Don’t rely on traditional banks for international remittance!

How much (as a percentage of fund) would you guess it cost to transfer RMB 1,406 from Taiwan to Malaysia using the traditional banking services? In this article I share my expensive lesson on international fund transaction using traditional banks. A staggering 27.46% of my fund of RMB 1,406 was “taxed” by the intermediary. Both the sending bank (in Taiwan) & receiving bank (in Malaysia) said that there it was not possible to find out how the intermediary levy the charges!

[show_post_categories show=”category” hyperlink=”yes”]

[show_post_categories show=”tag” hyperlink=”yes”]

How much (as a percentage of fund) would you guess it cost to transfer RMB 1,406 from Taiwan to Malaysia using the traditional banking services? In this article I share my expensive lesson on international fund transaction using traditional banks. A staggering 27.46% of my fund of RMB 1,406 was “taxed” by the intermediary. Both the sending bank (in Taiwan) & receiving bank (in Malaysia) said that there it was not possible to find out how the intermediary levy the charges!

Used a traditional route for international fund transfer

As my recent trip was sponsored, I was expecting reimbursement from the sponsor for the cost of my trip. To facilitate the process, the sponsoring university in China would pool our group’s reimbursements and let the organizer of the trip, Dr. Yan to do the individual distribution of the fund received.

There was just one issue for me: the organizer and all the rest of the members of our group are based in Taiwan with yours truly being the only one located in Malaysia. Nevertheless my modest claim (after deducting the RMB 500 loaned to me by Dr. Yan to alleviate my having left my wallet at home at the start of the trip!) was RMB 1,406 (about US$202). Dr. Yan’s office was resourceful enough to use one of his bank’s “transaction fee waiver” vouchers  in an attempt to keep the transaction fees down for me.

How much of RMB 1,406 would I get after being transferred to Malaysia?

At Malaysia’s end, previous experience told me that MayBank (Malayan Banking Berhad) would only levy a charge of RM5 (US$1.19)  for the transaction. Of course it would have made from the spread when converting the currency into Malaysian ringgit.

Whopping 27.46% transaction fees!

Based on the exchange rate of RMB 0.59 to RM 1.00, after deducting transaction fees, I was expecting to receive at least RM 750. When the fund finally arrived at my bank, I had a big shock.

From the RMB 1,406 remitted by Dr. Yan’s office, only RM 597.70 equivalent to RMB 1,019.96 arrived at my MayBank account. The meant that a whopping RMB 386.04 or 27.46% of the original RMB 1,406 remitted was deducted as the transaction fees!

No fees levied but banks make from the spread on currency conversion

Both Taiwanese and Malaysian did not levy any transaction fees

I contacted Dr. Yan’s office and his people double checked with his bank in Taiwan to confirm that the amount transferred from Taiwan was indeed RMB 1,406. This was confirmed via the transaction slip sent to me from Taiwan. There was also no fees levied by the Taiwanese bank on the RMB 1,406.

Next, I went to my bank, MayBank to get the full details of this transfer. I was told that MayBank did not levy any fees on the transaction but the transaction report indicated that only RMB 1,019.96 was received at the Malaysian end. I was told by MayBank that they only processed the amount that was received, that is RMB 1,019.96 and it has no idea on what was the transaction fees levied by the intermediary.

I conveyed MayBank’s findings to Dr. Yan’s office which in turn also confronted their bank in Taiwan. The conclusion given by the Taiwan bank was that they had remitted RMB 1,406 and the differential must be the transaction fees (including the spreads for converting from RMB to various intermediary currencies before the final conversion to RM). To make matters more confusing, the Taiwanese bank said that it had no control over how much its intermediary would charge.

Traditional remitting equals to having no idea of the transaction cost

It then became clear to me that for traditional bank remittance from overseas, the customers really are at the mercy of the intermediaries. The remittance cost is not transparent. It thus makes this a very risky and expensive choice to remit money.  And both the sending and receiving banks will wash their hands off should a customer like me getting fleeced by the intermediary (27.46% is a huge amount to levy as a remittance fee).

Better to use remittance service provider that are transparent in their fees

MoneyGram

I made a check with MoneyGram’s website to see  if we were to transfer an equivalent of RMB 1,406 in US dollars (i.e, US$ 202) from Taiwan to Malaysia, with receiver paying the transaction fees what kind of scenario would happen.

MoneyGram’s transaction fees plus spread are reasonable

As shown above, if we were to use MoneyGram, I would be getting at least RM 770.49 from the RMB 1,406 or US$ 202 that were to be remitted with a fees of only US$ 15 (or RM63 or RMB105).  Thus with a exchange rate of RMB 1.00 = RM 0.59, this means I would have received RMB 1,305.92. The overall remittance and conversion cost in this case would be around RMB 100.08 or just 7.12% of the amount transacted.

Western Union

A check with Western Union shows that for a similar amount in US$, the cost of transaction would be around US$10. But since Western Union also make from a spread on conversion, for US$192, at US$1 =  RM3.8539, I would only get RM739.95 or equivalent of RMB 1,254.15 Thus the overall remittance and conversion costs would actually be RMB 151.85. The total remittance cost would have been 10.80% of the amount remitted.

Western Union’s spread is wider than MoneyGram’s

In both MoneyGram and Western Union cases, regardless of the total cost of the transfer of fund, the costs were pretty transparent. And even with the higher spread on currency conversion, Western Union would only have an overall cost of around 10.80% of the sum to be transferred. Of course the best choice would have been MoneyGram which has an overall cost of 7.12%.

Lesson Learned

  1. Never use traditional banks for international remittance.
  2. Zero “transaction fees” for international remittance is a misnomer. There is a spread when currencies are converted at the sending and receiving ends. This is how banks make their money!
  3. Intermediaries for traditional bank remittance (aside from MoneyGrams and Western Union) do take big cuts out of your total amount to be transferred overseas!
  4. Make sure the remittance service gives you a transparent total fees before committing to any overseas remittance.

In my case, since both Dr. Yan and I have WeChat China Wallet, it would have been better that we had explored this route where virtually there would be no cost of transaction. The only problems are: Dr. Yan needs to load his WeChat China Wallet with sufficient funds and at my end, I could only spend the amount in my WeChat China Wallet in China!

Compact Calendar 2019 (optimized for Selangor, Malaysia)

The 2019 version of a one-glance-see-all compact calendar, created by David Seah, but customized by the author for the state of Selangor, Malaysia is provided in this article. This compact calendar is easily customized to suite the user’s needs.

With the announcement of 2019 school calendar by the Ministry of Education in Malaysia recently, it is now possible for me to put together the 2019 edition of my compact calendar for 2019.

Source: The Star (Sep 16, 2018)

This calendar is based on the excellent work and idea of David Seah. It has been optimized for the state of Selangor, Malaysia. I have also added (shaded) school holidays (as I have done previously). If you live in other states in Malaysia and would like to modify this to suite your needs, the instructions for doing so are given on the first sheet. It is no rocket science as David Seah has made it very easy for us to optimize the Excel file.

You can download the Excel file here. I have also included a PDF version for those who do not need to optimze this compact calendar further. Enjoy and do your planning for 2019 more effectively!

 

 

13th May 1969 my little story (pre- & post- GE14)

I echo here YB Lim’s advice for all Malaysians, regardless of whichever side of the political divide we stand, to take the opportunity offered to us after the 14th General Election (GE14) to bury the ghost of May 13th forever. But the lessons of May 13th should always be taught to younger generations so that the same will not happen again.

Commentary (May13, 2018):  The inspiration to share my little May 13th story came from a letter by senior politician, Mr. Lim Kit Siang, published in Malaysiakini (the pdf version is available here).

I echo here YB Lim’s advice for all Malaysians, regardless of whichever side of the political divide we stand, to take the opportunity offered to us after the 14th General Election (GE14) to bury the ghost of May 13th forever. But the lessons of May 13th should always be taught to younger generations so that the same will not happen again. We should learn from Northern Ireland (my 2nd homeland!) of what communal distrust and sectarian divide can do to a nation.

We should be proud of ourselves as Malaysians. We have, through the resolution and courage shown the world that ours is a democratic nation. There is something among Malaysians that money simply cannot buy! The message from YB Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal (in one of his videos) perhaps sums up the feeling of many against money politics, “the RM500, RM10,000 or RM1,000 that you’re given will not make you a millionaire….. our dignity is not for sale.”

I think many Malaysians who are in the public service, the police and the military deserve our gratitude for coming out of their comfort zone and voted with their conscience. Without their support, the outcome of GE14 could have been very different.

Together, we have shown the world that Malaysians are no zombies when it comes to expressing our democratic rights!

It is time for reconciliation. A matured democracy shall always accommodate differing political views. Just because someone do not subscribe to your political view does not make her/him less of a Malaysian or a subject of hatred.

The confidence given by Malaysians to the present Pakatan Harapan regime does not mean that we have given the politicians a blank cheque.  This is my response when asked by BFM radio on what I want from the new regime:

(link: https://twitter.com/Everboleh/status/994430242969108482)

 

First published: May 14th, 2004, edited version published on May 13th, 2018

As a young boy aged 6+ during the May 13th incident in 1969, my memory of this event is still good.

However, a lot of the younger generation today seem to have no memory of this significant turning point of Malaysia’s history. I feel sad about this. (and the local TV, TV3 had an item on this last night).

My little Story about 13th May 1969:

I still remember on this faithful day, everything was ‘normal’, at around 6:45am, my dad cycled to his school to teach (about 4 km away) and I was already up and about (I was attending afternoon session at school) making a nuisance of myself to the adults. Then suddenly, at around 7:00 am, dad cycled back in a hurry and I saw a lot of people rushing back……curfew was imposed.

We were shielded from the bulk of the troubles as Ipoh was relatively unaffected by the events in Kuala Lumpur and Penang. I was too young to comprehend the magnitude and the seriousness of the event. All I remembered of that few days was: the adults were very tensed.

On the first day of curfew, dad and granddad went to the sundry shop (just after dad had cycled back in the morning) and bought a lot of food stuff. I was not allowed out of the house or the garden on the first day. By the second day, things seemed to have calmed down. I was allowed out (I think by then the curfew was lifted for a couple of hours for that day). But I went to the field opposite my house to play. I was warned by dad to get back into the house within the hour but I stayed around the play gound at the field for longer than usual (after all I was caged up for one full day already!)….

Then I saw a couple of police on petrol in the area and off I went jumping into the drain next to the field to hide from them….(I remembered being told that if I were caught after curfew hours outside the house, the police would lock me up).

As I was hiding in the drain, I could hear that the police petrol had passed but I dared not leave the drain for a few more minutes as I was afraid that they might turn back towards me. Then……I felt itchiness and a sharp pain around my groin and then my buttocks. This sensation was occuring at more than one spot!

…..My posterior was very close to the nest of a colony of fire-ants! These little guys then attacked me or more like my sensitive areas to protect their colony. Those days we ddin’t wear brief until you were close to 10 or 11 and of course little boy  all would wear shorts!

I ran from the drain, but dared not cry out loud (for fear of the police) even though the pain was terrible. I screamed when I got home. I only allowed my dad to see the ‘damage’ (mum and the rest of the family were not allowed near me!) My posterior, including my ‘3 pieces of inheritance from my ancestors’ were sore for days…..

I promised myself then that I would never hide in the drain again, even if I was playing with my friends, a promise I kept for the nest 5 days…

That was my personal memory of the whole May 13 incident as a young boy of not-yet 7 in age. But little did I know then, there were many things that happened in that few days that had changed the course of history for my country.

The National Economic Policy and other measures implemented by the government post May 13, 1969, had changed the economic and political landscape for my country forever. This paved the way for Malaysia to withstand the economic challenges of the 1997/98.

For many years this subject (of May 13) has been tabooed for all. But I feel that youngsters should be told what went on and more importantly, what we all have learned from it (or have we?)

In 1979, I was fortunate enough to have parents (who were working as a teacher/a clerk) that sacrificed their pension money to pay for my studies in the UK. There, the first thing I did was to look through the library of my technical college to see if I could find something on this event. After a few months of searching, I located a journal called something like “World Event- day by day” and I had the chance to read up on the foreign reports (foreign perspective) about May 13th, 1969 for the first time and understood some of the causes of this unfortunate episode of our history as a nation.

One thing is sure: we must not allow this to happen again, NEVER! But we must remember and remind our younger generations of this incident to ensure that the lessons learned are not forgotten and more importantly incident like this shall never happen again.

And one small lesson: do not play inside a drain, if you do, watch out for fire ants!

Mushrooming of private schooling options in Malaysia, what are the pitfalls?

