Further to the comments raised by Rosli Mahat , some additional points are presented in the hope that the relevant authorities would reconsider the Penilaian Tahap Kecekapan (PTK) as a requirement for academic staff promotion.

The International Islamic University Malaysia (IIUM) is presented as a 'company' belonging to the government of Malaysia. Hence, the IIUM management adopted the Malaysian Remuneration System (MRS) and with it, the requirement to attend and pass a series of Competency Level Assessment (CLA) courses (known as PTK in other universities) for career advancement.

From what was explained to us, the purpose of the MRS was to improve the National Remuneration System (NRS). Apparently there were dissatisfied quarters that made their complaints heard and the government felt that there was a need for an 'objective' criteria for promotion. Hence the PTK courses were introduced, together with exams that had to be passed.

But while the problem of objective criteria may have been an issue for administrative staff in the civil service, it certainly was not the case for academic staff. There were already very transparent criteria, with their 'measurements' in place (subject to continuous improvement ).

These were publications, research, teaching and relevant contributions to the university and society. The IIUM case will be used to illustrate the points that follow.

As far as publications were concerned, an elaborate 'point' system was designed and fine-tuned by the IIUM to cover all areas related to an academic's job. This point system awarded different points to articles published in international journals, local journals, books with 'reputable' publishers etc.

Quality control was also further enhanced by these articles and books being refereed by peers which in most cases is a very stringent process, even occasionally becoming a point of academic dispute. In general, the system already had 'objective' criteria and one could assess the competency of an academic based on the quality of his or her publications.

As far as research was concerned, academic staff undertake research (that may lead to publications) either with or without grants. These grants can be from their own institutions, outside bodies or international organisations. This research and its output will be recorded, presented and possibly published.

In this also, the IIUM has various levels of scrutiny in the form of committee approvals, progress reports etc. to ensure that standards are being met and that research output is evaluated. Once again, different points are awarded to research output that meet criteria determined by the relevant authorities. Here as well, a relative degree of 'objectivity' already existed in the previous system.

As for teaching, the IIUM has been using Teacher Evaluation Ratings (TER) for many years now. Students are asked to 'rate' their lecturers on various criteria. Scores are tabulated every semester. Those who do well are acknowledged while those who are found to be 'under-performing' consistently, are asked to attend courses to improve their teaching skills.

This has been a relatively good system to improve the quality of teaching and should be a requirement for all academic staff as part of their in-house training. Therefore, teaching evaluation is also transparent and effective.

In addition to these three main areas of evaluation, contribution to the university and society are also evaluated. Holding administrative positions, sitting on committees, writing regular columns in magazines/newspapers, organising conferences and giving public talks etc. are also acknowledged and points assigned. However, the points assigned for this was of a smaller percentage when compared to the three main areas of publications, research and teaching.

In short, the old criteria for evaluating academic staff performance was already stringent and transparent. If used and managed properly, it would be an effective mechanism to decide who met the promotion criteria, those that did not, those that deserved vertical increment etc. Because the old system was effective, it is still retained under the MRS.

Now however, the PTK has become an additional requirement. Academic staff were already being evaluated according to a very effective and transparent criteria (if applied well). Now they are being burdened with an additional, unnecessary and - as mentioned by Rosli - irrelevant PTK. The resources spent on the PTK could be used more effectively elsewhere, for instance to recruit and maintain the best academics.

If administrative staff view the PTK as a more 'objective' way to evaluate staff performance, then by all means retain it for them. It could be that the PTK was actually designed with administrators/clerical staff in mind. University lecturers may not have been on the minds of the formulators of the PTK.

We fully agree with our Universiti Malaya colleagues that the PTK is not relevant for academic staff and should be reconsidered. The call for a separate category for academic staff within the civil service is also supported. There is no doubt that academic standards and the integrity of academia can always be improved. This requires among others, a serious self-evaluation as well as willingness to take tough decisions.

If our academic standards have fallen relative to other countries over the last 30 years, we have to sincerely ask why this has happened, be willing to admit the mistakes made and take tough decisions to rectify them. A small start may be to admit that the PTK is irrelevant for academic staff.

We strongly urge the relevant authorities including the Higher Education Ministry and the Civil Service Department to have a re-look at the PTK and its relevance to academic staff.

We congratulate the government on its realisation that we have to focus on how to create academic institutions that are contributors and producers of knowledge as well as academics who are worthy of the title 'Professor' Nothing short of a long-term plan will stop the rot, if one exists. Academic Staff Associations will surely participate in any worthwhile effort to improve standards at universities in Malaysia.

The writer represents the Academic Staff Association of the International Islamic University Malaysia .