Private Higher Educational Institutions - Changes to Advertisement Regulations 1997

 

The Private Higher Educational Institutions (Advertisement) Regulations 1997 [P.U.(A) 543/1997], which came into force in 1997 were recently amended. The amendments to the regulations followed the amendments that were made to the principal Act by the Private Higher Educational Institutions (Amendment) Act 2017.

The amendments to the Advertisement Regulations came into effect on 15 March 2019. The original regulation 2 has been substituted with a new version which reads as follows;

"2. Particulars of advertisement.

(1) Every advertisement issued by a private higher educational institution shall contain the following particulars:

(a) the registered name of the private higher educational institution;

(b) the registered address of the premises of the private higher educational institution;

(c) the telephone number, electronic mail address, website address and social media link of the private higher educational institution, if any; and

(d) any other particulars as may be determined by the Registrar General.

(2) A private higher educational institution which contravenes subregulation (1) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to both."

The original regulation 3 has been substituted with the following:

"3. Advertisement on course of study or training programme.

(1) Without prejudice to the generality of regulation 2, every advertisement on an approved course of study or training programme issued by a private higher educational institution shall contain the following particulars:

(a) the full name, course code and date of expiry of the course of study or training programme;

(b) the accreditation status of the course of study and the reference code of the accreditation status;

(c) the registered name of the branch at which the course of study or training programme is conducted; and

(d) any other particulars as may be determined by the Registrar General.

(2) A private higher educational institution which contravenes subregulation (1) commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to both."

Two MOHE Officials Who Made a Difference

 

Reform and its Proponents

The New Government's promise to reform education took off in earnest this year with a flurry of activities centered around a number of committees that were formed to look into this and that in education. In higher education, the focus appears to be on the harmonization of the public and private sectors of higher education. The plurality of views on this issue come from different directions. From the top, the proposals are about autonomy, academic freedom and the freeing of universities from government control. From the other end, the concerns are more pedestrian, more practical, if you like. Issues like teaching permit, the speeding of bureaucratic processes and lesser control of the academic processes have been raised by representatives of the private sector. Surprisingly, I have not heard of any discussions on the harmonization of language policies across the sectors.

The opinions and 'findings' so far published only tinker with the issues. Any real proposal to harmonize the two sectors must examine the reasons for the division of the higher education sector and more importantly the root policies that forced that division. There is a serious misunderstanding underlying current discussions which is that the private sector was created by and for the well-to-do in our society and has no place for the poor. This is an inaccurate way to describe the origins of the private sector which evolved to meet the needs of a large section of our population that could not find its way into public sector institutions.

The main issue in higher education, which has always been controversial and constituted a large chunk of the political fodder for the racial polemics of this country is ACCESS to higher education. Any move towards harmonization must first deal with that very, very important issue. With over 800 post-school institutions in the country, we can no longer hide behind capacity issues. A fair and progressive approach to providing educational opportunities to all will ensure harmonization. Without a fair policy on access, nothing will really be harmonized, let alone reformed.

Reform of Education A Reason To Start Blogging Again

Have been away too long.

Maybe now is a good time now to start again with all the talk and plans to reform education in the country. The new government that came into power in May 2018 promised a reform of the education sector. One year down, the talk continues but there is very little to show by way action or any clear direction that will be taken. One, rather easy problem that has been a bugbear of the national education system is the recognition of the UEC examinations for admission to higher education. The qualification is a long-respected HE qualification recognized by almost all countries that have educational systems like ours, but the UEC is not recognized by local public universities. Recognition of this qualification whose legitimacy springs from the same source of law as other local qualifications should never have been an issue, but it has become a political issue gluing our feet to inaction.

Turning to other matters in higher education, there have been suggestions to harmonize the private and public sectors. Focus is on the two main legislation on higher education, the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 and the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996. How this will be achieved and whether the differentiation will be maintained between the public and private sectors are some of the issues that will be covered here.

So, as with all journeys, I hope this is an auspicious time to start and that I will have the fortitude and stamina to continue.