With the much longer duration of stay compared to college students and that the greater impact of early education on a person’s development, it is vital that children, especially those enrolled in learning centres outside the purview of the Ministry of Education, be given better consumer protection. Hence tighter governance of these learning centres  is badly needed.

[show_post_categories show=”tag” hyperlink=”yes”]

My article on private school education in Malaysia has just been published in Feb 2018 edition of the Selangor Journal. In this article I posed a few considerations that Malaysian parents of school-going kids must think through if they’re contemplating on “going private” and opined that “more choices need not necessarily lead to better options”

cf0d7044-c75c-4f47-b026-315cf495e470

The difference in governance between school and college sectors

I think because historically there have been a multitude of political implications due to policies on higher education, this sector is very tightly controlled by the government where there are six notable Acts of Parliament governing the industry, namely:

  • The Private Higher Educational Institutions Act 1996 (ACT 555 which has been amended a few times with the latest version being published since Dec 01, 2015);
  • The Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (latest revision: 2012);
  • The Malaysian Qualifications Agency Act 2007 (latest revision: 2017);
  • The National Council For Higher Education Act 1996 (latest revision: 2006);
  • The Educational Institutions (Discipline) Act 1976 (latest revision: 2006); and
  • The Perbadanan Tabung Pendidikan Tinggi Nasional Act 1997 (latest revision: 2006).

In contrast, after an extensive search of the website of the Attorney General’s Chamber of Malaysia, I could really just find the Education Act 1996 (latest revision: 2012) which governs the entire pre-school, primary to secondary school sectors.

Tighter control over private schooling?

The proliferation of private schooling options over the last five years has resulted in Malaysia having 423 such institutions under the purview of the Ministry of Education. I think the governance of these 423 institutions is well set out in the Education Act 1996 and the many guidelines etc. that have been developed over the years. It is the mushrooming of homeschooling centres and tuition centres offering foreign secondary school curriculum that seem to escape the radar of the power that be.

Even for the higher education sector which has six laws governing it, there were many notable instances of the consumers (parents and students) being short changed. Thus for a sector like the homeschooling and iGCSE tuition centres that has been very loosely governed, in my humble opinion, there will be cases of the consumers getting a raw deal soon.

Longer duration of stay of the schooling sector

Higher education players typically have their students studying with them for between 2.5 to 5 years and their students are technically young adults, most of whom are aged 18 and above pursuing diploma (2.5 years in duration), pre-university (1 to 1.5 years in duration) and degree (3 – 4 years in duration). As young adults, college students are much better than their younger counterparts at schools to fend for themselves and to know their rights and obligations of the institutions of higher learning that they are enrolled in.

In contrast children will receive typically two years of preschool education, six years of primary education and at least five years of secondary education, making a typical duration of stay in the private schooling institutions of 13 years, that is 2.5 to over 5 times the duration of stay at the higher education sector.

Hence with the much longer duration of stay and that the greater impact of early education on a person’s development, it is vital that children, especially those enrolled in learning centres outside the purview of the Ministry of Education, be given better consumer protection. Thus higher rigour in governance of such private homeschooling centres should be considered by the power that be. Unlike physical goods, you just cannot undone or “return” inappropriate schooling received!

[You can get a hardcopy at selected Giant Hypermarkets and the town council office (I couldn’t get hold of a copy as yet!). But if you want to read it now, you can download a copy here: http://bit.ly/SelangorJournalFeb2018 ]

Malaysia’s Compact Calendar 2018 

A compact “one-view-see-all” calendar for 2018 inclusive of Malaysian public holidays and school terms is available for download. This version is optimized for Selangor State but is easily customized (if you download the Excel version) to any state of Malaysia.

I had prepared my Compact Calendar 2018 based on David Seah’s invention for a good few weeks when the official announcement on public holidays for 2018 was made by the power that be. I could not finalize my Malaysian version of Compact Calendar 2018 (optimized for Selangor State) due to be need to wait for the announcement by the Ministry of Education, Malaysia which happened on Oct 05, 2017.

I have given instructions on how my version of Compact Calendar can be optimized if you do not live (work) in Selangor in my 2017 posting on the same topic and will not be repeated here.

To download the editable Excel file, please click this link. For the Compact Calendar 2018 customized for Selangor State in PDF format, please click here.

Right to disconnect… can you disconnect the mind too

With almost every working adult in Malaysia now owning a smartphone, it is not surprising that work has been creeping into the “smartphone” during family / leisure time after work. So if you see an adult of working age, keeps his/her down while having a shopping mall outing with his/her family on a Sunday, it is not surprising that it could be work-related. The boss’s expectation aside, it is often the smartphone user’s inability to disconnect his/her mind that prompts him/her to use the smartphone to check work-related stuff, even on a rest day.

[show_post_categories show=”tag” hyperlink=”yes”]

Commentary (Mar 31, 2018):

This article was first published in June 2017 in theplantcloner.com. Subsequently, it was also published in the newsletter of Penang Chinese Chamber of Commerce. Since then, there have been many mentions of the issue of the right of employees to disconnect from work after hours. The latest development on this issue has traveled across the Atlantic from France to New York City council.  But all discussions seem to centred upon the perspective of the employer or employee’s obligation, no one seems to have asked the same question as did I, “will the employee, even if he/she has the right to disconnect, choose to do so?”

 


When the rumour of a new French law to grant employees the right to be disconnected from the obligation to answer work emails after office hours hit the English press in 2014, there were lots of reactive comments. What really happened in 2014 was not a new law being passed, but in fact a collective agreement for certain categories of French workers whose worked was counted in days rather the 35-hours working week. So everyone thought that the English press overreacted to the rumour, and the Economist’s Paris correspondent took pain to explain this. And the British media had eggs on their faces! So it seemed!

The right to disconnect is real from 2017!

Fast forward just about three years on, in January 2017, France really DID make this “right to disconnect” into a law! Perhaps this could be tied to the phenomenal growth of the use of smartphones everywhere in the world during the past three, four years. Smartphones ownership in France was already at 64.1% in Quarter 1 of 2014, by the same quarter in 2017, this has risen to 71.1%. For the USA, smartphone ownership in January 2017 is around 77%. In Malaysia, smartphone ownership has already reached 65% as reported in February 2016 and is set to reach 17.8 millions people in 2017.

Can Malaysia adopt the “right to disconnect”?

