Comment on “Transforming Malaysia's Higher Education: Policies and Progress”

Abstract

Tham and Chong (2023) examine measurement issues pertaining to indicators used in assessing the achievement and performance of Malaysian higher education. The data presented are evidence of the need to seriously rethink the measurements used for monitoring quality improvements, which are perennial higher education challenges in the Malaysian context. The study makes reference to two higher education plans, namely the National Higher Education Strategic Plan, 2007 and the National Education Blueprint (Higher Education) 2015, which are important vehicles to move Malaysian higher education between 2007 and 2025. It is important to reflect on Tham and Chong's findings in the context of the spirit and purpose of policies since 1970 for a more meaningful understanding of the measures adopted and narratives presented from 1970 to the present day. Nationalism, the globalization process, and the internationalization of higher education have played and continue to play important roles in the development of indicators and their measurement.

It is important to realize there are many critical political and non-political undercurrents in the formulation of Malaysia's higher education policies and the development of indicators to measure performance and achievement. Many of these are not quite apparent to academics who are not privy to the ministry's internal visioning and workings. Notably, policies may have been an outcome of serious analysis informed by evidence. Indeed, we would like to believe this would be the case. Unfortunately, there are policies that were formulated based on perceptions as time-consuming collection and analysis of evidence is a luxury for many ministries. Admittedly, policy formulation and decision-making in Malaysia have long used an approach based on intuition, perceptions, ideology, or conventional wisdom. More often, evidence is collected to support or justify policies rather than for the formulation of policies. But as Malaysian society matures within an increasingly complex policy environment, a move towards an evidence-based approach to public policymaking is critical for the integrity and reputation of the Malaysian higher education system (Morshidi & Norzaini, 2014).

In order to better understand Malaysia's higher education policies, implementation styles, and progress, in the first instance there is a need to understand the relevant perspectives to higher education that have been adopted. Notably, in explicating Malaysia's higher education, the standard approach in both official documents and academic papers is to highlight the diversity of providers, student numbers and enrolment, etc. The philosophical underpinnings of plans and policies are seldom examined. Here I would like to argue that when examining Malaysia's higher education policies and subsequently determining progress, we need to understand what perspective(s) were adopted. An understanding of these perspectives would shed light on the what and why of Malaysia's policies, the adoption of performance indicators (PIs), and implementation styles, which are important in our attempt to determine the level of progress achieved over time, which is the subject matter of Tham and Chong (2023).

In the context of Malaysia's higher education development, it is pertinent to highlight the importance of the traditional perspective, with a focus on educating the new generation but within the context of the existing tradition inherited from the British colonialists. Interestingly, we can also trace the influence of the transformative perspective, focusing on getting students to question the values of their formative associations and adopt new worldviews that are prevalent in academia. Notably, traditionalists and transformative thinkers share a great deal, beginning with a foundational belief in educating the whole person (holistic graduate). The narrative does not end there. There is also another perspective prevalent since 2015, the perspective that emphasizes science and technology, and a corporate approach to higher education. This perspective promotes research, commercialization, and complex interactions between universities and government, private industry, and communities (from triple to quadruple helix), for the income-generating capacity and financial sustainability of universities. Clearly, the role of the market in developing higher education (and universities) was emphasized and this could be interpreted loosely as the neoliberal approach or perspective to higher education. There is, however, no admission to the adoption of such a perspective as the word “liberal’ is not viewed favorably in the Malaysian political and religious context. Yet again, there is another perspective adopted, insisting on Malaysian universities acting as socially responsible institutions, following the work carried out by the Global Universities Network for Innovation. Based on this perspective, higher education is viewed as having an encompassing role in society.

In Malaysia's higher education development context, none of the perspectives above is mutually exclusive. In fact, there is a bargaining process between technocrats and politicians when setting PIs and measuring them, resulting in misalignment in measurement, timelines, and expected outcomes. In this regard, therefore, there are technical and political contexts for setting PIs related to higher education (Cave et al., 1997; p. 2), which provide part of but an important explanation of Tham and Chong's findings.