In higher education (he) and the formation of special free academic zones in Malaysia

Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (1.41 MB, 16 trang )

(1)<div class='page_container' data-page=1>

JOINT-PROGRAMS

IN HIGHER EDUCATION (HE) AND THE FORMATION OF

SPECIAL FREE ACADEMIC ZONES IN MALAYSIA

Ngô Tự Lập, Dr.

In te rn a tio n a l S c h o o l- V N U H anoi, V ie tn a m

Abstract

A Joint-Program is usually seen only as a mode of education technology transfer or international
education business. The aim of this paper is to show that in the special historical context of Malaysia
during the last decades of the 20th century, it could have deep social-political and cultural consequences,
playing a role similar to that of the Special Free Economic Zones. In other words, JPs are intrinsically
Special Free Academ ic Zones6.

K e y w o rd s : Higher Education, Internationalization, Joint-Program, Malaysia,

1.

JOINT-PROGRAMS AS SPECIAL FREE ACADEMIC ZONES

A s a particular model of commercial presence, a way of internationalization, a JP has two major
underlying motivations: (1) the need of the domestic market for internationalized human resources; and
(2) revenue seeking - first of all for the foreign providers, especially those from Australia, the UK, and the
US, the countries with long traditions o f corporate universities, but also for their domestic partner
institutions.

The successful development of JPs can eventually lead to strengthening the possibility and capacity o f
receiving international students, which finally turns those HE importing countries into exporters. One
example of such a country is Singapore, where 75% of students in private institutions, many of them
international students, pursue their study in JPs. Malaysia is another example, although less successful.

But in some cases, JPs may have other implications. In post-colonial Malaysia, or in transitional Vietnam
and China, for example, JPs have served as a way to avoid socio-political barriers created by the specific
historical contexts. In these cases, the traditional functions of higher education are severely limited by
socio-political, racial or ideological obstacles, and JPs, and internationalization o f HE in general, are
possible ways to solve the problems presented in transitional periods. In these countries, JPs play a role
similar to the role o f Special Free Economic Zones (SFEZs).

</div>
(2)<div class='page_container' data-page=2>

International Conference
Internationalization o f H igher Education: North-South Perspectives

2.

MALAYSIAN HE SINCE 1957: A BRIEF HISTORICAL ACCOUNT

2.1 Brief Accounts of Malaysian History

Occupying a peninsula stretching down from the South of Thailand, Malaysia is situated at the crossroads
n f m f i m o f r a n c n n r t o n H t r a H c s l i n o G h o tiA /c s c s n fh iz t P a c t o n .H t h c s \A /£ 2 c f Q : ■ '. / o r n o H '. / i r '. o / m r i i H r s r s

U i i i i c t i i u i i i o u c i i i o [ J U i I a i Ỉ U I Ỉ C Ỉ U Ỉ 7 i l l U c t W c c i i u IC? L . a o i a i i u l i i u v v o o i . V y a i i c u O u v e i l r i a U V i p a i o U i u c n

Peninsula) by the ancient Indians, the peninsula was shown on Ptolemy's map as the "Golden
Khersonese". The first foreigners who came to the Malay Peninsula were perhaps Chinese and Indian
traders, who established commercial ports in the region as early as in the first centuries o f Common Era.
It is therefore not surprising that Chinese and Indian influences are appeared very early and are strong in
Malaysian culture. During the first centuries, the Malays adopted Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sanskrit.
Starting in the 15th century, the population o f the peninsula gradually accepted Islam, and by the 16th
century Islam became the dominant religion o f the Malay people.

For centuries, trading ships between Europe and East and South East Asian countries have had to go
through the Straits o f Malacca. Because trade between Asia and Europe was very important, many world
powers, including India in ancient times and the European empires in recent centuries, competed with

each other to control the Straits. The Straits were successively controlled first by the Indians (400BCE-
539AD), natives Malays (1445-1511), Portuguese (1511-1647), and the Dutch (1647-1834). “None of
these nations desired to colonize the whole o f the area but only to control this important shipping port.
The British gained a toehold in Malaysia in 1786 when they developed a settlem ent on Penang Island (at
the northern beginning of the Straits of Malacca) and then in 1819 when they developed a settlement at
Singapore (on the most southern tip of the Malayan Peninsula, at the southern end of the Straits of
Malacca” . (Pope, M ark et al., 2002)

In 1824, the British took control of Malacca following the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824. From that moment,
the British influence gradually increased. By 1826 the British took control o f Penang, Malacca, Singapore,
and the island of Labuan, forming what they called “the crown colony of the Straits Settlements”. By the
beginning of the 20th century, they had essentially taken control of Pahang, Selangor, Perak, and Negeri
Sembilan. Although the British control was usually indirect, through the influences of their “advisers" on
the Malay rulers (Tregoning, quoted by Pope e ta l.,) the colonialists faced increasing nationalism. In 1957, 
the British were forced to give Malaysia its independence.

During the 1960s and 1970s, the focus of post-colonial Malaysia’s governm ent was to strengthen national
identity by instituting Malay language (Bahasa Melayu) as the national and official language, and then by
adopting the New Economic Policy (NEP) with strong favors given to the Malay ethnics. Both policies
faced strong opposition from the non-Malays. Nonetheless, the country managed to develop significantly
from being an essentially agrarian country into an industrial country by 1990.

2.2 Brief history of Malaysian Higher Education

2,2.1 The B irth o f M o d e rn T e rtia ry E d u c a tio n in M a la ysia

Secular education in Malaysia was largely developed during the British colonial time. However, tertiary
education was never a focus in the country until relatively recently.

