The PSD and the government have to rethink their policies and strategies in granting scholarships to aspiring top students in the country. The yearly circus-type ad hoc solutions of reacting to these problems and complaints from frustrated students caused by the controversial, bias, and unmeritocratic and undemocratic selection process, are getting frightening insidious and will ultimately blossom into a viral epidemic, dragging the nation down the monsoon drain.
In response to the PSD's mannerism [insidiously repeated every year], there appears various views and more controversies.
Parliamentary Opposition Leader, Lim Kit Siang is of the opinion that all the 200 high achievers in last years SPM examination should all be awarded PSD scholarships, or alternatively, those who failed to secure such scholarships should automatically be made state scholars.
Ahmad Ikmal Ismail, the UMNO Youth Education Bureau Chairman, is of the opinion that students who had been publicly honoured as the country’s highest achievers should be given top priority for scholarships; otherwise, any recognition accorded would be meaningless.
Journalist VK Chin, in the Star Comment Column today, highlighted that “These bright boys and girls should not harbour the thought that just because they were high scorers that they had the right to become doctors. If they fulfil the requirements of the higher education ministry, and yet fail to be admitted to a public university or fail to get a scholarship to study overseas then they would have the right to complain. Until they come to the bridge, they should not be too hasty to say that they had been deprived of their choice of careers, because they might not have done well enough to cross it.”
In another opinion by 'Concerned Taxpayer', [also published in the Star Comment Column today], the writer was of the opinion that: “Surely the government cannot possibly give everyone scholarships, especially to those who are bent on an overseas education. I wonder what gives these students and their parents the idea that taxpayers must pay for their overseas studies when these courses are available in this country. I think it is a reflection of the parents’ unrealistic expectation and the ‘hand-out’ or ‘subsidy’ attitude that is becoming rampant in this country.”
Under the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, no citizen has any enforceable right to receive free education. Constitutional provisions on education have more to do with federal-state relations; equality and non-discrimination in public institutions of learning; respect for linguistic rights of minorities; respect for the rights of parents to choose their children’s education and medium of instruction, and affirmative action policies.
However, while there is no constitutional right to receive state-aided or free education, the right to education is basically enshrined in the Statutory provision — The Education Act and The Universities and University Colleges Act.
In the opinion of Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi, the professor of law and legal advisor at UiTM, “In Malaysia, what has remained constant since independence is the Government’s determination to use education as a tool of social engineering and as an engine and catalyst for development.”
At such, the offer of scholarships and any form of educational subsidies are basically a national cause and in line with the maxim of national human capital development.
Therefore, I cannot agree with VK Chin's statement that these bright boys and girls should not harbour the thought that just because they were high scorers that they had the right to receive bursaries or to aspire to become doctors. Every children who had work exceptionally hard and had sacrifice their time and effort, to fulfil an aspiration, together with the sacrifices made by their parents, are entitled, not of rights, but of the privileges that are granted by the elected-government, such as the PSD scholarships.
The question is not that these children had demanded the government, i.e. the PSD, to give them subsidies, but that, due consideration should be granted to their application for scholarships when there existed a policy set by the government and enpowered via delegated legislature to the executives, to make available the bursaries to deserving students, so as to tap and groom potential leaders and professionals needed to serve the nation of tomorrow.
The fundamental issues relating to PSD is the manner and discretion of selection by the officers which had caused the uproar. In literal terms, while the PSD was to select 1,260 receipients of the scholarship, and there are only about 200 top scorers, by rejecting some of the 200 top-scorers, does it mean to say that these 200 top-scorers are not better than the 1,260 selected? Or, to put it in another way, those selected who had 2 to 5 As are better than those who had 11 to 13 As?
In the article, 'The Law and Education' reported by Michael Sun (Learning Curve, NST, June 12, 2005), Dr. Shad Faruqi had highlighted various engaging issues of law and politics of education:
The first, is what proportion of places can be allocated on an ethnic basis?
The second contentious issue is whether quotas apply to specific courses of study in which imbalances exist or to the university/universities as a whole.
Thirdly, can the massive ethnic disparities in private centres of learning and in the “citadels of education” abroad be used to determine what is a reasonable quota for local public universities? Can the public education systems be used to remedy the heavy non-Malay weightage in private sector and overseas education?
Fourthly, must all universities be subjected to the same ratio of natives, Malays, Chinese, Indians and others? Can these ratios be tailored to suit the university’s location, the demography of the area, and ethnic disparities within the professions so that different courses and different universities may have varying ethnic ratios but with the overall total intake at public universities observing the prescribed ethnic quotas determined by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong?
It is difficult for any government to satisfy every citizen when the available places in public universities cannot meet the growing needs for university education of the population at large. Similarly, it is difficult for any system of government in a multi racial society to appease the majority by atrocising the minorities who had proven to be deserving students, by virtue of merit and natural justice. At the same time, if the minorities had performed better than the majority, it may be politically suicidal to any government to engaged the system based absolutely on merit which would deprive the majority of an opportunity of higher education.
In this context, one of the lesser evil [presumably far less insidious] may be to accord priority of places in universities and scholarships to the smaller segment of top performers [irrespective of races of which they numbered only in hundreds], while the balance of places in universities and scholarships to be granted, be placed out using the ethnic quota system.
It is a national aspiration to uphold the new economic policy and the national economic policies, and at the same time, mitigate the disparities of the society as a whole. In the context of education and health service for the society-at-large, no one should be deprived of the basic needs.
So far, the solutions adopted by the government to these educational issues had been more or less ad hoc and patchy. In the words of Dr. Murad, "they are patching — you have an old shirt, you put a lot of patches. All these new patches and at the end of the day you are still having an old shirt with new patches. What I’m saying is we need to have a new shirt."
The legislature must ensure that they have a scrutising system to monitor the executives and civil servants to ensure system transparency and good governance, that is - the government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment