LET'S face it, Malaysia's higher education is in an abysmal state. According to the latest global university rankings produced by the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES), our 'prestigious' Universiti Malaya (UM) continues to slide, causing serious concern among the public as well as the education establishment. Some government officials complain the criteria used by THES are too subjective, while UM Vice-Chancellor Rafiah Salim opines it is perhaps time that UM shake off its burden as the "leading" university of the country.

However, it is better for one to adhere to the rule and stop complaining that the rope is simply too thick and rough should one choose to play the tug of war. After all, there were no grumbling voices when UM was erroneously placed at 89 in the THES global rankings two years back, a mistake that THES readily admitted later. Instead, self-congratulatory banners were everywhere in the campus. I now wonder where have all the banners gone. Anyone can see we are a lousy loser.

Then came the resignation of Dr Lim Teck Ghee from the Centre for Public Policy Studies of Asli in protest of the 'controversial' report on Malay equity being arbitrarily retracted by his boss in the face of government pressure. It is a serious blow to academic freedom in Malaysia, but at least Dr Lim has defended his dignity as an academician.

The THES global rankings is not without its problems. For instance, among the top 200 universities, those from the English-speaking countries make up 105 (excluding the French-speaking Universit de MontralUniversity of Canada), a result of the fact that the survey draws heavily from universities and institutes that use English as research language.

Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature , UK's authoritative science weekly, once remarked that the best research in Germany takes place outside of university system, such as the science-based Max Planck Institutes, and the majority of the research reports are only available in German, a core reason why only a handful of German universities are considered for world rankings of any kind. To outdo their European counterparts, nearly half of the Dutch universities now offer master's degree courses in English. With a population of 17 million, the Netherlands contributes 11 universities to finish up the top 200 list, one more than Germany, a nation of 80 million.

And one will find if difficult to understand why the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), a purely arts-based college, and the Imperial College, a world-renowned science and technology institute, have both made it to the top 200 list despite that they are poles apart on their fields of specialty. Perhaps a faculty-to-faculty comparison would be a more scientific and reliable methodology in this regard.

Narrow the vast discrepancies

Given the above, one is free to use the THES global university rankings as an indicator to improve one's own performance, but to see it as a make-or-break criteria would be way over the top.

In light of the dismal rankings of Malaysia's universities, some have argued our higher education can only be improved if and when meritocracy is practised in the truest sense of the word. The Gordian Knot would be cut and our universities would see a miraculous rise in rankings. But such simplified conclusion is arrived at due to years of our haunted experience under the extremely distorted quota system. Meritocracy is a noble idea, but far from a panacea nonetheless. Otherwise we cannot explain why thousands of universities worldwide that recruit students on meritocratic basis are still facing the daunting task of narrowing the vast discrepancies in performance vis a vis Yale, Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford etc..

In March this year, Xu Xian Ming, President of China's University of Political Science and Law, boldly proposed that his university should recruit students in proportion to regional populations. Recognising that students from the rural areas cannot compete with their urban counterparts on a same platform, Xu hopes to rectify the imbalance by doing away with the unified examination system that often favours those from more advantageous social and educational background.

In the context of Malaysia, the government and the public must address the widening regional gaps in terms of resources and teaching facilities before we can talk about meritocracy in its real sense. This is a socio-economic challenge, but not a racial issue as the government stubbornly perceives it to be.

Furthermore, the lack of research interest at tertiary level in this country has little to do with the currently raced-based quota system. One only has to look at the private colleges and institutes that have mushroomed over the last two decades. Free of the curse of the quota system they may be, their interest in academic research is anything but desirable. Many see them as a fast-track to career success rather than a place in which they can devote themselves to lifelong knowledge conservation, development and research.

Just serve development agenda

The crux of the problem in Malaysia's higher education lies in the fact that the government simply does not know why and whom is it for. Typical of a development-minded politician in other third-world countries, our government officials only want the universities to serve the development agenda of the nation and to pursue economic returns at all costs. Pretty much as the way a factory is run, they hope these universities can produce "experts" and "professionals" that are "market-competent" within a few years. Seen in this light, it is not universities that the Barisan Nasional government invests in, but high-level vocational schools that can turn out skilled workers to meet the need of the market.

But we cannot lay the blame solely on the authorities, for our society is imbued with such attitude too. This is why many are disgruntled with the increasing number of religious courses currently on offer, seeing them as unproductive in an age of "globalisation". There has been much criticism within the Chinese community in this respect, but a serious debate and discussion on how a university should be run is ostensibly absent.

Strictly speaking, a university must have the dual function of teaching and research. A university lecturer must also be at the forefront of research, especially advanced research. He or she must seriously and earnestly pursue the goal of developing knowledge and seeking the truth even at the risk of displeasing the state.

It is indeed a pleasure to gather the best and the most earnest students as Mencius famously said more than two millennia ago - not only to educate them, but to teach them the joy of research as well. Sadly, many a time our university teachers have their mind set more on a higher administrative position than on a research career. When one of my lecturers was tipped to head a department at SOAS, he resisted the promotion but failed. He compromised by agreeing to take the helm until a more suitable candidate was found, and I still remember his anguished face before me.