</div>
(3)<div class='page_container' data-page=3>

university. Since then, the campus in Kuala Lumpur remained with the old name, the University of
Malaya, while the campus in Singapore became the University of Singapore (now National University of

Singapore). For this reason, G. Sivalingam argues that “at the time of independence in 1957 there were
no full-fledged universities in Malaya." The University o f Malaya was thus established in 1962, and until
1969 it was the only university in Malaysia. (Sivalingam, 2010)

2.2.2 Phases o f H igher Educational Policy Evolution in Malaysia

Most authors, fo r example s . Srinivasa Rao, distinguish three phases in the evolution o f Malaysian higher
educational policy: 1) The pre-NEP phase (1957-1970), characterized by a post-colonial nation-building 
policy aimed at strengthening national identity and unity; 2) The NEP phase (1970-1990), characterized 
by affirmative policies aimed at addressing what the Malays believed to be an “ethnic imbalance" between
the Bumiputeras (sons of the soil) and the non-Malays; and 3) The Post-NEP phase (since 1990), 
characterized by a shift from affirmative policies to neo-liberal policies that eventually led to the rapid
development of private sector higher education, along with the proliferation of international cooperative
programs. Molly N.N. Lee agrees about the first two phases, but considers the third phase after 1990 to
actually be better understood as two distinctive phases-nam ely a phase from 1990 to 2000 and a phase
from 2000 to present.

During the first and second phases, i.e. from 1957 to 1990, the development of higher education in
Malaysia progressed very slowly, which was partly because post-colonial Malaysia’s economy was
underdeveloped and largely labor intensive, but also due to government policy. The focus of Malaysian
education system back then was on Primary and Secondary education, but not higher education -
remember that before 1970 University o f Malaya was the only university in Malaysia. (Sivalingam, 2010) 
Another reason fo r the slow development of higher education in this period was the limited budget from
the state that kept tight control of higher education - this is not peculiar to Malaysia.

After the establishment of the UM, the first university in the country, in 1962, it took 7 years before the
second university, the Science University o f Mafaya (Universiti Sains Malaysia - USM), was established
in 1969. That was followed by the establishment of the National University o f Malaysia (Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia - UKM, 1970), the Agricultural University of Malaysia (Universiti Pertanican
Malaysia - UPM, 1971), and the Techonology University of Malaysia (Universiti Teknologi Malaysia -

UTM, 1972). In total, by 1975, there were 5 universities in Malaysia.

The 1990-2000 period marks a pragmatic shift in Malaysia's higher education policy, and Malaysia itself,
towards neo-liberalism. Among the most important developments in this period was the “Private Higher
Educational Institutions Act" (1996), an Act that forms the legal frameworks for the development of private
higher education. The event was very significant, as is demonstrated by the fact that the first proposal to
set up a private university, the Merdeka University, was denied by the governm ent in 1969. (Sivalingam,

2010) After 1990, private sector higher education developed very fast within a mere decade. By 2000, the

number of private institutions (universities and colleges) reached 704, although that was followed by a
modest decline to 559 in 2005. The total number of private and public higher educational institutions in
Malaysia increased from 295 in 1995 to 630 in 2005. (Sivalingam, 2010) The development of the private 
sector played a very important role in raising gross higher education enrolment ratios from 11% in 1995 to
32% in 2008 (M olly N.N. Lee and Stephen Healy, 2006; International Bureau o f Education)

</div>
(4)<div class='page_container' data-page=4>

International Conference
Internationalization o f H igher Education: North-South Perspectives

Table 1: Growth o f tertiary institutions

Types of Institutions Public Private

1965 1970 2000 2005 1965 1970 2000 2005 ■

Universities 1 3 11 11 - - 5 11

University colleges S i P l i l -- 0 6' m m m i l l 0 11

Polytechnics - - 11" 20 - - ■ 3 " 5

Colleges/community
colleges

3 5 n/a 34 n/a n/a '632 532

Total 4 8 22 71 - - 460 559

Source: Malaysia, 2006, Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-10, Econom ic Planning Unit, Prime M inister’s
Department, Putrajaya, p. 245. (quoted by Rao, 2007)

Another way of characterizing the history of Malaysia’s higher education is offered by Molly N.N. Lee,
who, as quoted by Anantha Raj A. Arokiasamy, distinguishes four periods in the history of Malaysian
tertiary education: “Education for Elites", “ Education for Affirmative Action” , “Education as and for
Business” , and “Education for global competition.” Raj describes the historical picture of Malaysian higher
education by a table that we have slightly modified, and use herein as Table 2.

Table 2: H istorical periods o f Malaysian higher education developm ent

Education for 
Elites

Education for
Affirmative
Action

Education as

and fo r

Business

Education for
Global
Competition

Time Period Pre-1970 1970-1990 1990-2000 2000 to present

1

Structure Only one

institution
(University of
Malaya)
Establishment of
other state-
controlled
universities
Establishment of
Private
Universities
Establishment of
MOHE

Policy Emphasis on

Primary and
Secondary
Education

Ethnic quota
Admission
Market oriented,
Foreign
campuses,
Corporatization
of public
-institution
Increasing
internationalizati
on; Research
universities

Issues National identity Language

issues
Establishment of
Malaysian
Qualification
Agency
International
recruitment

</div>
(5)<div class='page_container' data-page=5>

It is clear from the above historical picture, that the 1990s represent a specific context, where the
principles of neo-liberalism were juxtaposed directly against those of affirmative policies. It is in this
context, as is demonstrated in the following pages, that joint international program s came to be used
widely by private colleges as a solution for resolving some of the racial, language and economic conflicts
in Malaysia’ higher education system.

3.

MALAYSIAN HE BEFORE 1990: LANGUAGE POLICY AND AFFIRMATIVE

ACTION

3.1 Language Policy

In late 1950s and the 1960s, as was the case with many other post-colonial developing countries,
Malaysia wanted to strengthen its national identity and unity. This target was thought to be achievable by
instituting Bahasa Melayu, the language of the Malays, as the national and official language o f the
country.

The idea of establishing a National Language was born before independence and, as Michael Leigh and
Belinda Lip note, “was a source fo r political debates and manifestos, for the 1955 general election. It was
revived again from 1964 when Lee Kuan Yew’s People’s Action Party pushed fo r a “Malaysian Malaysia",
which represented a clear contrast to what he saw as the ruling Alliance Party’s preference fo r a “Malay
Malaysia". (Leigh and Lip, 304) In 1959, i.e. only two years after Malaysia achieved independence, a 
special organ called “Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka” was established with the authority “to develop and
enrich the national language; to promote literary growth and creative talents; to publish books in the
national language.” (Hassan Ahmad, quoted b y Gill, 2001)

But the establishment o f Malay as national and official language was perceived differently by different
ethnic groups. The primary tension was between the Malays and native Malaysians, called "bumiputeras" 
(sons of the soil), from one side, and the Chinese and Indians from the other. Malaysia was and still is a
multi-ethnic, multicultural and multi-religious nation, in which the Malays form the largest ethnic group, but
their majority is very slight. In 1957, at the time of regaining independence, the population of the country
was comprised of three major groups: the Malays (49.78%), the Chinese (37.1%) and the Indians (11.0%)
o f the population (Gill, 2001). Since that time, the proportion between ethnic groups has evolved slightly 
in favor of the Malays and by 2004, it was as follows: M a la y 50.4% , C hinese 2 3 .7 % , in d ig e n o u s 11%,
In d ia n s 7.1% , o th e rs 7.8% . (C /A F a ctb o o k, 2 0 1 1 )

But the d eep o rig in o f th e se e th n ic te n s io n s lies not m ainly in the p o p u la tio n p e rce n ta g e s, but

ra th e r in th e w a y d iffe re n t e th n ic g ro u p s have p e rce ive d th e m s e lv e s in the new in d e p e n d e n t
c o u n try . G ill (2 0 0 1 ) n o tic e s : “Even though in demographic terms, the percentage o f Malays was only
minimally larger than the other ethnic groups, it was their political clout and the fact that they considered
themselves as “sons o f the soil” in contrast with the other ethnic groups who were of im m igrant ancestry,
largely from China and India, that gave them not only symbolic but also concrete power to influence
decision-making on language and nation”. (Gill, 2001)

</div>
(6)<div class='page_container' data-page=6>

International Conference
Internationalization o f H igher Education: North-South Perspectives

with a particular type o f vocation or industry and hence its identification with wealth or poverty..." (Asmah,

1987: 63, quoted by Gill) In the so called “educational agendas of nation-building, national identity and

unity” , the leaders of the independent Malaysia attempted to build a new educational system, in which
Bahasa Malayu was the sole medium of instruction, and English is considered as nothing more than a
foreign language. (Gill 2001)

However, in fact, the change was not as rapid as the hard Malay nationalists wanted. In many schools
and also at the UM, the only institution of higher education in the country, English remained the language
of instruction until the end o f the 1960s. (Leigh and Lip, 304) According to Saran Kaur Gill, at the UM, 
since 1965 a bilingual system was created, in which Bahasa Melayu was used as the instructional
language for subjects in the liberal arts and English remained the instructional language for subjects of
scientific and technological nature. As planned, this bilingual system would eventually become
monolingual, with Bahasa Melayu as the only instruction medium. This process was completed in 1983,
when all subjects were conducted in Bahasa Melayu in all public universities. (Gill, 2001)

Meanwhile, the frustrated Malay nationalists acclaimed “ ...that political and economic powers are
concentrated in the hands of those who speak the more favored language.” (Kelman, 1971: 35, quoted by

Gill) By “the favored language” they meant English, spoken mainly by the Chinese and the Indians and

few elite Malays. They called for rectifying this social and economic imbalance by enhancing the use of
Bahasa Melayu as the national - official, educational, and administrative - language. Their frustration
eventually led to the May 13, 1969 racial riots, “which was perhaps the most significant event in post
Independence Malaysia that changed the course of not only the educational system but also the course
of Malaysian society, econom ics and politics. (Sivallingam, 2007)

After the racial riots in 1969, the institution of Bahasa Malayu as national language was reinforced and

the New Economic Policy was introduced. These policies have had great impact on Malaysian society.
Since then, despite the fact that the country has evolved from being an agrarian economy to an industrial
nation, its socio-ethnical contradictions still remain even today.

3.2. NEP and Affirmative Action in Higher Education

After the 1969 riots, the New Economic Policy (NEP) was introduced in 1972. The aim o f NEP is to
restore what the nationalist leaders see as “delayed equality’ by enhancing the status of “the sons of the
soil” considered to be “discriminated in their own country in terms of employment and
education."{Sivalingam, 2007) “ Implementation of the NEP was linked to the introduction of the Sedition 
TKctTwRich prevents anyone from q u e stio n in g lh e speciãrrigtĩts ancTprivileges accorded to the Malays,

and the right of non-Malays to citizenship” (Leigh and Lip, 301).

The arguments of the Malay nationalists were based on the fact that most of Bumiteras were employed in
agricultural sector, while the non-Malays in skilled jobs with incomes higher and faster-growing than those
of the Bumiteras. In 1970, the Bumiteras owned only 2.4 percent of equity in the country, while the
Chinese owned nearly one third. The imbalance was also reflected in higher education in which 49.6% of
the student population was Chinese, while the bumiteras and Indians comprised 43.3% and 6.0% of the
student population respectively. (Rao, 2007) This imbalance was considered to be unacceptable for the

Malay nationalists.

The 1970-1990 period is characterized by accelerated Malayanization o f the educational system. A new
education policy was also adopted, “whereby English-language schools were converted to Malay
beginning from the first year o f primary school in 1970 and ending with the last year of high school in
1982” Naturally, this process would eventually lead to effectively abolishing English as an instructional
medium in higher education by mid-1985s. (Leigh and Lip, 304).

</div>
(7)<div class='page_container' data-page=7>

Meiayu as the only medium o f instruction reflect the highly political nature o f the decision. After 1970, all
public universities were required to use Bahasa Melayu as the only medium .of instruction.

Since 1971, the Malaysian government has imposed a racial enrolment quota system (Selvaratnam 1988,

quoted b y M cBurnie and Ziguras, 2001) Officially, this quota system is designed to ensure that the

composition o f Bumiputeras, Chinese and Indians and other students in universities reflects the overall
ethnic composition of the country. But the Malaysian government never specified a concrete proportion.
Moreover, many Malays see the quota system as a means to make up for unequal opportunities in the
other directions in the past” ( Young et at. 1980, 55, quoted by Sivalingam). Apart from the quota system, 
other measures to promote higher education fo r the Malays have included a generous system of
scholarships offered by the Federal and sta te governments, the Matriculation pathway, created to 
increase higher education entry assess for the Bumiteras.