With almost every working adult in Malaysia now owning a smartphone, it is not surprising that work has been creeping into the “smartphone” during family / leisure time after work. So if you see an adult of working age, keeps his/her head down while having a shopping mall outing with his/her family on a Sunday, it is not surprising that it could be work-related. The boss’s expectation aside, it is often the smartphone user’s inability to disconnect his/her mind that prompts him/her to use the smartphone to check work-related stuff, even on a rest day.

Asian bosses are notorious for being the “slave drivers”, the bulk of Malaysian bosses are no exception. By bosses, I don’t mean just those tycoons but immediate superiors, managers and even supervisors of the working masses today. In my experience, the expectation of bosses is simple, staff are expected to reply to emails or SMS or Whatsapp messages even long after the work hour is over. The days before the smartphones was better for staffers, at least you only have SMS messages to worry about, there is no spreadsheets to open, photographs to download, Facebook post to check etc.

Not all “tycoon-class” bosses are slave drivers

In fact not all tycoons have this “no right to disconnect” mentality. My former boss who belongs to the “tycoon class” is one fine exception who practiced, to a great extent, this “right to disconnect”.

During my stint as Tan Sri Clement Hii’s special assistant, it was between 2012 – 2014, before smartphones are so ubiquitous as today. So Whatsapp and other instant messaging platforms were not common. I was only given one special requirement from him, when I was off duty I was to keep the mobile phone switched on at all times.

My boss just wanted to send out SMS messages to his team as and when he had ideas and instructions for us, regardless of the time of day. The reason for him to have his team keeping their mobile phones switched on has got to do with the “double ticks” that we now see on Whatsapp. All he wanted, was to be sure that his instruction was delivered via SMS, he did not need to see the “double blue ticks”, i.e.; if the message was delivered, it would be fine, he did not need to see if the recipient had read it.

Once delivered however, the problem, task, or instruction was now became the accountability of the recipient! We were specifically told by him that we would not be required to respond to his SMS unless the matter was urgent, for which he would call the staff concerned instead of sending an SMS. To his credits, Tan Sri Clement only called me a few times during my stint with him and on all occasions it was really something urgent that needed to be taken care of immediately.

Bosses should observe ‘right to disconnect”

Here is a very smart man who knows how to maximize his brain power by clearing from his mind the least important stuff: remembering a “to do list”, about tasks, problems etc. which he could delegate to his team. By offloading these, as soon as possible, his mind power could be deployed on more productive tasks, such as strategising on new projects, thinking through new ideas or just simply to relax, to recharge. By not requiring his staff to respond immediately, he observes the staff’s “right to disconnect”. Of course, all bets are off when there is an emergency or something really urgent, such as guarding the company’s reputation on social media which is something that needs to be taken care of immediately.

I wonder how many “tycoon class” bosses are as understanding and wise as my former boss! By minimizing the intrusion into his staff’s leisure time, Tan Sri Clement stands to gain more by having his team members better recharged and refreshed to ‘fight another day”!

A couple of questions to ponder

Even if Malaysians working adults are given the “right to disconnect” as did their French counterparts, I wonder how many of us will judiciously exercise this right? Exactly how many of us can disconnect our mind fully from work after we have clocked off? I think both question are subject to further debate!

[polldaddy poll=9766401]  [polldaddy poll=9766408]

Taiwan – Malaysia university collaborations MUST be win-win!

The flow of tertiary students has been only one-way: only from Malaysia to Taiwan. Very few Taiwanese students are found in Malaysian colleges and universities. This article set out to find ways in which a more balanced and mutually beneficial framework of relationships between Taiwanese and Malaysian institutions of higher learning could be forged.

There must be ways to check the current one-way flow of students from Malaysia to Taiwan for the benefit of institutions and students of both nations. The prospect of losing another 5,000 high school graduates students each year will be bleak for the private colleges in Malaysia. The cut-throat competition is getting deadlier this year!

Commentary (Feb 26, 2017):

This is the third and final part of my series of articles based on my public lecture, “Malaysian higher education: past, present and likely future” delivered at Tunghai University, Taiwan where I was a guest of Professor Lin Hsiou-wei.

The aggressiveness and seemingly well-funded campaigns by Taiwanese universities (including high-ranking ones) to recruit Malaysian students to fill up the large gap in capacities to student had mainly only receiving good attention in Malaysia’s Chinese press with the English press giving it scanty reports. The majority of the private colleges in Malaysia still do not have strong relationships with Taiwanese universities. This could be based solely on the uninformed assumption that students must be very proficient in Chinese language in order to study at tertiary level in Taiwan. Well, many Taiwanese universities, in line with the trend in China, have been having undergraduate and postgraduate degree programmes entirely delivered in English for some years now. In addition, despite the difficulties in scoring grade A+ for Chinese language at national senior high school examination in Malaysia (Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia or Malaysian Certificate of Education) there are still a substantial number of students taking the subject each year. Hence there would be many high school graduates with the requisite proficiency in Chinese each year to study in Taiwan. Of course some very savvy private colleges have woken up to this Taiwanese “fear factor” lately.

I had done a bit of research on the data I obtained from various sources which showed a very disappointing trend: the flow of tertiary students has been only one-way, that is from Malaysia to Taiwan. Very few Taiwanese students are found in Malaysian colleges and universities. I then set out to find ways in which a more balanced and mutually beneficial framework of relationships between Taiwanese and Malaysian institutions of higher learning could be forged.

I presented this in my public lecture but I am not fully convinced that my message was getting through to right people in Taiwan. I do hope that somehow someone will see the imbalance and try ways to address this. I for one do not subscribe to the notion that Taiwanese universities would intentionally bring about the decimation of private higher education industry in Malaysia. Hence this seemingly zero-sum game will need to be altered, and altered fast for the long term betterment of people of both Taiwan and Malaysia.

I have been asked by some of my readers and friends to translate this article into Chinese in order to attain my aim. You never know, I might take up the challenge later!


An article entitled, “Facing brain drain, Taiwan looks to poach Malaysian students” appeared on September 15, 2013 in Malay Mail Online. It was in response to the push by Taiwan to target Malaysia for new students to fill in excess seats available in their 160 or so universities and colleges. The alarm bells were starting to ring in the recruitment offices of many Malaysian private colleges in reaction to this news.

