The recent announcement by the higher education minister that a mandatory teaching course in race and ethnic relations is to be introduced in public universities is long overdue.

In fact, it must surely be an indictment against these universities that apart from a Universiti Sains Malaysia (major/minor) programmme way back in the early 1970s and despite literally millions of ringgit expended on the establishment of new universities and the consequent introduction of a proliferation of new courses in a variety of subjects, a teaching programme in race and ethnic relations has never been initiated all this while.

The minister, therefore, should be congratulated.

But the immediate question that arises is who is to initiate the process of writing the syllabi/curriculum for this programme? Clearly they would need to be persons who are not only highly academically qualified but who have also undertaken theoretically-oriented empirical research besides having a hands-on teaching experience.

Above all, they will need to have a strong commitment and be 'passionate' in realistically identifying causal factors for racial and ethnic animosity so as to be able to suggest realistic policy directions aimed at possible solutions.

Therefore the statement by the minister in the News Straits Times on Nov 1 explaining the perspective that the course would adopt is 'worrying' to say the least. This is not the place to enter into a theoretical debate, but it would appear that his thinking is very much status quo- oriented and based on the 'plural society' theory that was perhaps useful in attempting to describe 'communal' relations within the colonial situation.

The perspective being adopted also seems to draw from 'multicultural' theories which tend to take the pattern of inter/intra racial and ethnic interaction as 'given' (read 'all is well') at any one point in time.

With respect, this perspective has actually been the basis for a number of ad-hoc 'national unity' programmes in the past, such as the 'Muhibah' project, which have shown little success. Indeed without sounding fastidious, official consideration had also at one time even been given to the possibility of setting up 'durian eating clubs' to enhance national integration!

It is imperative, therefore, that the proposed university course's contents reflect the reality of society based on the demands of a socially diverse community. For reasons that hardly need elaboration, we need to recognise that the existing pattern of social interaction is fraught with underlying social tensions with the potential for conflict.

This was clearly seen, for instance, in the racial violence in Kampong Medan in March 2001. Indeed, the then minister of national unity Dr Siti Zaharah reported to the Dewan Rakyat that a ministry study had identified 413 squatter settlements on the fringes of city centre that had common characteristics which made them prone to racial problems with the potential for conflict.

Presumably the Higher Education Ministry will be setting up a committee to oversee the planning and implementation of this new varsity programme. This committee, in turn, will normally comprise representatives from the universities to assist in the task.

But once again the question arises, considering that teaching courses in this area are not in existence, whether, in fact, these individuals have the capability and indeed the competence to meet this challenge.

In this connection, we need to remember the recent comment by Associate Prof Zainal Abidin Kidam of University Putra that, 'There is not even one local university that really excels in either teaching or research and development, let alone consultancy'.

Having had the privilege of being a visiting fellow to one of these universities during 2001-2002, I have to say that I fully endorse Zainal's concern.

It would seem therefore that the time has come for the minister to solicit some 'new thinking'. For one thing, the bureaucratic structure of the university institution seriously limits the kind of flexibility required to build viable course syllabi and curriculum in this area.

Also, the tremendous increase in student enrollment has resulted in heavy teaching loads for lecturers so that it is virtually impossible to find time to review the ever increasing literature, not to mention research, to test existing theories within the local and comparative contexts.

Indeed, for these courses to be meaningful, it is crucial ultimately to be able to build our own theories for problem solution.

Consideration also needs to be given to the course being offered to as many students as possible. Under the present structure, the most that can be expected is for one or two universities to initiate such courses.

Moreover, there is also the important time factor. The minister has stated that it 'will take some time' before the course can commence. With respect, on the basis of what has been mentioned above and on what is known, it would seem that this 'taking time' is luxury we can hardly afford.

I would, therefore, respectfully suggest that the minister give serious attention to the possibility of starting the course from a scratch with full-time lecturers at our Open University. This would open new vistas in the scope of programmes and more importantly, reach a far greater number of students than would otherwise be possible.

Moreover, the university has 32 regional centres throughout the country where student supervision can be provided. Most important of all, the focus of the course in terms of teaching, and especially research, could encompass a 'bottom-up' grassroots (turun padang) perspective.

Finally, and with the greatest of respect, I feel certain that our prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi himself would want to take a personal interest in the implementation of this important programme as soon as possible.