The results o f this new educational policy has been a sudden and steep increase of the Malay share in
enrollment in dom estic educational institutions, from 49.6% in 1970 to 65% in 1975 (Sivalingam) and at 
the same tim e the rapid decrease of the non-Malay share from 50.4% in 1970 to 35.0% in 1975. (Tabb 3)

This change is particularly significant if one notes the fact that the Malay proportion o f the total population

is only 50%.

Table 3: Proportion o f Enrollm ent in Tertiary Education by Race (1970-1988):

Year B u m ip u te ra C hinese Indian O thers T o ta l n u m b e r

1970 40,2 48,9 7,3 .3,6 ■7677

1980 47,3 42,2 9,7 0,8 '4 0 2 7 9

1988 61,8 31,1 6,6 0,5 . 48539

Sources: 1) Malaysia, 1981. Fourth Malaysia Plan 1981-85, Kuala Lumpur, National Printing 
Department, p. 352; 2) Malaysia, 1986. Fifth Malaysia Plan 1986-90, Kuala Lumpur, National Printing 
Department, p. 49; 3) Malaysia, 1989. Mid-term Review o f the Fifth Malaysia Plan 1986-90, Kuala 
Lumpur, National Printing Department, p. 274. (quoted by Rao, 2007)

An indirect support o f higher education in Bahasa Malayu is the governm ent’s policy in recruiting
personnel fo r the civil service. During the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the civil service in Malaysia was the
largest employer o f graduates, and the majority o f them were Malay, which led to the result that Malaysia
had a very large civil service workforce. Saran Kaur Gill argues that this situation “could not go on forever
and was resulting in an economic hemorrhage of the nation because of the large numbers o f workers that
existed fo r the nature o f the work required - it was not cost effective and burdened the government.
Therefore, in contrast, in the 90's, the nation turned to and depended on the private sector as the main

employment base fo r graduates.” (Gill, 2007)

As Malaysia was entering the 1990s, some hard Malay nationalists could be content with the
effectiveness of the affirmative action policy in higher education. But the situation was more complicated.
One unintended consequence of these policies was the creation and development o f twinning programs
in Malaysia as an alternative for the non-Malays to seek higher education without having to use Bahasa

Malayu as instruction language.

4.

JOINT-PROGRAMS AS SFAZs IN MALAYSIA

</div>
(8)<div class='page_container' data-page=8>

International Conference
Internationalization o f H igher Education: Nođh-South Perspectives

4.1 The coming of Neo-liberalism the Privatization of Higher Education

Neo-liberalism, sometimes also called Reagan-Thatcher Doctrine, emerged at the beginning of the 1980s
to replace Keynesian doctrine that dominated the world economy fo r several decades. Unlike
Keynesians, the neo-liberalists believe in the power of the market. Reviving Adam Smith’s idea of the
“invisible hand of the market” , they argued for the minimization of governm ent role in most areas of socio
economic activity, including education. Under the influence of neo-liberalism, a large wave of privatization
occurred on a broad, international level.

Malaysia accepted the neo-liberal doctrine quite early and announced a Privatization policy in 1983
(Sivalingam, 2007). In 1986, the Promotion of Investment Act (PIA) was introduced that led to 
liberalization o f not only the manufacturing sector, but also the service sector, including education.
However, the decisive shift from affirmative action towards neo-liberalism was in the early 1990s and
closely linked with the leadership of the Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed. The conditions fo r the policy
change were prepared by a series of great events in the world: the collapse of the communist bloc and
the fall of the Berlin wall (1989); the disintegration the USSR and the end of the Cold W ar (1989), and
probably also the success o f China’s economic reforms under Deng Xiaoping during the 1980s. The neo
liberal framework fo r the socio-economic changes was fully expressed in the Privatization Master Plan,
announced in 1991. According to G. Sivalingam, "the rationale for privatization was to:

(i) reduce the size of the public sector;

(ii) reduce the public sector’s borrowing requirements so as not to crowd out the private sector in

the capital market;

(iii) increase productivity by encouraging competition, and

(iv) to increase the innovative capacity of the economy.” (Sivalingam, 2007)

In 1996, the “Private Higher Educational Institutions Act” was released, marking a turning point of
Malaysia’s higher education corporatization.

4.2 Between Market and Affirmative Action

The passage of the “Private Higher Educational Institutions Act” did not mean that the government
-abandoned-its--language-and-ideological-policy-wholesale.-ln-faGti-artÌGle-41--(-Medium-of-instruetÌ0n-)-0f-

the “Private Higher Educational Institutions Act” expressly requires all private higher educational
institutions to use Bahasa Malayu to conduct their courses of study as the sole instructional language:

“(1) All private higher educational institutions shall conduct its courses o f study in the national
language.

(2) Courses o f study under subsection (1) shall include the subjects required to be taught under
section 43.

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the private higher educational institution may, with approval of
the Minister

-(a) conduct a course of study or a substantial part of a course of study in the English language;
or

(b) conduct the teaching o f Islamic religion in Arabic.

</div>
(9)<div class='page_container' data-page=9>

be taught as a compulsory subject for the students following such course of study in such
language,

(5) In the case of students referred to in subsection (4) who are citizens of Malaysia, an
achievement in the national language, at a level determined by the authority referred to in section
39, shall be a prerequisite to the award of a certificate, diploma or degree o f the private higher
educational institution or of any University, University College, higher educational institution,
• whether private or public, or professional body, within or outside Malaysia, consequent upon a
' course of study or training program conducted by the private higher educational institution jointly or

in affiliation, association or collaboration with such University, University College, higher
educational institution or professional body". (Private H igher Educational Institutions Act, Article.

41)

The “Private Higher Educational Institutions Act” (1996), under Article 43, “Compulsory subjects”, also
requires private higher educational institutions to teach the following subjects: (a) Malaysian studies; (b) 
Studies relating to the teaching of Islamic religion for students professing the Islamic religion; and (c) 
Moral education for non-Muslim students:

“(1) All private higher educational institutions shall teach the following subjects:

(a) Malaysian studies;

(b) Studies relating to the teaching of Islamic religion for students professing the Islamic religion;

and

(c) Moral education fo r non-Muslim students.