1
Dr Chow Yong Neng (second from left) receiving a warm reception from Professor Lin Hsiou-wei (fourth from the eft) and his staffs at Tunghai University in Taichung, Taiwan

Then in late May 2016 the Sun Daily reported that there are 15,000 Malaysians already studying in Taiwan. Around the same time Sin Chew Daily in turn reported that Taiwan will target to have a total of 25,000 Malaysian students studying in Taiwan within the next two years, an increase of 5,000 on average in 2017 and 2018 respectively.

With the “drought” of students hitting the industry in 2016, the Malaysian private higher education sector is already facing a collective lowering of enrollment caused mainly by the increased in Sixth Form enrollment for 2016. The further prospect of losing another 5,000 students on average caused the alarm bells at the recruitment offices of private colleges in Malaysia to ring non-stop ever since!

One cannot begin to imagine the impact of losing another 5,000 high school students each year will do to the private higher education sector in Malaysia. Table 1 shows the number of Malaysians studying in Taiwan from 2013 to 2018 (2016 to 2018 figures were projected).

able 1: The number of Malaysians studying in Taiwan from 2013 – 2018 (Data Source: 2013 – http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aedu/201412230014.aspx and 2014 & 2015 – http://english.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=16738&ctNode=11414&mp=1)

The Taipei Economic and Cultural in Malaysia kindly shared with this author the number of Taiwanese studying in Malaysia (provided by the government of Malaysia in October 2015). A total of 116 Taiwanese students were studying in Malaysia in 2015 with only 96 students being in private colleges. These figures show the severe imbalance in the movement of students between the two countries.

So what chances do small and medium sized Malaysian private colleges (and even some of the larger ones) have in competing against well funded and highly reputable Taiwanese universities and colleges which have been very liberal in awarding scholarships lately? This is made worse by the fact that the only silver lining that Malaysian private colleges had, which is the delivery of academic courses in English is also being eroded. Many Taiwanese universities and colleges with teaching staff who are trained in USA, UK or Australia are offering international academic programmes that are fully delivered in English.

Can this seemingly zero-sum game of student recruitment be reconfigured for the long term mutual benefits of the students and institutions of both countries?

This author believes that it is not the intention of Taiwan to create the “fear-factor” in Malaysian private higher education. A zero-sum game will always have a winner (Taiwan) and a loser (Malaysia). However, given the strength in the “New Go South” policy of President Tsai Ing-wen, is there any way players in higher education in both Taiwan and Malaysia can collaborate on a “1 + 1 = 4” principle?

“Collaboration outweighs competition” should always be the motto when it comes to Taiwanese-Malaysian higher education institutions’ relationship. For the “1 + 1 = 4” principle to be realised, there must be a think-out-of-the-box collaboration model between the two countries’ universities and colleges.

A "think out of the box" model of collaboration between Malaysian and Taiwanese colleges and universities will replace the one-way flow of students from Malaysia to a bidirectional flow of students between Taiwan and Malaysia to the benefit of both nations.
A “think out of the box” model of collaboration between Malaysian and Taiwanese colleges and universities will replace the one-way flow of students from Malaysia to a bidirectional flow of students between Taiwan and Malaysia to the benefit of both nations.

Something must be done by both countries to address the severe imbalance in the flow of students which at present, for all intent and purposes is unidirectional: only Malaysian students would go to Taiwan and essentially there is insignificant flow towards Malaysia.

Hence for an equitable collaboration to work, the flow of students MUST always be bi-directional. “Share and share alike” shall be the key to successful collaboration efforts between institutions of higher learning of both countries.

To make this work, Taiwanese universities and colleges must not treat their Malaysian counterparts as “feeder colleges” but as equal partners in the sharing of students. They must be prepared to send to their Malaysian partners an equivalent number of Taiwanese students to make this work.

By having (and sharing) Taiwanese and Malaysian students we can create the “1 + 1 = 4” principle. For starter, instead of recruiting Malaysian students directly to attend all 4 years of undergraduate studies in Taiwan, we can have a modified “2 + 2  model”.  Malaysian students will be recruited by a Malaysian institution partnering a Taiwanese university or college. These Malaysian students will stay in Malaysia to complete the first part of their studies (either in diploma or in a homegrown degree programme) before credit transferring to the Taiwanese university. At the same time, the Taiwanese university partner will send a similar number of its students to the Malaysian counterpart. These Taiwanese university students could be studying on a “student exchange”, “study abroad” or credit transfer mode. So long as there is an equitable flow of students each year, both institutions stand to gain extra headcounts. Thus both institutions will have an additional student for everyone that it has sent to its partner institution, thereby creating two student headcounts on both sides, making the  “1 + 1 = 4” principle a reality.

There are also other variations to this model aside from the example above where a bidirectional flow of students between Taiwan and Malaysia can be effectively implemented:

  • Setting up dual awards in undergraduate and postgraduate programmes between institutions of higher learning in both countries (students from both countries can opt to take up both or one of the academic awards).
  • Taiwanese universities leveraging on their Malaysian partner colleges/universities to tap into the non-Chinese speaking students market (instead of just targeting the Chinese Malaysian, Taiwanese universities, through their Malaysian partners can widen their reach). These students can be placed in the Malaysian partner institutions for preparatory courses (e.g. Chinese proficiency classes) before their stint in Taiwan, thereby sharing of such students between the two partners.
  • Tapping into “seniors” and “executive development” markets in both countries by co-branding of programmes and deliver part of these programmes in the partner’s institutions on “short study visits” basis for example utilizing Malaysia’s Mobility Programme.

With a deeper collaborative relationship, both the Taiwanese and Malaysian institutions can then leverage on each other’s strength, brands and reputation to tackle other non-traditional areas of collaboration. Research and development, consultancy projects, bidding for research funding and commercialization of research are some of the “offshoots” of such collaborations. Essentially the Taiwanese and Malaysian institutions can then leverage on each other to expand their “market” and effectively reach into each other’s territory to be fully transnational.

Having bidirectional flow of students will benefit Taiwanese students by giving them exposure to Malaysia in an in-depth manner which would increase the cultural and economic intertwining of both nations, directly increasing the sphere of influence of Taiwan and still adhere to the New Go South policy of President Tsai, albeit with some modifications.

All it takes now is the collective willpower of the leaders of Taiwanese universities to put this into action and to engage with their counterparts in Malaysia (mainly the private colleges and universities) to put the current zero-sum game to bed.

The ball is now in the Taiwanese court!

