Ethnic consideration seems to have played a major role in the admission of students into public universities. The cumulative grade point average (CGPA) adopted to standardise admission based on the matriculation and the STPM performance systems represents a calculated attempt to give weightage to bumiputra students at the expense of Chinese and Indian Malaysian students.
What transpired was that the selection of bumiputra students was determined to a large extent by a process of relative comparison within. In other words, the merit of bumiputra students was not determined by comparing their performance with those of their Chinese and Indian Malaysian peers, but by way of intra-ethnic comparison. In contrast to the matriculation, the STPM system provided for a inter-ethnic competition to a considerable extent among Chinese, Indians and bumiputras.
While there is nothing wrong with the adoption of the CGPA formula to make academic assessments, the real question is to what extent can this be applied to determine one academic standard when two different performance systems are being considered.
The matriculation system available in various public universities is specially designed for bumiputra students after the completion of their SPM examinations. Through this route that is meant to realise the educational opportunities of bumiputra students under the affirmative action policy, the students can enter local universities and to limited extent some foreign universities.
This programme has a very flexible system of assessment, a combination of periodic examinations, essays, group work and others. It is akin to the American high school system. Unlike other matriculation systems, the Malaysian system has yet to obtain universal recognition simply because it caters chiefly for one particular ethnic group. In other words, it would be difficult for the Education Ministry to defend the matriculation system on the basis of merit, because of its non-recognition by other international education institutions.
Pernicious and mischievous
The STPM system has been in the country for some time. It has been well tested through time and accepted by top universities in the world. Due to the structured nature of studies and performance determination at the end of one and a half years by way of an examination that is vetted and moderated by established examinations syndicates, its credibility and reputation has been well maintained.
In fact, in comparison with the A-Level programme offered by Cambridge University, the STPM system is more rigorous. Students who go through this pre-university system, are generally well prepared for their university studies. It would be difficult to compare the matriculation system of local universities with this simply because both systems have two different academic standards. The STPM is obviously a much more superior academic system compared with the matriculation programme.
Therefore, it is really absurd on the part of the Education Ministry to use the CGPA formula to compare the performance of students in the two systems. Even though there was a limited attempt made to provide some advantage to the STPM performance, the overall result was that students from the matriculation system benefitted a great deal from the adoption of this formula.
While Chinese and Indian Malaysian students were pitted together to establish merit, Malay Malaysian students did not undergo this rigorous process. So in the ultimate sense, what was adopted was not a merit formula, but a system that was labelled as merit. In fact, the adopted system is much more pernicious and mischievous in comparison with the quota system that was in place before.
Politics at play
The overall intake of Indian Malaysian students has been much affected by the implementation of the so-called merit system. Those quarters calling for the reinstatement of the quota system do not understand that Indian Malaysians were victimised because of the bizarre nature of the merit system, rather than its introduction.
If the government had introduced a merit system in the true sense of the word, there are grounds to believe that the intake of Indian Malaysian students would have exceeded the 10 percent mark. In this respect, Indian political parties and association should not go around asking the government to revitalise the quota system, because this is not the answer. In the ultimate sense, in the Malaysian context, it does matter what the system is; if the government of the day does not have noble intentions, no system is free from political interference and manipulation.
The so-called merit system adopted by the government is merely meant to achieve some political objectives. There is feeling within Umno circles that the effects of Sept 11 are not sufficient to create a political atmosphere that would be conducive to win back Malay Malaysian votes — those lost to the opposition in the previous general election.
The government also understands that there is need to win back the support of Malay Malaysian youth, a segment that was alienated from Umno politics for some time. One way that this can be done is for the government to adopt some concrete measures. Since the university intake was quite controversial last year, the government wanted to ensure that the intake this year would benefit Malay Malaysians a great deal so that they would develop positive attitudes towards the government. Since the university admission on the basis of quota system was questioned, it was decided that a new system would be found not only to increase bumiputra intake but also to do the 'correct' thing, that is adopt 'meritocracy'.
The Malaysian educational system has a long way to go. It has to embark on a difficult journey to enhance its credibility and legitimacy both domestically and internationally. However, as long as ethnic criterion is used to determine admission and other matters, it would be difficult for the government to talk about quality and standards.
P RAMASAMY is a professor of political economy at the Political Science Department, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and has academic interests in Malaysian politics and labour. He has written quite extensively and is currently focusing on conflict management in Sri Lanka.