(2) The subjects mentioned in paragraphs (1) (a) to (c) shall be taught in addition to other subjects
or courses o f study taught in the private higher educational institutions

(3) in the case o f students who are citizens of Malaysia, a pass in the subjects specified in
paragraphs (1) (a) to (c), at a level determined by the authority referred to in section 39, shall be a
prerequisite to the award of a certificate, diploma or degree of the private higher educational
institution or of any University, University College, higher educational institution, whether private or
public, or professional body, within or outside Malaysia, consequent upon a course of study or
training program conducted by the private higher educational institution jointly or in affiliation,
association or collaboration with such University, University College, higher educational institution
or professional body” . (Private H igher Educational Institutions Act, article 43)

In summary, these requirements effectively mean that as Malaysian citizens, students cannot earn a
Malaysian university degree unless they study in Bahasa Malayu and pass these compulsory subjects,
and that private institutions cannot award a Malaysian university degrees if they conduct courses in 
English.

4.3 Joint-Programs as Alternatives

Before 1996, very few Chinese and Indians wanted to study in the public (which meant all) HE
institutions, where courses were conducted in Bahasa Malayu. The situation did not change very much
for the non-Malays after the adoption of the Private H igher Educational Institutions A c t (1996), because, 
under the Act, private institutions also were required to offer courses of study only in Bahasa Malayu.
Moreover, as Provencher notes, “As Malay students became numerous in the university, they began to
pressure authorities to increase these quotas even more and, to speed the process o f displacing English
with Malay as the language o f instruction, and also to establish Islamic Studies Programmes” (quoted by

Rao, 2007). For this reason, “Though it is stated that meritocracy is followed in the selection process for

</div>
(10)<div class='page_container' data-page=10>

International Conference
Internationalization o f H igher Education: North-South Perspectives

The non-Malays students must choose. If they want to earn a Malaysian university degree, they have to
accept Bahasa Malayu as medium of instruction, and have to pass those compulsory subjects that are of
a strongly religious nature. Evidently, study in Bahasa Malayu and passing all compulsory subjects to
earn a Malaysian Degree is not the favored choice of Chinese and Indian students. Consequently, many
of them choose to pursue higher education overseas. The statistics show that in 1997, one year after the

Private H igher Educational Institutions A ct was introduced, 51,000 Malaysian students pursued their

studies abroad (Middlehurst, Robin and Steve Woodfield, 2003).

However, studying abroad is not affordable for everybody, especially during and after the economic
difficulties in Malaysia in the 1980s and the crisis in 1997. To solve the problem, an innovative model of
international cooperation in higher education, the twinning program, emerged as a solution. According to
Morshidi Sirat and Sarjit Kaur, one of the pioneers of the twinning program is the Sungei Way Group.

"An excellent and oft-quoted example is the partnership between Monash University in Australia
and a very successful Malaysian conglomerate, the Sungei W ay Group, to establish Monash
University in Malaysia. The Sungei Way Group was in fact a pioneer in twinning arrangements
with foreign education institutions for it was already involved in this activity in the late 1980s, long
before the PHEI Act 1996”. (Sirat, Morshidi and Sarjit Kaur, 2007)

Probably, twinning programs were originally created for profit-making purposes. However, it soon proved
to have numerous advantages over their alternatives.

Economically, twinning programs provide the non-Malays with English-medium higher education without

having to leave the country, and thus with significantly lower costs.

Academically, twinning programs, especially those in collaboration with prestigious universities, are seen

as of higher quality compared to local programs. The degrees awarded by twinning programs are often
those of prestigious and worldwide recognized universities, and therefore are better appreciated by
employers. This means that the graduates from twinning programs have considerable advantages
compared to the graduates from Malaysian institutions. Moreover, the students of twinning programs also
can avoid the requirement of passing compulsory religious subjects, which are often an anathema to
Malaysia’s Chinese and Indian minorities.

Administratively, twinning programs also have considerable advantages. The quality assurance of

twinning programs is controlled by foreign universities, and therefore not only local universities, but also
colleges can be involved in such arrangements. (Here we are talking only about international twinning
programs, because the twinning programs can be also arranged between a junior colleges - offering
"associate degrees" - and university degree awarding institutions. In these cases, credits and transcripts
earned by students in the ju n io r colleges are transferable and can be admitted by the degree awarding
institutions). This means that private institutions, especially private colleges, can make money by
conducting accredited university degree programs designed by their partner universities without having to
pass all the long, costly, and administratively complicated processes o f designing, accrediting and gaining
the approval of local authorities.

Apart from the aforementioned advantages, twinning programs also offer great flexibility in terms of
pathways towards program completion.

The advantages of twinning programs underline their spectacular development and have contributed
greatly to the development of private colleges in Malaysia, as noticed by M. Sadiq Sohail and Mohammad
Saeed: “ As for private colleges, there were a total of 666 institutions by the middle of 2001. (...) private
higher education in Malaysia is dominated by colleges” (Sohail and Saeed, 2003, 175)

</div>
(11)<div class='page_container' data-page=11>

students into private institutions of higher education. In fact, the Chinese and Indian populations count for
about 90 percent of the enrollment in private institutions, while the majority o f students in public
universities are Bumiputeras. (McBurnie and Ziguras, 94) The situation is described by Saran Kaur Gill as 
“a bifurcation of higher education” : "Through a repeal of its education act, higher education in the private
sector was conducted in English. This resulted in a bifurcation of higher education - with public
universities based on a Bahasa Melayu medium of instruction and private universities using English”.

(Gill, 2001)

The consequences of the language policy and the government's favoritism towards the Malay

bumiputeras hence had unexpected consequences for the Malay nationalists. Because most of non-

Malay students pursue twinning programs in English in private institutions, they are more comfortable with
English than the bumiputeras, the majority of whom study in public universities in Malay language. The
situation is described by Gill:

“Graduates from the private universities provided strong competition to those from the public
universities and were more favourably sought after by the companies in the private sector. This
was largely because of their competency in the English language. This situation, if allowed to
progress with no change to the medium of instruction in public universities would have led to
serious social and economic problems for the nation (...) The problem peaked in the year 2002
when 40,000 graduates from public universities were unemployed, and they constituted largely the
dominant ethnic group, the Malays”. (Mustapha, 2002, March 1 4 :1&2, quoted by Saran Kaur Gill)
The Malaysian Government finally recognized the problem. In 2002, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad,
who is well known for his pragmatic vision, declared that science and mathematics subjects will be taught
again in English.

