Drop overseas scholarships

By Zainul Arifin (NST)

THE annual national heartache on scholarships and places in universities is getting to be more predictable than the monsoon, which these days is rather erratic considering the changing global weather pattern.

This time of the year, when the outcome of interviews and applications is announced, we are never short of stories of students with a dozen or so As being denied. Soon, we will hear of students missing out on places for medical, dental or accounting places.

Politicians with much to prove, or to stir, especially when handed such an opportunity on a platter, would not resist.

Thus, we have these recurring situations that are driving us to despair. Intrinsic in the arguments about scholarships and university places is that some undeserving students are depriving others. The underlying theme, unfortunately another wedge prying us apart, is inequality.

The event in Parliament last week when a verbal fracas occurred among its members underlined the point.

The political lines drawn on this issue tend to suggest it is racial, though many would deny it to be so.

Letters in newspapers insinuate and political statements suggest that non-Bumiputeras are being deprived of the much sought-after places and Public Service Department (PSD) scholarships, for example. Words like meritocracy are bandied about to suggest that many may not be deserving.

Nevertheless, it is important that regardless of the politicisation of the cries for help, it must be looked into. It suggests that there is an underlying problem and politicians, for better or worse, are just picking up the ball and running with it.

For the PSD scholarship, the heart of the issue is the 1,500 awards, down from 2,000 previously, for overseas studies. Bumiputera students are said to be getting an unfair proportion of the amount.

For 2009, 7,987 students got all As in the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia examination, and 214 of them scored “A+” in all the subjects, suggesting almost perfection, whatever that means.

The PSD interviewed 8,363 out of 15,084 applicants for its foreign degree programme scholarships. The mathematics here is quite clear. There are 5.32 straight-A students for every PSD scholarship, or 10 applicants per scholarship offered.

We would assume that all 214 straight “A+” students would get scholarships, or else it would be scandalous. Hence after the crème de la crème, the competition would be 6.04 students for every scholarship.

And we have not included those whose records were blemished by one or two Bs. They, too, must be deserving of something.
I have always contended that even if, for instance, there were no Bumiputeras being considered for the scholarships, there would still be some children of rubber tappers or hawkers who would miss out despite scoring straight As.

And even after all the meritocracy elements are taken into account, and the extra-curricular activities considered, there will still be a former head girl or school captain failing to make it.

There are too many chasing after too few awards or places. And if we were to include Bumiputera students in the mix — could it be 10 per cent or 20 per cent, or even 60 per cent of the almost 8,000 straight-A students? The competition would have become more intense.

This annual polemic about scholarships, etc, is not doing us any good. For some, there is always the perception that they were deprived. Admittedly, there were affirmative action plans for Bumiputeras in society’s social engineering via the New Economic Policy, but over the years, the government has been expanding the programme to include high achievers of all races.
The question we need to ask now is: is it enough?

Going forward, I believe PSD must be more transparent in the way it handles its awards since the programme has evolved into something more than funding for education — it is turning into yet another flashpoint in racial relations. We certainly do not need one more of them.

Incidentally, a key issue often overlooked, by design or by default, is that the scholarships are for studies abroad. Scholarships for studies at home are another matter. In fact, PSD offers another 2,000 for outstanding students.
And I would think other financial aid would also be available to them in some form or other.

Hence, the complaint it seems is not that some of them do not get scholarships, but they do not get scholarships to study abroad.

The attraction to study abroad is understandable. It is often a good thing if only for the life-enriching experience gained from surviving on one’s own in a foreign land. Some bright sparks may also be fortunate enough to study in the world’s top universities.

But given the annual heartache and to prevent the divisive political messiness which at times border on racial sensitivity, I would propose that PSD drop its study abroad programme for undergraduates. Scholarships abroad should be awarded only for post-graduate studies.

Instead, it should be converted into sponsorship of students in local universities, public or private.

I do not believe the country will be less served by such a decision. In fact in more ways, it is better. For one, it costs perhaps between five and 10 times more to sponsor a student abroad.

What better signal for our people, students and the universities if the government decides to sponsor our best students and parade them in domestic institutions. This is in line with our desire to promote our local institutions of higher learning.

Currently, it is rather ironic that while we recognise the importance of domestic higher education not only by having a ministry for it but also having a national agenda to make us an educational hub, our best students are sent abroad.

Not only can we sponsor more if we scrap the overseas programme, but the money could be used to expand facilities and teaching staff in key areas, for example the much-in-demand medical schools.

Given the cheaper alternatives, perhaps all of the top scorers would be eligible for higher than expected stipends. When they have completed their studies they should be offered great career opportunities both in the government sector and its agencies.

I believe dropping the overseas award would also allow the government more room and resources to help the underprivileged through affirmative action plans, regardless of who they may be.The government has to recognise that some of the appeals are from deserving cases. And much as before, the government has to look at things beyond grades.

The underprivileged, be they in the estates, kampung, new villages or longhouses, deserve that special attention. There are many who will not be able to get straight As because of their socio-economic conditions.

Currently, the selection is based on four criteria — merit, race, Sabah and Sarawak citizens and socio-economic background. I would like to suggest that socio-economic background be given greater weight. There are students from low-income families who deserve help more than others, and who the affirmative action policy should target.

By dropping the overseas programme, we will get the bonus of being able to help more. It makes more sense to spend on many than a lot on a few. The political heat would be lowered considerably, too.