Read more on Part 1: How many colleges and universities can Malaysia truly sustain?
or Part 2: Filling up Malaysian colleges’ seats – a tall order indeed

The bulk of the content of this article came from a talk given by the author as a guest speaker of Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan on July 28 2016 entitled “Malaysian higher education: past, present and  likely future.”

Filling up Malaysian colleges – mission impossible?

3 Key Questions are raised in this article:
(a) What are the number of new students we need to fulfill the aspirations of the power that be for the National Education Blueprint 2015 -2025 to bear fruits?
(b) What are the projected number of new students from existing sources, both local and foreign?
(c) If there is indeed a deficit, what other sources of new students that Malaysia can muster?

Commentary (Feb 23, 2017)
When I was preparing for my public lecture at Taiwan’s Tunghai University ( entitled “Malaysian higher education: past, present and  likely future.”) in June 2016, I was researching on the data of the numbers of local and foreign over a few years and crunched these numbers to see if these have the potential to fill up the large collective capacities of Malaysian colleges and universities which are already having surplus “seats” at present.  While I was pondering the implications brought about by the National Education Blueprint 2015-2025 (Higher Education) it suddenly appeared clear to me that my research work should indicate if fulfilling the numbers indicated by the power that be may be a mission impossible. I then went ahead to ask three crucial questions and attempted to analyze these with the data available to come up with my viewpoints.

In this article (which was written in August 2016 & updated in September 2016 when newer & more accurate data was available after my public lecture in late July 2016), I tried to lay out the bare facts based on my asking three crucial but simple questions:

(a) What are the number of new students we need to fulfill the aspirations of the power that be for the National Education Blueprint 2015 -2025 to bear fruits?

(b) What are the projected number of new students from existing sources,  both local and foreign?

(c) If (b) shows a deficit, what other sources of new students that Malaysia can muster?

The article that follows, the second one in a series of three, was first published in Han Chiang News portal in August 2016. My former colleague, Ms Kristina Khoo had produced the infographics to help readers to comprehend the data presented better.

First article in the series: How many colleges and universities can Malaysia truly sustain?


Those of us who serve in the higher education industry can finally breathe a sigh of relief when the National Education Blueprint 2015 – 2025 (Higher Education) (NEBHE) was unveiled on April 07 2015.  At least the strategic direction for the higher education sector for the coming 10 years was charted.

However, one important segment of the higher education sector was not adequately covered. The private higher education sector did not get the detailed attention that it deserves. This is surprising given the fact that the private sector is responsible to educate over 40 per cent of Malaysian students pursuing tertiary studies.

Under the NEBHE, the entire tertiary education sector should see the enrollment rate rise from 36 per cent  (1.42 million) in 2012 to 53 per cent in 2025 (2.49 million). To achieve this different sub-sectors within the higher education sector will have a differential rate of growth.

The private higher learning institutions are expected to grow its enrollment by 5.1 per cent annually whereas the corresponding rate of growth for the public universities is 2.6 per cent per annum. The largest rate of growth will be for private and public technical, vocational education and training (TVET) institutions at 7.8 per cent per annum while the remaining state-owned tertiary institutions (operated by different ministries) will see a modest 1.4 per cent annual growth.

All these impressive figures give the private higher learning institutions badly needed sense of the nation’s direction and how they could play their collective role. However there are three crucial questions that were not addressed by the NEBHE….

Summary of findings (click to view bigger image)

Summary of findings

Question 1: What is the number of new students that we need to recruit in 2025 if we are to attain the targets set by the National Education Blueprint 2015-2025 (Higher Education)?

Typically Malaysian students studying in private universities and colleges enter these institutions straight from high school after taking their Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (equivalent of “O” level) and they will take about 4 years to complete their undergraduate studies. Their counterparts studying in public universities will be required to have pre-university qualifications such as STPM (equivalent of GCE “A” level), Matriculation or similar qualifications, and they only need about 3 years to graduate. Students in the TVET sub-sector will take around 1.5 years  to 2 years to complete their studies. To estimate the number of new students for each year for different sub-sectors, all we have to do is to divide the current total number of students enrolled in that sub-sector by the average years that it takes a typical student to graduate. So Table 1 and 2 summarise the number of “freshies” (new students) that each sub-sector needs per year for the reference year of 2017 and 2025 (as provided by the NEBHE).

We use 2017 as the “reference” year for two major reasons. Firstly we could estimate (based on available data) more accurately the number of students for each of the six sources and this data is more current and reflects the latest changes in the environment of higher education sector that are not so well reflected in the data of 2012. The total enrollment in each sub-sector in 2017 was calculated based on the corresponding compounded growth rate as stated in the NEBHE. For example, the Private Institutions sub-sector was estimated to grow by 5.1 per cent from 2012, thus the total enrollment of 555,000 was calculated from the base-year (2012) figure of 455,000 compounded by 5.1 per cent over 4 years

Table 1: Estimation of new students needed for each sub-sector in 2017

Sub-sector [annual growth rate] Total Enrollment (‘000) Typical study duration New enrollment needed (‘000)
Private institutions [5.1%] 555 4 139
Public universities [2.6%] 604 3 201
Public & private vocational institutions [7.8%] 335 2 167
Other governmental institutions [1.4%] 182 1.5 121
Total 1494 629

Let us use the annual growth rates for each sub-sector to estimate the compounded enrollment of each and in turn work out the number of “freshies” required by each sub-sector in 2025 (as shown in Table 2).

Table 2: Estimation of new students needed for each sub-sector in 2025

Sub-sector [annual growth rate] Total Enrollment (‘000) Typical study duration New enrollment needed (‘000)
Private institutions [5.1%] 867 4 217
Public universities [2.6%] 764 3 255
Public & private vocational institutions [7.8%] 656 2 328
Other governmental institutions [1.4%] 205 1.5 137
Total 2492 936

Hence, based on our simple calculations, for 2017 we will need about 629,000 new students to feed into the entire tertiary education sector in Malaysia. Based on the same principle we can estimate that by 2025 (as shown in Table 2), to provide for a total enrollment of 2.49 million, we shall need to have around 936.000 new students.

Question 2: Do we have enough youngsters to “feed” into the entire scheme of work?

To answer this question, we shall need to take a look at the sources of students for tertiary education. Traditionally there are six main sources of students for tertiary education institutions.