5.

CONCLUSION

SFEZs are conceived as free oases inside a certain economy. In these oases the currents of capital,
technology and human resources are allowed to flow freely without disturbing the old rigid socio
economic and political system in a given country. The SFEZs are highly appreciated not only for their
economic efficiency, but also because they allow the experiments of economic liberalization to be realized
without affecting the old socio-political and economic regimes. Successful experiments in SFEZs can later
be expanded and applied gradually within the whole nation.

In the same way, in some countries, JPs are intrinsically free academic oases. Compared to local
programs, JPs enjoy much more administrative, financial, and academic freedom. JPs can play the role of
SFAZs thanks to their special features that were described earlier. While remaining under regulations of
the local governm ent and assuring relatively low tuition fees compared to those in foreign universities, JP
offers a way to avoid the problems that the local higher educational system is facing7.

The socio-political impact of Joint Programs are probably unintended consequences of their existence,
but, in our opinion, are profoundly important as they contribute greatly to promoting academic freedom,
democracy, and progress.

A c k n o w le d g e m e n t: This paper is a part o f a research work supported by the Korea Foundation fo r 
Advanced Studies’ International Scholar Exchange Fellowship fo r the Academ ic Year o f 2010-2011.

(NGÔ TỰ LAP)

7 At the Forum of Vietnam's young researchers in Hà Nội (11/2007), I first used the term SFUZ (Special Free 
University Zones). However, later I thought that SFAZ (Special Free Academic Zones) is a more appropriate term 
and I have used on different occasions, as at ASCOJA conference (Yangoon, 11/2009), or at APEC SEAMEO 
Language Seminar (Singapore, 03/2010). (Ngô Tự Lập).

</div>
(12)<div class='page_container' data-page=12>

International Conference
Internationalization o f H igher Education: North-South Perspectives

REFERENCES

1. Albach, Philip G. and Knight, Jane, “The Internationalization o f Higher Education: Motivations and

D A n l l t i n o 1' i n T Uq fy ln r A o n n ^ A f» -v -> o rin n p f U i r t ^ Q i * VA / a o h ! •'■'.'1+^ n n r * ' O O O i ?
i x c a i l l i c o , i l l i i i o i N t - . r \ t u U u r M i i l c m c i U U I I l i y i i o i I— U U U c u i U i i , V V a o M i i i y i u i t , U K s . i i / y y .

2. Altbach, Philip G., “Peripheries and Centres: Research Universities in Developing Countries",

Higher Education Management and Policy, Volume 19, No 2. 2007, pp 111-128.

3. Annuar, Khairil, bin Mohd Kamal and Sharifah Sabrina bt Syed All, “The Language of business

and the language of the Constitution: Between the Markets, the Country, and Nationalist
Aspirations in Malaysia", Paper for the International Conference on Minority and Majority:

Language, Culture, and Identity. Available at:

< />

4. Asean-Korea Center, 2010 ASEAN & Korea in Figures", Seoul: 2010

5. Barnett, Ronald, "Convergence in Higher Education: the strange Case of ‘Entrepreneurialism’”,

Higher Education Management and Policy, Volume 17, No 3. 2005, pp 51-64.

6. Bashir, s . “Trends in International trade in Higher Education: Implications and Options for

Developing Countries” Education Working Paper Series, Number 6, World Bank, 2007.

7. Byun, Kiyong, “New Public Management in Korean Higher Education: Is It Reality or Another

Fad?”, Asia Pacific Education Review 2008, Vol. 9, N02, 190-205.

8. Byun, Kiyong, Huijung Chu, Minjung Kim, Innwoo Park, Suhong Kim, Juyoung Jung, “English

Medium Teaching in Korean Higher Education: Policy Debates and Reality”, High Educ, Spinger,
30 Nov. 2010.

9. Đặng, Quế Anh, “Recent Higher Education Reforms in Vietnam: the Role of the World Bank”,

Master thesis, Danish School of Education, Aarhus University, < />

10. Denman, Brian D., “W hat is a University in the 21st Century?” , Higher Education Management

and Policy, Volume 17, No 2. 2005, pp 9-26.

11. Drew, Sue et al., “Trans-national Education and Higher Education Institutions: Exploring Patterns

of HE

12. Institutional Activities”, DIUS Research Report, Selffield University, 2007.

13. Fuller, Steve, “W hat Makes Universities Unique? Updating the Ideal for an Entrepreneurial Age",

Higher Education Management and Policy, Volume 17, No 2. 2005, pp 27-49.

14. Gill, Saran Kaur, “ Language Policy and Planning in Higher Education in Malaysia: a Nation in

Linguistic Transition” , < />

4 5 .--- Heriqbaldi,-Unggul,-Dian-Rkowati,-and-Basuki,-lnitiating4he-Endeavour4or-lnteraationalization-of
Education in Indonesia: Proposing a Framwork”, Proceedings, ASAIHL conference, Curtin

University of Technology, Perth, 2007.

16. Kant, Immanuel, “The Conflict of the Faculties" [1798], trans. Mary J. Gregor, New York: Abaris

Books, 1979.

17. Kant, Immanuel, "W hat is Enlightenment?" Foundations of the Metaphysics o f Morals. Trans.

Lewis W hite Beck. New York: 1990. 83-90.

18. Knight, Jane and de W it Hans, “Quality and Internationalization in Higher Education” , IMHE,

OECD, 1999.

19. Kwiek Marek, “Accessibility and Equity, Market Forces and Entrepreneurship: Developments in

Higher Education in Central and Eastern Europe”, Higher Education management and Policy,
Volume 20, No 1, 2008. pp 89-110.

20. Le Chapelain, Charlotte, “Fair Access to Higher Education: Analysis o f a Targeted Incentive

Educational Policy", Higher Education management and Policy, Volume 20, No 1, 2008. pp 9-69.

21. Leigh, Michael and Belinda Lip, “Transition in Malaysian Society and Politics: Towards

Centralizing Power” , in “The Asia-Pacific: A region in transition” , Asia-Pacific Center for Security
Studies, Honolulu: 2001, pp. 300-322.

