Malaysia's
Education hub
Like other projects, this one, too, lags behind Singapore's. Discussion. Blogger Peter Joseph
Dec 1, 2004

I read in today's Singapore Straits Times that Malaysia will ask the laggards among its more than 500 tertiary institutions to close shop as the country moves to improve its quality of education.

The report mentioned that Malaysia's National Accreditation Board (LAN) had revealed that nearly 5 out of 6 courses offered by private colleges nationwide were not accredited.

There are more than 500 private institutions in Malaysia. Of the 3,000-odd courses offered by the private colleges, only about 530 have received certificates of accreditation.

Malaysia has aspirations to be a regional education hub. The government has plans to raise the number of international students to 50,000 next year and expects to earn more than M$1b a year from these students.

It seems that the authorities (specifically the Higher Education Ministry and its predecessor) had chosen in the past to emphasise quantity over quality for private higher-learning institutions.

There is a dearth of brand-name, internationally recognised foreign universities and institutions who have set up shop here.

Contrast this with Singapore, which has chosen to go for quality and brand-names insofar as education is concerned.

Singapore is totally focussed on being THE education hub for the region, and it has succeeded brilliantly thus far.

Brand-names in education which have already set up campuses or joint degree programmes in Singapore include:-

* The French business school Insead,
* China's Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
* The University of Chicago Graduate School of Business,
* Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
* Johns Hopkins,
* Cornell and
* Stanford Universities.

Australia's University of New South Wales will set up a branch campus in Singapore in two years' time, and there are reports that Singapore is trying to attract at least one of the renowned Indian Institutes of Technology to set up shop in the republic.

What is worrying is that Malaysia seems to be always losing out to Singapore as far as the next big thing is concerned.

You name the field - biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals, high-end electronics, information technology, private banking and wealth management, aerospace and aviation, logistics or even real estate investment trusts - and you will find that Singapore has taken the initiative to position itself as the regional hub in these fields.

Malaysia, by all accounts, is lagging several years behind.

It is indeed ironical, for example, that AirAsia has chosen to have its aircraft maintained in Singapore by Singapore Technologies Aerospace.

It was reported in the Singapore newspapers that AirAsia has entered into multimillion-dollar maintenance, repair and overhaul contracts with ST Aerospace over the next 10 years.

Logically, one would have expected AirAsia to have its aircraft maintained in Malaysia.

Sadly, it appears that the quality of aircraft servicing in Singapore is way ahead of what is available in the region.

Singapore's ministers and bureaucrats seem to have this ability to think "out of the box" and to consistently come up with initiatives and policies to attract foreign investors to commit big bucks in the country.

Malaysia seems to lack such focussed and aggressive forward thinkers. And that will pull the country down in the great game of global competitiveness.

Yet, everyone here seems to be busy playing to their domestic agendas, with no one, apparently, even caring two hoots about the country's competitiveness.

I, for one, wonder what needs to be done to wake people here up to the fact that the rules of the game are changing rapidly, and that we are not on the cutting edge to benefit from it.

(The writer monitors closely Singapore's media and their reports on Malaysia. Posted by jeffooi at November 30, 2004

Some Comments
We will never be able to compete with Singapore... We are boleh Land,
They are KiaSu Land..
As we always boleh, they are always kiasu, they will never lose.
By Shagalot

Their thoughts: What I can do for the NATION today?
Our thoughts: What I can do for MYSELF (or MY RACE) today?
By tvman

We'll just be teaching low level students compared to Singapore which concentrated on Post-Graduate and Research Institutions of world class standards. The best on our shores are nowhere close to even NUS/NTU across the causeway not to mention the MIT or Wharton.
As mentioned in the report we're going for numbers as we have land and Singapore is going for higher valued added quality as they do not have land.
Given that our bureaucrats are also lacking in foresight and interested in protecting the status-quo, we'll need something more than a miracle to make that quantum leap.
In today's globalised world, we need to look outward to survive but here we constantly look inward to protect what's left behind.. sad but true!
By clk

The Clownish acts of the LAN is just an outward manifestation of some deep sickness of the Malay(sian) mindset. . . 'belief' in a superior race, superior religion and language, inability to accept others as having better ideas, or brains (meritocracy), inborn feelings of insecurity giving rise to visible demonstration of arrogance to cover the inferiority complex, refusing to crawl out of the coconut shell, total absence of humility, and more. . . . .
By susmaryosep

I am a final year student in one of the more reputable foreign universities. One of my lecturers served as an external examiner for one of our local public universities. One thing he couldn't understand was why was he asked to mark only those papers answered in English while another local lecturer marked those papers answered in Malay Language.
He couldn't understand the double standard.
By ginger

