Minister of Education to reactivate the National Education Advisory Council (NEAC)

The newly appointed Minister of Education, Fadhlina Sidek, said yesterday that she will revive the National Education Advisory Council (NEAC) as part of her consultative approach to her functions as Minister. The Minister made this commitment in a media statement issued on 15 December 2022. The statement also listed seven areas her ministry will be focusing on to improve the national education system. We will address some of the areas of focus in this Blog, starting with this comment on the NEAC.

The National Education Advisory Council (NEAC)

"The new Minister of Education must be vigilant against opposition to her decision to operate transparently and through consultation with the stakeholders and not just the advice from the bureaucracy of the ministry."

The Education Act 1996 (the Act) provides for the establishment of the NEAC as an advisory body to the Minister. The statutory standing of the NEAC is, however, nebulous. The Act does not compel the establishment of the council. It merely states that the NEAC ‘may’ be established. In statutory language, the word 'may' does not compel the doing of the act specified. The person given the right to do the act has the discretion whether or not to carry out the act. The term ‘shall’ makes it mandatory for the act to be carried out. The NEAC, therefore, does not have the same legal presence as its counterpart in higher education – the National Council on Higher Education (NCHE/Higher Education Council) - with which it is often confused.

The  NCHE was established by an act of parliament as a permanent body to advise the Minister responsible for higher education. The National Council of Higher Education Act 1996 requires the Minister concerned to implement the policies formulated or determined by the Higher Education Council. The functions of the Higher Education Council are stipulated by statute and include the broad power ‘to plan, formulate and determine national policies and strategies for the development of higher education.’ Such is not the case with the NEAC.

Indeed, the NEAC’s powers are limited. The scope of NEAC’s powers to advise the Minister is limited to such matters as are referred to it by the Minister. The Act requires the NEAC to consider the matter referred to it and submit its advice to the Minister but imposes no obligation on the Minister to act on the advice as is the case with the decisions taken by the Higher Education Council.

Another ambiguity in the Act is that whilst it states that the NEAC may be established, it leaves open the question as to who may establish it. However, since the Act empowers the Minister to appoint the Chairman and other members, it may be implied that the power to establish the NEAC is also that of the Minister.

The new Minister’s determination to reactivate the NEAC is, however, all the more heartening because of the ambiguities surrounding the NEAC. It is hoped that the Hon Minister will also use her statutory powers to ensure a broad representation of stakeholders in the NEAC and invite the NEAC to deliberate on the important issues concerning education. Educational issues must not be left to politicians to decide.

Membership of the Council

The membership of NEAC is made up of a chairman, a deputy chairman and nine other members. The criteria for the appointment of the nine members, as stipulated in the related regulations are experience, knowledge and expertise in matters relating to education. None of the criteria stipulated in the Act or the regulations governing the NEAC include stakeholder representation such as teachers, parents or the private sector of education. On the other hand, several officials have a right of attendance at NEAC meetings such as (a) the Secretary General of education (b) the Director General of education (c) the Director General of Higher education; and (d) the Director General of the Department of Polytechnic and Community College.

A Consultative Approach

The new Minister has declared a holistic approach through a process of consultation with all stakeholders in the ‘entire education ecosystem.’ The NEAC is an excellent forum to achieve those commitments, even if some minor changes to the laws may be required. The effectiveness of a ministerial advisory council is, of course, dependent on the representation of all stakeholders in the Council. The Minister must ensure that the NEAC is representative of all stakeholders. 

It is also important that the NEAC is placed on a stronger statutory footing. If the establishment of such an advisory council is left to the minister’s discretion, there will always be a risk of the reigning minister exercising power without consultation or advice. Such an eventuality is not far-fetched. Even the NCHE, which is a creature of Parliament has been rendered inactive through administrative action. The new Minister of Education must be vigilant against opposition to her decision to operate transparently and through consultation with the stakeholders and not just the advice from the bureaucracy of the ministry.

GERAK PROPOSES FIVE HIGHER EDUCATION REFORMS

Professor Zaharom Nain, the Chair of the Malaysian Academics Movement (MOVE), also known as Gerak, has identified five areas for urgent reform of higher education in Malaysia. Professor Zaharom said that he had shared the proposals with the former Minister of Education, Dr Maszlee Malik, who agreed to support them if Pakatan Harapan is voted to power.

The five areas covered are, (1) the highly divided system of higher education which lacks unity and prevents the formulation of coordinated policies; (2) the Government’s interference in the administration of higher education institutions; (3) restoring universities their essential attributes such as institutional autonomy and academic freedom; (4) the rights and role of students in higher education and (5) inclusiveness in all matters, from the selection of students, the appointment and promotion of faculty and the selection of Vice Chancellors and appointments to the board of directors.

Following are the details of the proposals.

1.      The system is highly divided with different sets of policies and laws regulating the different divisions of the system.

