires close scrutiny.
Defining Internationalization
Internationalization is not a new term, nor is the debate over its meaning. Internationalization has been used for years in political science and governmental relations, but its popularity in the education sector has soared only since the early 1980s. Prior to this time, “international education” and “international cooperation” were favoured terms and still are in some countries. In the 1990s, the discussion centred on differentiating “international education” from such overlapping terms as “comparative education,” “global education,” and “multi-cultural education.” But today, the nuances of meaning among “crossborder,” “transnational,” “borderless,” and “international” modes of education are more important and causing much confusion.
The challenging part of developing a definition is the need for it to be generic enough to apply to many different countries, cultures, and education systems. This is no easy task. While it is not the intention to develop a universal definition, it is imperative that it can be used in a broad range of contexts and for comparative purposes across countries and regions of the world. With this in mind, it is important to ensure that a definition does not specify the rationales, benefits, outcomes, actors, activities, and stakeholders of internationalization as they vary enormously across nations and from institution to institution. What is critical is that the international dimension relates to all aspects of education and the role that it plays in society. Internationalization at national/sector/ institutional levels is defined as “the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of higher education.”
This is intentionally a neutral definition of internationalization. Many would argue that the process of internationalization should be described in terms of improving quality and relevance of higher education, promoting cooperation and solidarity among nations, or advancing research on international issues. While these are noble intentions, and internationalization can contribute to these goals, a definition needs to be objective enough that it can be used to describe a phenomenon which is in fact, universal, but which has different purposes and outcomes, depending on the actor or stakeholder.
A significant development in the conceptualization of internationalization in the last five years has been the introduction of the terms “internationalization at home” and “crossborder education”. Campus-based strategies are most often referred to as internationalization “at home” and off-campus initiatives are called “crossborder education”. As a result of a heightened emphasis on international academic mobility, the “at home” concept has been developed to give greater prominence to campus-based elements such as: the intercultural and international dimension in the teaching learning process, research; extra-curricular activities; relationships with local cultural and ethnic community groups; as well as the integration of foreign students and scholars into campus life and activities. It is important to point out that internationalization consists of these two separate but closely-linked and interdependent pillars. Crossborder education has significant implications for campus-based internationalization and vice versa. Interestingly enough, many of the new developments and unintended consequences are associated with the crossborder aspects of internationalization.
New Developments and Unintended consequences
The Brain Train
Little did we know 25 years ago that the highly-valued and promoted international academic mobility for students, scholars, and professors would have the potential to grow into a highly-competitive international recruitment business. Several countries are investing in major marketing campaigns to attract the best and brightest talent to study and work in their institutions in order to supply the “brain power” for innovation and research agendas. The complexities and challenges related to academic and professional mobility should not be underestimated. Nor should the potential benefits. But it is impossible to ignore the latest race for attracting international students and academics for “brain power” and for “income generation”. The original goal of helping students from developing countries study in another country to complete a degree and return home is fading fast as nations compete for retaining needed human resources.
While “brain drain and brain gain” are well known concepts, research is showing that international students and researchers are increasingly interested in taking a degree in country A, followed by a second degree or perhaps internship in country B, leading to employment in country C and probably D, finally returning to their home country after eight to 12 years of international study and work experience. Hence, the emergence of the term “brain train”. In the final analysis, whether one is dealing with brain gain, brain drain, brain train or even brain chain, this phenomenon is presenting benefits, risks, and new challenges for both sending and receiving countries. From a policy perspective, higher education is becoming a more important actor and is now working in closer collaboration with immigration, industry, and the science and technology sectors to build an integrated strategy for attracting and retaining knowledge workers. The convergence of an aging society, lower birth rates, the knowledge economy, and professional labour mobility is introducing new issues and opportunities for the higher education sector and producing some unanticipated results and challenges in terms of international mobility.