I read articles in the paper about how some local graduates are unemployed a year or more after graduation, and I'm not surprised. Why should I be?
Before these people talk about weeding out non-performing private tertiary institutions, perhaps they should pause and relook the overall standard of tertiary education in the country as a whole.
I remember that the news article also mentioned something about trying to reduce the outflow of almost M$2b per annum from Malaysians studying overseas.
Ever wondered why so many prefer to obtain their degrees overseas? I don't think one needs to launch into a detailed explanation as the reasons are obvious and has been in existence for a long time.
As long as the authorities remain content to pay lip service to meritocracy, as long as double-standards are practiced, and standards are lowered to fulfill the "Quantity" objective mentioned by the others above, we will continue to churn out sub-standard (read: unemployable) graduates that are not able to survive in the real world.
By Dafthamsta

Why bother about the accreditation, it will be useful only if you want to work with the government. The private sector doesn't give a damn on it as long as you can perform, you will be hired.
Paper qualification is only the first step. It definately works this way when I interview candidates in my company. Btw, some of the local grads from .. can't even speak proper English and don't even know what they have learned. No wonder they can't get job
By j-boy

Why do we seem surprised about Singapore? Meritocracy will always beat mediocracy.
By d7

Just my 2-sen's worth.....I was told that a niece of a friend, who studies in public primary school in Singapore has to prepare some of their homework in MSPowerpoint for presentation....and this kid is at Std Two level.....and just what is our Std 2 kids learning in school these days? No wonder we are so far behind.....
By FreeLander

It is not fair that, in the AirAsia case, Singapore maintenance is far more superior than Malaysian. MAS airplane is well maintenance compare to the inferior RMAF.
Since AirAsia is a public company now, price competitive without compromise of services is important to the low cost airline. Perhaps it is the cost that makes AirAsia shy away.
By moo_t

We talked about MSC (Multi-media Super Corridor), Singapore made their whole island an MSC (Singapore One) before we did; we talked about biotech, Singapore pinched the biggest names (Dolly's father); we wanted to clone MIT (MUST), they got the real Mickey; we are talking abut becoming an Islamic banking hub, so is Singapore...and it remains to be seen.
Our beloved country has reasonably able top leaders (bar a few senilities in cabinet, MB's & DGs) but a bureaucracy that is particularly adept at tripping up in execution.
LAN is just one of many horrible examples. An acquaintance involved in MUST (our MIT-clone) was cursing LAN about the hard time they gave him. MUST was tasked in cloning MIT's curriculum and (hopefully) repeating MIT's success in research in Malaysia, yet LAN officials told him point blank the curriculum is not good enough for LAN even if it good enough for our Government to spend millions sending our best scholars to MIT to get exactly the same.
Meritocracy & Mediocracy aside, I feel the big difference is in the creation of an able middle management.
Singapore, following Japan and Hong Kong's lead, managed to create a strong middle management that functions like a well oiled machinery irrespective of the head. Malaysia had a different agenda & social role in making our bureaucracy a big employer (of what some feel to be the less-employ-able).
By choosing to become a big employer, the bureaucracy suffers in losing the option to pay well like Hong Kong & Spore to attract the best talents.
By becoming a big employer, we also have a gigantic inertia to build up in changing of mindset. It is similar analogy to medieval Europe fielding huge farmer armies as opposed to Roman policy of professional army expert in the trade.
We unfortunately had to live in a lost generation as a result of this (in perfect hindsight) flawed social-political experiment. It is overly simplistic to point to racial agendas, meritocracy (or lack of) etc. Put ourselves in the seat of our fathers in policy making.
It's easy to want to practice meritocracy, but not when you are staring down a million farmers and their children potentially rioting in poverty. But my personal opinion is that it is good reason, but lousy excuse. Move on.
The other difference? - Politics.
Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong & even Taiwan had the advantage of political autocracy to a certain degree to isolate public policies from being politicised. But the moment they lose that isolation, see Taiwan and Hong Kong, things get a little awry.
While I am also personally inclined to bitch about why we had a hard time beating Singapore for once, I guess that will be missing the point.
As demonstrated by PTP & AirAsia, we should go our own way, compete regionally instead of always falling back into the groove of this broken record of sibling rivalry.
And while we are at it, be conscious of our other siblings too. Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia are beginning to beat us in more areas!
By curly

Malaysia? We can't even unseat a politician in the WC for thirty years. How can we change our mindset? Top people cannot change, how to expect the other people?
By mike

Other than the number of universities and institutes of higher learning, we still beat Singapore in one area, that is the number of unemployable graduates churned out every year.
By Laughing Boy

