PETALING JAYA: Interference and control by the government were the reasons for Universiti Malaya's (UM) decline and downfall in recent years, said UM History Department Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim.
He said after UM lost its autonomy and the Higher Education Ministry gained control over Malaysia's oldest university, the institution's policy makers decided to stop competing for a global ranking.
"The university began to decline after its separation with UM Singapore in the early 1960s, and it became more rigid after the ministry's formation.
"It was a gradual decline; UM managed to maintain very good standards for many years but I think in the end, it did not have full say in governing itself.
"It was very autonomous until the ministry gained control of it. We used to be very particular about maintaining an international image, later on we tended to withdraw from that.
"Lacking confidence, the younger people didn't want to compete internationally. Now UM is very quiet," he said in response to The Malay Mail's front-page report yesterday on UM vice-chancellor Tan Sri Professor Dr Ghauth Jasmon's statement that "UM was never good".
Khoo explained the government's involvement in universities was due to immense student political activism.
"At one point the students were too highly politicised and became very involved in politics with frequent demonstrations and strikes. It became difficult to concentrate on studies," he said.
He hoped the university will do better now that it has regained its autonomy.
Khoo said the scrapping of the Chair system in the 1970s, where renowned professors across the globe could compete to be in various departments and faculties in UM, was another factor for its decline.
"Those days, when we had the Chair of Geography, Chair of History, it was great academic exposure for students. But when they scrapped the Chair, promotion became entirely internal, we stopped having foreign professors and this deprived students from having the best (minds) in the world as their lecturers.
"This happened because the people controlling UM wanted to control everything. They didn't want to compete internationally, so it became a very insular university," he said.
Khoo said another reason for UM's decline was that both students and the faculties "had it easy" due to university policies.
"I can't speak for the others but in our faculty, the practice of competing with others internationally gradually declined. They found it easier not to bother with foreign universities.
"Also, many students realised they didn't have to compete to get what they wanted; they got it too easily. Before the split with UM Singapore, students had to work very hard because they were pushed to live up to world standards," he said.
Even though he agreed with some of Ghauth's points, Khoo disagreed the decline was due to the ethnic-based quota system as stated by the latter.
"The quota system is actually not that significant because in certain departments they still manage to keep the standards," he said.
There are no comments yet