Quality, Accreditation, and Credential recognition: whither thou goest?
It is forecast that by 2025 the demand for international education will grow to 7. 2 million students—a quantum leap from 1.2 million students in 2000. Some, but certainly not all of this demand, will be met by student mobility. Consequently, the number of new providers—commercial companies and non-governmental entities—delivering programs to students in their home countries is accelerating at an unprecedented rate. It is no longer just students, faculty, and researchers who are internationally mobile. Full academic degree/diploma programs are being delivered across borders, and branch campuses or new, stand alone institutions are being established in developing and developed countries around the world.
While these new developments are intended to increase access to higher education and meet the appetite for foreign credentials, there are serious issues related to the quality of the academic offer, the integrity of the new types of providers, and the recognition of credentials. The increase in the number of foreign degree mills (selling “parchment”-only degrees) and accreditation mills (selling bogus accreditations for programs or institutions), and rogue for-profit providers (not recognized by national authorities) are realities that students, parents, employers, and the academic community now need to aware of. Who would have guessed two decades ago that international education would be struggling to deal with fake degrees and accreditations; that is, academic credentials that are earned but not recognized and non-regulated “fly by night” institutions. Of course, it is equally important to acknowledge innovative developments by bona fide new providers and traditional universities who are delivering high quality programs and legitimate degrees through new types of arrangements and partnerships (franchise, twinning, branch campuses). The perpetual issue of balancing cost, quality and access significantly challenges the benefits and risks of crossborder education.
Double and Joint Degrees: Twice the benefit or Double counting?
Improvement in the quality of research, the teaching/learning process, and curriculum has long been heralded as a positive outcome of international collaboration. Through exchange of good practice, shared curricular reform, close research cooperation, and mobility of professors/students, there is much to be gained through internationalization. A recent trend has been the establishment of joint programs between institutions in different countries that lead to double (or multiple degrees) and in some cases a joint degree, although the latter faces steep legal constraints. Joint programs are intended to provide a rich international and comparative academic experience for students and to improve their opportunities for employment. But with all new ideas, come questionable adaptations and unintended consequences. For instance, in some cases, double degrees can be nothing more than double counting one set of course credits. Situations exist where two or three credentials (one from each participating institution) are conferred for little more than the work load required for one degree. While it may be very attractive for students (and potential employees) to have two degrees from two institutions in two different countries, the situation can be described as academic fraud if course requirements for two full degrees are not completed or differentiated learning outcomes not achieved. It is important to point out that there are many excellent and innovative joint and double degree programs being offered—especially by European institutions given the priority they are given in the Bologna process. But one of the unanticipated consequences has been the misuse or abuse of this new internationalization initiative. More work on the quality assurance and credential recognition of double degrees is necessary because they span two or more jurisdictions and can be exempt from any national regulations.
Commodification and Commercialization: For-profit Internationalization
While the process of internationalization affords many benefits to higher education, it is clear that there are serious risks associated with this complex and growing phenomenon. According to the results of the 2005 International Association of Universities (IAU) Internationalization Survey, there is overwhelming agreement (96 per cent of responding institutions from 95 countries) that internationalization brings benefits to higher education. Yet, this consensus is qualified by the fact that 70 per cent also believe there are substantial risks associated with the international dimension of higher education.
Overall, the number one risk identified in the survey was the commodification and commercialization of education programs. Of interest is that both developing and developed countries identified commercialization as the number one risk, convincing testimony of its importance. A regional level analysis showed that four regions (Africa, Asia Pacific, Europe, and North America) ranked commercialization as the top risk. Latin America placed brain drain as number one, and the Middle East ranked loss of cultural identify in first place.
The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) has been a wake-up call for higher education around the world. Higher education has traditionally been seen as a “public good” and a “social responsibility.” But with the advent of this new international trade agreement, higher education has become a tradable commodity, or, more precisely in GATS terms, an internationally tradable service. Many see GATS as presenting new opportunities and benefits, while others see it as introducing serious risks. In addition, there are many who question why the trade sector needs to impose regulations at all, given that the education sector has been using its own agreements and conventions for decades.