22. Malaysia’s "Private Higher Educational Institutions Act” (1996), available at:

</div>
(13)<div class='page_container' data-page=13>

23. McBurnie, Grant and Christopher Ziguras, “The Regulation of Transnational Higher Education in
Southeast Asia: Case studies of Hongkong, Malaysia and Australia” Higher Education, 42:
85-105,2001

24. Middlehurst, Robin and Steve Woodfield, "The Role o f Transnational, Private, and For-Profit

Provision in Meeting Global Demand for Tertiary Education: Mapping, Regulation and Impact",

UNESCO/ COMONWEALTH OF LEARNING, _ 2003, available at:

<
Report.pdf/INF6ETransnational% 2BSummary% 2BReport.pdf>

25. Molly N.N. Lee & Stephen Healy, "Higher Education in South East Asia: An Overview", in

UNESCO, “ Higher Education in South East Asia” , Bangkok, 2006, available at:

< />

26. Ngô, Tự Lập, “ Về Hoa Kỳ như là đặc khu kinh tế tự do" (On the United States as a Special Free

Economic Zone", in "The Wisdom of Limits," W riters' Association Publishing House, Hanoi, 2005.

27. Nguyễn, Thùy Anh, “ Internationalization of Higher Education in Vietnam: National Policies and

Institutional Implementation at Vietnam National University”, Hanoi, <eda-
giari.jp/sysimg/imgs/wp2008-E-21 .pdf>

28. Olivier, Diane E, Nguyen, Kim Dung, Nguyen, Thi Thanh Phuong, "Higher Education

Accreditation in Vietnam and the US: In Pursuit of Quality” , APERA Conference 2006, available

at: < />

29. Pope, Mark & Muhaini Musa & Hemla Singaravelu & Tam m y Bringaze & Martha Russell, “From

Colonialism to Ultranationalism: History and Development of Career Counseling in Malaysia”. The
Career Development Quarterly, 50, 2002, 264-276.

30. Raj, Anantha A. Arokiasamy, “ Impact of Globalization on Higher Education in Malaysia” , 2010,

< />

31. Rao, S. Srinivasa, “Globalization, Affirmative Action and Higher Education Reforms in Malaysia: A

32. Tightrope W alk Between Equality and Excellence”, 2007,

< >

33. Readings, Bill, “The University in Ruins, Cambridge” , Harvard U.P., 1996.

34. Singh, J.K.N, Schapper, J. and Mayson s ., “The Impact of Economic Policy on Reshaping Higher

Education in Malaysia” , in M. Devlin, J. Nagy and A, Lichtenberg (Eds) “Research and

Development in Higher Education: Reshaping Higher Education ” Vol.33, (pp. 585-595)

Melbourne, 6-9 July, 2011. available at: <

Singh J.pdf

35. Sinvalingam, G, “ Privatization of Higher Education in Malaysia” , Forum on Public Policy.

<http://forum onpublicpolicy.com/archive07/sivalingam.pdf>

36. Sirat, Morshidi, “Malaysia1’, in “Higher Education in South-East A sia”, UNESCO, Bangkok, 2006.

37. Sirat, Morshidi and Sarjit Kaur, “Transnational Higher Education in Malaysia: Trends and

Challenges", Paper presented at ASAIHL Conference “Leadership for Globalization in Higher
Education: Lessons and Opportunities", 5-7 Dec. 2007, Perth, Australia.

38. Sohail, M. Sadiq & Mohammad Saeed, “ Private Higher Education in Malaysia: students’

satisfaction levels and strategic implications”, Journal o f Higher Education 'P o licy and
Management, Vol. 25, No. 2, November 2003, pp. 173-181

39. Sun, Wenying “ Nan” and Robert J. Boncella, “Transnational Higher Education: Issues effecting

Joint Degree Programs among u s and Chinese Schools", Issues in Information Systems, Vol.

VIII, N01T2OO

7

, pp 65-70

40. Trow, Martin, Trust, Markets and Accountability in Higher Education: A Comparative

Perspective” , Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE. 1. 96. California: 1996.

41. UNESCO, “W orld Conference on Higher Education: Higher Education in the Twenty-first

Century” , Paris, 1988; />

42. UNESCO, “Higher Education in South East A sia” , Bangkok, 2006, available at:

< />

43. Varghese, N.V., “GATS and Higher Education: the Need for Regulatory Policies” , IIEP, UNESCO,

</div>
(14)<div class='page_container' data-page=14>

International Conference
Internationalization o f H igher Education: North-South Perspectives

44. CIA Factbook: < />

45. UNESCO IBE: < />

46. World Education Service: .0rg/ewenr/11 apr/index.asp. United Nations ESCAP,

</div>
(15)<div class='page_container' data-page=15>

23. McBurnie, Grant and Christopher Ziguras, “The Regulation of Transnational Higher Education in
Southeast Asia: Case studies of Hongkong, Malaysia and Australia" Higher Education, 42:
85-105,2001

24. Middlehurst, Robin and Steve Woodfield, “The Role of Transnational, Private, and For-Profit

Provision in Meeting Global Demand for Tertiary Education: Mapping, Regulation and Impact",

UNESCO/ COMONW EALTH OF LEARNING, _ 2003, available at:

<
Report.pdf/INF6ETransnational%2BSummary%2BReport.pdf>

25. Molly N.N. Lee & Stephen Healy, “Higher Education in South East Asia: An Overview", in

UNESCO, "Higher Education in South East A sia” , Bangkok, 2006, available at:

< />

26. Ngô, Tự Lập, ‘V ề Hoa Kỳ như là đặc khu kinh tế tự d o ” (On the United States as a Special Free

Economic Zone” , in "The W isdom of Limits," Writers' Association Publishing House, Hanoi, 2005.

27. Nguyễn, Thùy Anh, “ Internationalization of Higher Education in Vietnam: National Policies and

Institutional Implementation at Vietnam National University", Hanoi, <eda-
giari.jp/sysimg/imgs/wp2008-E-21 ,pdf>

28. Olivier, Diane E, Nguyen, Kim Dung, Nguyen, Thi Thanh Phuong, “Higher Education

Accreditation in Vietnam and the US: In Pursuit of Quality”, APER A Conference 2006, available
at: < />

29. Pope, Mark & Muhaini Musa & Hernia Singaravelu & Tammy Bringaze & Martha Russell, “From

Colonialism to Ultranationalism: History and Development of Career Counseling in Malaysia”. The
Career Development Quarterly, 50, 2002, 264-276.