We can estimate the figures for each sector for the year 2017 and 2025 based on the following categories of “sources”: (a) Sixth formers; (b) Matriculation students; (c)  SPM students; (d) International students; (e) Independent Chinese high school students; (f) private school students.

Based on the population estimation and projection published by the World Bank, the population of 17, 18 and 19 year-olds in Malaysia by 2025 will be 560,000, 566,000 and 574,000 respectively. These figures are matched by the Malaysian Statistic Department’s projection of the nation having a total of 2,573.500 fifteen to 19 year olds by 2025, giving an average of around 515,000 persons per year group. These demographic data provided the basis from which the estimation of the number of students for each of the six categories of sources stated and presented in Table 3.

Table 3: An estimation* of the sources of students for tertiary institutions in Malaysia for 2017 and 2025

Sources of students Estimated number (‘000) For 2017 Estimated number (‘000) For 2025
(a) Form 6 42 60
(b) Matriculation 27 30
(c) SPM (Form 5) 441 400
(d) International students 43 71
(e) Chinese independent high schools (UEC) 15 19
(f) Other private schools 10 16
Total: 578 596

*Some of the data presented in this table has been revised (Sept 23, 2016) in consideration of more accurate data being obtained by the author after publication.

We assumed that both the (a) Form 6 and (b) Matriculation student population will only have a modest growth over the 9- years period. Basing on recent trend, we expected that the number of SPM school leavers to continue to decline yearly and will drop from 441,000 in 2017 to around 400,000 by 2025. We estimated (d) International students number from the figure of around 150,000 published for 2016 where on average overseas students spend around 3.5 years in Malaysia (we divided 150,000 by 3.5) and did likewise for their numbers by 2025 based on the published target of 250,000 international students by 2025 as stated by the NEBHE. As the collective capacities of the (e) Chinese independent high schools are already in saturation point in 2016, there should be a modest growth over the next 9 – 10 years in the number of new students that they are able to accommodate and hence the corresponding slow growth in the number of students graduating from these high schools. With the massive growth in numbers and capacities of the private schools and international schools sub-sector, it is prudent to estimate that the number of students graduating from this subcategory will double over the next 9 years.

By just comparing the answers to Question 1 and 2, we can see that, based on our estimation, even in 2017 there will be a “shortfall” of around 33,000 students if the target enrollment numbers for each subcategory of tertiary institutions are to be met. This “shortfall” shall widen greatly over the 9 years to 2025 when there would only be a “supply” of 611,000 students but with a collective capacity / target number of around 936,000. A huge deficit of around 350,000 students.

Question 3: Do we have any way to source for 300,000 – 400,000 students per year to fill up the collective capacities of our colleges and universities by 2025?

A Malaysian Statistics Department report  stated that, 55.5 per cent of the Malaysian labour force had only a secondary level education, 15.5 per cent had primary level education and 2.6 per cent had no formal education. This means that if we just focus only on those in the labour force with secondary level education, with around 14 million in the total labour force if we just send 4 -5 per cent of these people a year to tertiary institutions, there will be over 300,000 students to make good the shortfall.

However, with increasing participation rate of school leavers in tertiary education (already stated at 53 per cent by 2025) and a massive upskilling of the labour force to tertiary education level, there will be a fast “depletion” of low skilled labour force in 10-15 years. Unless there is a massive growth in the population of 18-year-olds, the country will still face with the issue of having insufficient number of students to fill up the capacities of her colleges and universities.

Perhaps the power that be should instead be looking into consolidation of the whole tertiary education sector. Maybe it is prudent to take a re-look at the ambitious enrollment targets set forth by the NEBHE.

The bulk of the content of this article came from a talk given by the author as a guest speaker of Tunghai University, Taichung, Taiwan on July 28 2016 entitled “Malaysian higher education: past, present and  likely future.”

How many colleges and universities can Malaysia truly sustain?

Based on the US model of population and income and compare these with the equivalents for Taiwan and Malaysia….the wisdom of Taiwan’s decision to reduce her universities by one third is apparent. It means also that Malaysia cannot sustain the high number of tertiary institutions. Wake up call?

I was invited by Professor Lin Hsiou-Wei, Distinguished Professor and Dean of Management College, Tunghai University, Taiwan to visit his university in late July 2016. Professor Lin also invited me to give a public lecture entitled, “Malaysian higher education: past, present and  likely future.” This is the first of three articles that I had written and first published in Han Chiang News in 2016 based on the research I had done to prepare for that public lecture in Taiwan which I delivered in Mandarin. It was the first time I was given the opportunity to give a talk  delivered in Mandarin where I was more comfortable doing so in English! My former colleague, Ms. Kristina Khoo thought that I could make my points better by presenting the key arguments in videos and being the CEO and Principal of the College, I had to put my money where my mouth was and agreed to perform in front of the camera and well directed by Ms Khoo.

By Dr Chow Yong Neng

In April 2015, a bombshell was released by the Ministry of Education in Taiwan. Up to 52 of its existing 167 tertiary institutions will have to either close or merge with others within 10 years.

Taiwan and Malaysia have very similar population of 23.4 million and 30.5 million respectively. However Taiwan has more than twice of Malaysia’s per capita GDP at US$22,979 compared to Malaysia’s US$9,766 and its 167 tertiary institutions are considered as 52 too many.

Malaysia currently has 20 public universities, 37 polytechnics, 94 community colleges, 43 other state-funded training centres, 99 private universities and university colleges and 402 private colleges. These add up to a total of 695 tertiary institutions in Malaysia*.

What about Malaysia which has a total of 695 tertiary institutions? Can our economic and demographic factors support this more than 4-fold in the number of colleges and universities in Malaysia compared to Taiwan’s figure? In other words, if Taiwan needs to reduce her universities by more than 30 per cent over a ten-year period would Malaysia, with a lower per capita GDP need to follow suit?

Taiwan has a tertiary education enrollment rate (i.e. how many percent of its youth receive tertiary education) of close to 99 per cent compared to Malaysia’s 37 per cent. Does that mean Malaysia still has plenty of scope for its tertiary education sector to secure the enrollment of students and fill its collective capacities?

Proportional comparison with US’s figures

Let us look at the best example available as a “base model”, that is the United States of America with a population of around 321 million, per capita GDP of US$55,837 and 4,726 accredited tertiary institutions** (please refer to Table 1). We can compare both Taiwan’s and Malaysia’s tertiary education sector using the data of the USA to estimate the “maximum sustainable number of tertiary institutions” by asking just three questions.