At the heart of the debate for many educators is the impact of increased commercial crossborder education on the purpose, role, and values of higher education. The growth in new commercial and private providers, the commodification and market orientation of education, and the prospect of new trade policy frameworks are catalysts for stimulating serious reflection on the role, social commitment, and funding of public higher education institutions in society. The trinity of teaching, research, and service to society has traditionally guided the evolution of the university and its contribution to the social, cultural, human, scientific, and economic development of a nation and its people. Is the combination of these roles still valid, or can they be disaggregated and rendered by different providers?
Finally, an unknown consequence is the impact of commercialization on the motivation for institutions to internationalize. One of the leading rationales at the institutional level for internationalization is preparing graduates to be internationally knowledgeable and interculturally skilled to live and work in more culturally diverse communities both at home and abroad. An important question to ask is how an increased emphasis on the “buying and selling” of education across borders will affect the nature and priority given to academic, social, and cultural rationales of non-profit international education activities. Cultural Diversity or Homogenization?
The impact of new forms and types of international academic mobility on the recognition and promotion of indigenous and diverse cultures is a subject that evokes strong positions and sentiments. Many believe that modern information and communication technologies and the movement of people, ideas, and culture across national boundaries present new opportunities to promote one’s culture to other countries and to provide more chances for the fusion and hybridization of culture. Supporting this position is the assumption that this flow of culture across borders is not new at all, although its speed has been accelerated and its modes broadened.
Others see both the movement and the speed as alarming. They contend that these same forces are eroding national cultural identities and that instead of creating new, hybrid cultures, they are homogenizing native cultures—by which, in most cases, they mean Westernized. Because education has traditionally been seen as a vehicle of acculturation, these arguments focus on the specifics of curriculum content, language of instruction (particularly the increase in English) and the teaching/learning process in international education. The impact of colonization on education has long been a subject of research, but internationalization as a tool for neo-colonization, especially in terms of culture, requires for further study.
Internationalization of higher education was originally conceived in terms of exchange and sharing of ideas, cultures, knowledge, values, etc. Formalized academic relations between countries were normally expressed in bilateral cultural and scientific agreements. Today, the agreements are often based on trade, economics, and politics, showing a significant shift from the original idea of academic exchange. Thus, there are two factors at play. One is the potential, and for many, threat of cultural homogenization, and the second is the weakening of cultural exchange in favour of more economically and politically-oriented relationships.
Status and Profile: World Rankings
International and regional rankings of universities have become more popular and problematic in the last five years. The heated debate about their validity, reliability, and value continues. But at the same time university presidents declare in their strategic plans that a measurable outcome of internationalization will be the achievement of a specific position in one or more of the global ranking instruments. Internationalization is perceived by some institutions as a means to gaining worldwide profile and prestige. The intense competition for world rankings would have been impossible to imagine a mere 20 years ago, when international collaboration among universities through academic exchanges and development cooperation projects were the norm. Of course, these types of activities still take place, but the factors driving internationalization are becoming increasingly varied, complex, and competitive. Is international cooperation becoming overshadowed by competition for status, bright students, talented faculty, research grants, and membership in global networks?
What next?
With innovation come new opportunities, successes, and also threats. It is imperative that the international, intercultural, and global dimensions of higher education continue to be proactive, responsive, and innovative, while keeping a close watch on unanticipated spin-offs and implications. As internationalization matures through its ages and stages of growth, a critical eye and strong will are needed to monitor intended and unintended results -for this year and twenty-five years hence. AM
Jane Knight is a globally-recognized expert on the internationalization of higher education. She is adjunct professor at OISE/University of Toronto and a Fulbright New Century Scholar 2007-2008.
Loading...

USM Gets Apex Status

The Star Online > Nation Thursday September 4, 2008

USM gets apex status

By SIMRIT KAUR and KAREN CHAPMAN

PUTRAJAYA: Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) has been granted apex status. With it, USM can expect hundreds of millions of ringgit in additional funding to transform it into Malaysia's first world-class university.
Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin said that quantitative and qualitative criteria were used to select USM under the accelerated programme for excellence (apex).
Announcement time: Khaled flanked by deputies Dr Hou Kok Chung (right) and Datuk Idris Haron with a copy of the statement announcing USM as the country's first apex university.
“The selection committee evaluated each university's state of readiness, transformation plan and preparedness for change.
“After a thorough evaluation, the committee decided that only one university truly met all the criteria, namely USM,'' he told a press conference yesterday.
The Cabinet had agreed to USM being given the apex status on Aug 27.
The university that is given apex status is one that has the greatest potential among Malaysian universities to be world-class, and as such, would be given additional assistance to compete with top-ranked global institutions, added Khaled.
He said with apex status, USM will be expected to move up the World University Rankings with a target of top 200 in five years' and top 100, if not top 50, by 2020.
In last year’s Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings, Universiti Malaya (UM) was the highest ranked Malaysian university at 246, followed by USM (307), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (309) and Universiti Putra Malaysia (364).
A selection committee headed by former Universiti Malaysia Sarawak vice-chancellor Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Mohamad Zawawi Ismail short-listed USM, UM, UKM and UPM.
USM's transformation plan, entitled “Transforming Higher Education for a Sustainable Tomorrow” focussed, among other things, on diagnostics, medical biotechnology, waste management, pharmaceuticals, nano-technology, membrane technology and vaccines.
Asked why UM was not selected, Khaled said: “I hope the apex status will spur other universities to strive for excellence, too. It's not about selecting the oldest university but choosing one with a doable plan that can help us transform our higher education.”
The other universities that applied for apex status were International Islamic University Malaysia, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Universiti Teknologi Petronas and Universiti Tenaga Nasional.
> See StarEducation on Sunday for the full report.
Related Story:V-C: Great birthday gift for university
© 1995-2008 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No 10894-D)

UiTM in University World News 0042

MALAYSIA: Inter-ethnic tensions touch universities

Writer: David JardineDate: 31 August 2008

Malaysia's complex inter-ethnic culture touches all areas of life, not least higher education. The latest manifestation is the controversy surrounding a call by Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, Chief Minister of the central state of Selangor, the country's most populous, for the local Mara Technology University to open its roll to non-Malays and end its ethnically exclusive admissions policy. Graduates from Mara are favoured for entry into government departments.The Chief Minister, himself a Malay, represents the ethnically mixed opposition front that won the state from the ruling National Front (Barisan Nasional) coalition in the general elections in March; Selangor is one of five states now out of BN hands. Following up on election promises, the opposition grouping is seeking an end to the pro-Malay affirmative action established under the New Economic Policy, itself a creation that came in the wake of the bloody inter-ethnic violence that rocked Malaysia in 1969.The avowed aim of the NEP was to close the economic gap between the Chinese in particular and the Malays, who are constitutionally referred to as bumiputera or 'sons of the soil'. Some Malaysian Chinese, however, can trace their Malayasia blood lines back centuries while all have Malaysian citizenship.The typification of the Chinese as universally wealthy and therefore able to pay for their offspring's passage through university is clearly unsound and has led to many instances of injustice. Should the son or daughter of a Chinese taxi driver or noodles stall operator be excluded from access to higher education or forced to go overseas is a very reasonable question.Among the grievances to be addressed are quota systems in scholarships and university entrance that many Chinese and Indians say marginalise them. Until university tuition fees went up in target countries such as Britain and Australia, some Chinese and a few Indians were able to send their children abroad to study but that window has more or less closed. The call by the Selangor leader was immediately repudiated by Professor Ibrahim Abu Shah, Mara University vice-chancellor, who accused the Chief Minister of "betraying his own race", a drearily familiar charge the opposition openly fought against. This essentially demagogic accusation led to a public protest by 5,000 Mara students demanding that 'their rights' be protected. The demonstration went ahead with the vice-chancellor's approval.In fact, Shah was knowingly stirring the ethnic pot in the belief the Malay-dominated National Front federal government would back him. A statement from the office of Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi repudiating the Selangor leader bore this out. Meanwhile, however, there is strong evidence of a shift in Malay opinion on this issue. Azly Rahman, a Malay at Columbia University in the US, writing on the website Malaysiakini denounced what he called the "fascism" of the Mara students.Firebrand opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, who will shortly fight a by-election in the hope of returning to parliament after years of imprisonment and banning, will be expected to take up the issue of ethnically-charged higher education policies.An irony does not escape the attention of some observers who have pointed out the continuation of ethnic discrimination in Malaysian higher education amid the government's efforts to lure larger numbers of overseas students, including those from mainland Communist China.