There are at least six acts of parliament dealing with the establishment and management of higher education institutions. There are no less than eight different types of degree-awarding institutions and 6 types of universities. The divisions, including the public/private division, are the result of ad hoc policies devised by politicians out of political rather than educational considerations. There is currently no single authority to unite the system and coordinate its role in the development of higher education.

Harmonization of the system will require the establishment of a higher education commission or similar entity to regulate the different types of institutions, subject to the same standards, and bring them within a single funding regime. The National Council on Higher Education, established by an act of parliament in 1996, coordinated the policies on higher education, which the Minister was required to implement. The Council ceased to function in 2013, without any reasons being given. Widening the scope and constitution of the council and giving it powers of enforcement may be an alternative to the establishment of a commission. Whatever the solution, there have to be safeguards against noncompliance by the government with the laws it passes.

2.      Government interference in the governance and management of higher education institutions.

There is excessive interference by the government in the educational processes of higher education institutions. In the case of private institutions, the interference is written into Act 555 which regulates private universities and colleges. Public universities and higher education institutions, like Government Linked Companies (GLCs), are used by the ruling dynasties to reward political loyalists. The government’s power to appoint university VCs and DVCs and directors on the board of universities has impacted university governance and the accountability of senior officials of the university and the board of directors. Instead of focusing their duties on the university community of academics and students and the public, these officials act to appease the government and seek its patronage.

The appointment of VCs, DVCs and directors must be made by an independent agency such as the proposed commission or a reconstituted National Council on Higher Education.

3.      The main legislation on universities strips universities of their essential attributes. The institutions established are universities in name only.

There are attributes associated with universities without which they lose their special character. The Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 is silent on matters such as university autonomy, academic freedom and students’ right to participate in the governance of universities, all of which are important attributes for the university, the academics and the students to play their respective roles in the university.

These essential attributes must be legislated. The Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 or any new legislation that is passed must entrench these fundamental rights.

4.      Students.

Despite the rhetoric of student-centred education, current legislation on higher education provides little to safeguard the interests of students. Most of the provisions directed at students deal with discipline and what they are prohibited from doing. There is a provision under Act 555 which allows the MOHE to take action against the institution when students’ interests are under threat, but the provision lacks clarity to be of any practical use. There are no similar provisions in the other legislation.

Without any legislative safeguards, students have to rely on their contractual relationship with the institution. Although the Consumer Protection Act 1999 was amended 10 years ago to extend protection to students, recent cases where students were stranded with courses that were not accredited show that neither the MOHE, the MQA nor the Consumer Tribunal was able to adequately resolve the students’ problems.

5.      Inclusiveness

A root problem that affects not just the higher education system but many other aspects of civil rights are entrenched discriminatory practices to appointments to public office. Discrimination is rampant in our public universities and higher education institutions.

The solution is simple but its implementation requires a commitment from the government to change these discriminatory practices, not only in the admission of students but in the appointments of VCs and directors. Ignoring this weakness in the system will leave our universities simply as entities bearing that description. Like places of worship that have given up on their basic tenets.

UNIVERSITIES IN FEAR OF AN ARTIST

 

Some of our universities, including those described as apex universities appear to be in the grip of a fear that free speech may grow on their campuses. The source of their fear is an artist named Fahmi Reza (image above).

In actions repeated in several universities, the authorities acted to shut down student forums that were being conducted by Fahmi Reza. In at least one case, auxiliary police were summoned to assist the authorities in shutting down the forum.

It all started when Fahmi attempted to conduct his popular online forums on electoral politics in person on university campuses. Fahmi’s Kelas Demokrasi forum was conceived by the artist when Parliament was dissolved on 10 October this year. The aim of the forum was to educate emerging young voters on the complexities of electoral politics to help them understand and exercise their electoral rights in the forthcoming general elections. In elections that will see the participation of a large number of the young reaching the voting age, these forums clearly serve an important need.

However, those controlling our universities seem to think that such activities are averse to the purposes of the university and to the education of students enrolled in them. The interruptions of such forums in universities are so bizarre that they may well have been scripted by the artist himself.

Universities are meant to create the space for free speech and robust debate. University administrators and academics are duty-bound to uphold these ideals of the university. The free expression and exchange of different views without fear of punishment or interference, as in this case, goes to the very heart of democratic principles which are a vital part of higher education.

It will be naïve, however, to think that the interruptions of these forums are rare and an exception to the general environment of freedom in our universities. The truth is that our higher education laws have progressively scraped away almost all the essential attributes of a university, leaving in its wake bland statutory bodies that bear no resemblance to a university. Universities in this country are universities because that is how they are described by the law. Shapes without substance.

The tedious bureaucratic explanation that prior permission was not obtained for the Fahmi forums is nothing compared to the statutory mutilations that have been inflicted on academic freedom by the Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act 2000 (605). Disciplinary rules make it an offence for an academic in a public university to criticize the government or the university. 

How cool is that for a university?