How is it possible?
It boils down to quality leadership and money therein. How can we beat a country whch has amassed so much wealth that is beyond imagination.
Just 2 examples:
GIC amongst the world's largest fund management companies, managing US$100b (RM380 billion).
Similarly, Temasek Holdings manages about US$95 billion (RM360 billion) including part shareholders of some of the big names in SGX.
External wing economy: Their direct investments abroad reaching US$95b (RM360 billion). Investment is growing which they can ride on.
They have many worldclass companies. To name a few:-
Flextronics based in Singapore has revenue of US$14.5b (RM55 billion), world largest electronic contract manufacturing services company.
Jurong Island: World's 3rd largest Petrochemical hub which they built from reclaimed land.
SIA - world 2nd largest airline by valuation.
PSA - world 2nd largest port operator with 17 port projects in 11 countries handling 28.7 m TEUs worldwide. etc.. etc.
They are so damned rich that they can invest or sit back but choose to continue re-engineering and charging ahead.
I'm shaking my head, how it is possible for an island that is 648 sq km (250 sq mi) ie 25 miles x 10 miles with no natural resources. How? Lee Kuan Yew can do it in 40 years.
By propa

Curly, excellent comments and totally agree with you. While I don't really want to say this, most UMNO people think that the government is UMNO and UMNO is the goverment...it may be true but to a certain limited extent.
With having this mindset, they then have difficulty in implementing what they have planned as the implementors are not capable as most of them are just politicians trying to make a living.
The government also loses out on the real talents by not being able to pay a competitive salary. While we all love Malaysia, we've got to able to make a living as well. Most of the individuals that was hired is only doing it for other reasons except 'doing the job', ie looking for other business opportunities whilst still being employed by the government.
Hence, the tasks get neglected and corruption creeps in.
Apologies if the above seems a bit jumbled up. I know it's easy just to blame the government for this but I think in this case they are to blame. If I'm not mistaken, the Singapore government is willing to pay a 6-digit salary to young and talented executives just coming in.
This is totally unheard of in Malaysia where seniority is still key. Just look at our cabinet line-up, most of them has been there for donkey years.
Most of them are just administrators when what we need is someone with vision and leadership qualities.
Curly, you are right! Looks like we have to be resigned to this country sliding down the competency road, following the Philippines! God forbid!
By susmaryosep

In a competition for education hub between Singapore and Malaysia.
The latest scorecard: 60,000 foreign students studying in Singapore.
(source :Education Singapore website). 40,000 foreign students in Malayisa.
(source : Figure mentioned be deputy Minister of Higher Education).
By propa

Air Asia chose Singapore Technology for various reasons. Their fast turn around time and guarantee of delivery. Secondly Air Asia buys power by the hour. Ask the same questions to MAS Engineering and they will say they are not interested in supporting third party work more so a competitor.
MAS Engineering will also not guarantee turn around time and no power by the hour. So Air Asia has no choice but to use ST.
By ogre

What do we expect from a graduate when universities have to teach our students tamadun Islam??? This country's admin runs on the philosophy that everything can be taught through institutionalised education (unity, morals) like NS and the utterly useless pendidikan moral.
On the same line, just taking a look at the newspapers, most of what I see are government officials stating their goals: we will make this a education hub; we will make this a ICT hub etc.
And even if action is taken, it would be in great mega-projects or a plan with a name.
Just look at the PM's plan to eradicate corruption. It's called NIP! And I guess correctly that it would have its own booklet too. In this dynamic world, it would be unwise to plan every step of the journey. Lee Kuan Yew underwent policies as he went and as he saw fit, not planning grandly about every aspect of a huge field for a long time.
It would be even more unwise to execute a plan terribly and incongruently.
Maybe if we paid more attention to the fine details of things instead of being blinded by delusions of grandeur, we would be able to climb the ladder step by step, not planning our leaps up it.
Malaysia has to set its priorities straight. We expect to be a hub of so many things, yet we still are at the tail-end of things. Maybe we should be thinking about catching up in the fundamentals like our internet connections (seems like instead of upgrading my connection to 1Mbps, they reset it to 384kbps, I'm bitterly sore).
Last of all, many people are 'escaping' to foreign institutes because of the freedom of thought they can acquire elsewhere.
If you read the latest Time's World University Rankings (I have the pdf, but I think we're suppose to pay for it), it contains an article on the new independence given to Japanese universities, and the liberty already possessed by American ones as a major force in keeping American dominance of the charts, and Japan's meteoric rise in its tertiary education's quality, not that it was horrible in the past.
By eastern
JeffOoi's 'Screenshots'