30. Raj, Anantha A. Arokiasamy, “Impact of Globalization on Higher Education in Malaysia” , 2010,

< />

31. Rao, S. Srinivasa, “Globalization, Affirmative Action and Higher Education Reforms in Malaysia: A

32. Tightrope W alk Between Equality and Excellence”, 2007,

< >

33. Readings, Bill, “The University in Ruins, Cambridge”, Harvard U.P., 1996.

34. Singh, J.K.N, Schapper, J. and Mayson s., "The Impact o f Economic Policy on Reshaping Higher

Education in Malaysia” , in M. Devlin, J. Nagy and A, Lichtenberg (Eds) “Research and

Development in Higher Education: Reshaping Higher Education ” Vol.33, (pp. 585-595)

Melbourne, 6-9 July, 2011. available at: <

Singh J.pdf

35. Sinvalingam, G, “Privatization of Higher Education in Malaysia”, Forum on Public Policy.

< />

36. Sirat, Morshidi, “Malaysia” , in “Higher Education in South-East A sia” , UNESCO, Bangkok, 2006.

37. Sirat, Morshidi and Sarjit Kaur, “Transnational Higher Education in Malaysia: Trends and

Challenges”, Paper presented at ASAIHL Conference "Leadership for Globalization in Higher
Education: Lessons and Opportunities”, 5-7 Dec. 2007, Perth, Australia.

38. Sohail, M. Sadiq & Mohammad Saeed, “Private Higher Education in Malaysia: students’

satisfaction levels and strategic implications” , Journal of Higher Education ‘ Policy and
Management, Vol. 25, No. 2, November 2003, pp. 173-181

39. Sun, Wenying “Nan” and Robert J. Boncella, “Transnational Higher Education: Issues effecting

Joint Degree Programs among US and Chinese Schools", Issues in Information Systems, Vol.
VIII, N o t 2007, pp 65-70

40. Trow, Martin, Trust, Markets and Accountability in Higher Education: A Comparative

Perspective” , Research & Occasional Paper Series: CSHE. 1. 96. California: 1996.

41. UNESCO, “World Conference on Higher Education: Higher Education in the Twenty-first

Century”, Paris, 1988; />

42. UNESCO, “Higher Education in South East A sia” , Bangkok, 2006, available at:

< />

43. Varghese, N.V., “GATS and Higher Education: the Need for Regulatory Policies” , IIEP, UNESCO,

</div>
(16)<div class='page_container' data-page=16>

International Conference
Internationalization o f H igher Education: North-South Perspectives

44. CIA Factbook: < />

45. UNESCO IBE: < />

46. World Education Service: .0rg/ewenr/11 apr/index.asp. United Nations ESCAP,

</div>


<a href=' /><a href=' /><a href=' /><a href=' /><a href='eda-%e2%80%a8giari.jp/sysimg/imgs/wp2008-E-21%20.pdf'>eda- giari.jp/sysimg/imgs/wp2008-E-21 .pdf></a>
<a href=' /><a href=' /><a href=' /><a href=' /><a href=' /><a href='.0rg/ewenr/11'>.0rg/ewenr/11 </a>
<a href=' /><a href='eda-%e2%80%a8giari.jp/sysimg/imgs/wp2008-E-21%20,pdf'>eda- giari.jp/sysimg/imgs/wp2008-E-21 ,pdf</a>
<a href=' /> Circuit theory of finance and the role of incentives in financial sector reform

UN-REDD programme and the progress of implementing REDD in Vietnam

Music cover, the effects of it and The attitudes of NEU’s students to Music cover in Vietnam

Sanitation in Urban Poor Settlement and the Importance of Education for the Reduction of the Diffused Pollution - A Case Study of Bauniabad, Bangladesh

Evaluation of the Effects and the Programming of ‘Water Conservation Plan’ (WCP) for Total Water Resources Management in Tokyo

Tài liệu Báo cáo khoa học: TEC family kinases in health and disease – loss-of-function of BTK and ITK and the gain-of-function fusions ITK–SYK and BTK–SYK pptx

Tài liệu Inequalities in Higher Education and the Structure of the Labour Market pdf

Tài liệu Corporate Ownership structure and the Informativeness of Accounting Earnings in East Asia doc

Tài liệu Egypt''''s Water Warriors : Water Pollution in Egypt and the Role of NGOs in Reaching Integrated Management ppt

Tài liệu Báo cáo khoa học: Evidence that the assembly of the yeast cytochrome bc1 complex involves the formation of a large core structure in the inner mitochondrial membrane pdf

In higher education (he) and the formation of special free academic zones in Malaysia

<b>JOINT-PROGRAMS </b>

<b>IN HIGHER EDUCATION (HE) AND THE FORMATION OF </b>

<b>SPECIAL FREE ACADEMIC ZONES IN MALAYSIA</b>

<b>Ngô Tự Lập, Dr.</b>

<b>Abstract</b>

<b>1. </b>

<b>JOINT-PROGRAMS AS SPECIAL FREE ACADEMIC ZONES</b>

<b>2. </b>

<b>MALAYSIAN HE SINCE 1957: A BRIEF HISTORICAL ACCOUNT</b>

<b>2.1 Brief Accounts of Malaysian History</b>

<b>2.2 Brief history of Malaysian Higher Education</b>

<b>3. </b>

<b>MALAYSIAN HE BEFORE 1990: LANGUAGE POLICY AND AFFIRMATIVE</b>

<b>ACTION</b>

<b>3.1 Language Policy</b>

<b>3.2. NEP and Affirmative Action in Higher Education</b>

<b>4. </b>

<b>JOINT-PROGRAMS AS SFAZs IN MALAYSIA</b>

<b>4.1 The coming of Neo-liberalism the Privatization of Higher Education</b>

<b>4.2 Between Market and Affirmative Action</b>

<b>4.3 Joint-Programs as Alternatives</b>

<b>5. </b>

<b>CONCLUSION</b>

<b>REFERENCES</b>

7

Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về