Table 1: Comparison of 3 nations’ tertiary education: population, per capita GDP & number of tertiary institutions
Country USA Taiwan Malaysia
Population (millions) 321 23.38 30.75
Per capita GDP (US$) $55,837 $21,979 $9,766
No. of accredited tertiary institutions 4,726 167 695
Tertiary student population (millions) 21 1.34 1.42
Average population per institution 67,922 140,000 44,245
Average number of students per institution 4,444 8,024 2,043

Question 1:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBPuKEo-hHI]

Based solely on USA’s population and the number of US tertiary institutions, what will be the maximum number of institutions that Taiwan and Malaysia can support?

We can easily answer this question by dividing the population figure of Taiwan or Malaysia by that of the US  then multiply the results by 4,726 (the number of accredited tertiary institutions in the USA). Essentially a proportional comparison which is presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Comparison of Taiwan’s & Malaysia’s sustainable number of tertiary institutions based on the USA’s model using population data
Country USA Taiwan Malaysia
Population (millions) 321 23.38 30.75
Maximum sustainable number of institutions 4,726 344 453

It is clear that, based on population alone, Taiwan can easily have twice her present number of tertiary institutions. However the same cannot be said about Malaysia. At 695 Malaysia is already having an excess of 242 tertiary institutions.

Question 2:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QeG5kL_jEY]

Based solely on USA’s per capita GDP and the number of US tertiary institutions, what will be the maximum number of institutions that Taiwan and Malaysia can support?

As in Question 1, we can use the same logic to do a proportional comparison of the data for both Taiwan and Malaysia using the USA’s as the “base figures” as presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Comparison of Taiwan’s & Malaysia’s sustainable number of tertiary institutions based on the USA’s model using per capital GDP data
Country USA Taiwan Malaysia
Per capita GDP (US$) $55,837 $21,979 $9,766
Maximum sustainable number of institutions 4,726 1,860 827

If we consider per capita GDP in isolation, the economy of Taiwan could easily sustain over 11-folds the number of tertiary institutions that she presently has whereas Malaysia will still be able to “top up” the present 695 institutions by another 132.

Question 3:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBRJjU4xFEE]

What will be the maximum sustainable number of tertiary institutions for Taiwan & Malaysia if we factor in the combined effect of per capita GDP and population as compared to the USA model?

We really need to combine both the economic and demographic figures in our proportional comparison to determine the maximum sustainable number of tertiary institutions for each country. To come out with the comparison, we divide each figure (be it population or per capita GDP) with the corresponding USA’s figure, multiply the result of both economic and demographic comparison together with the USA’s current number of tertiary institutions. The result of this comparison is presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Comparison of Taiwan’s & Malaysia’s sustainable number of tertiary institutions based on the USA’s model using both population & per capita GDP data.
Country USA Taiwan Malaysia
Population (millions) 321 23.38 30.75
per capita GDP (US$) $55,837 $21,979 $9,766
Maximum sustainable number of institutions 4,726 135 79

The combination of both economic and demographic figures of the respective countries reveal something very staggering. Both Taiwan and Malaysia are already having too many tertiary institutions and the Taiwanese government has rightly put up a policy in April 2015 to reduce the number of tertiary institutions in the country in view of dwindling college-going population and the country’s already close to 99% tertiary enrollment rate.

When one looks at the maximum sustainable number of tertiary institutions for Malaysia of 79, one will not be blamed for suspecting some mistakes were committed in its calculation. But this figure has been estimated based on available data. With 616 “excess” number of tertiary institutions, what can Malaysia do to address the problem? Is it possible at all to reduce the number of tertiary institutions in Malaysia by close to 90 per cent?

Will increase in tertiary enrollment rate from the current 37 per cent to 94 per cent (USA’s current rate) be sufficient to solve the problem? Let us just do another proportional comparison:

[94% / 37%] * 79 institutions = 201 institutions

Thus even if we have 94 per cent tertiary enrollment rate, we will still need to close / merge around 500 tertiary institutions in Malaysia.

In fact, even if we miraculously increase Malaysia’s per capita GDP by 50 per cent to say US$15,000 and we have 94 per cent tertiary enrollment rate, Malaysia can only sustain:

[94%/37%] * [US$15,000 / US$9,766] * 79 institutions = 308 institutions

We will still be needing to merge or close down 387 tertiary institutions in Malaysia!

Solutions

With not much scope to raise the population of 18 year-old by a significant figure annually for the foreseeable future, Malaysia will have to follow in Taiwan’s footsteps. The key difference between Malaysia and Taiwan is that the bulk of the struggling institutions are privately owned and funded, there is no such thing as the withdrawal of grants and subsidies to entice these owners to consider merging or closing.

The fact remains that this issue has been overshadowing the entire private tertiary education industry since its reaching a peak of around 730 private tertiary institutions around 2002. The past 14 years did see some form of consolidation in the private tertiary education industry where the number of private institutions have dwindled down by close to 230 to the present 501 institutions (data as provided by the Ministry of Higher Education for May 2016).

The billion Ringgit question is whether this figure could be further reduced by another 380 to 400 to provide the industry with sustainability.

One thing is perfectly clear, “Consolidation is certain, resistance is futile!”

One may ask, “When shall we expect a bombshell be released by the power that be in Malaysia?” To this I shall answer, “Your guess is as good as mine!”


Footnotes:
*More accurate estimations were available along with more up-to-date data being acquired by the author since the publication of this article in August 2015 and the revised analysis though did not affect the conclusion but nevertheless the author feels that it should be presented to the readers.

The number of higher education institutions in Malaysia should be computed to include only those institutions which offer diploma and higher academic qualifications and hence shall exclude community colleges. Based on this principle, the number of tertiary institutions is revised as follows: Public universities (20), Polytechnics (37), State-funded vocational institutions with capability to offer diploma and advanced diploma (20), private universities & university colleges (96), private colleges (401), making a total of 574 (and not 695) higher education institutions. 

In addition to the 94 state funded public community colleges, there are 813 private accredited training institutions, 80 public vocational colleges and 320 other training institutions funded by various ministries making a total of 1307 institutions in Malaysia offering vocational skill training programmes (below diploma level), catering mainly to school leavers.

**Based on data compiled from US’s National Center of Education Statistics, the total number of accredited colleges and universities in the USA (2013 -2014 survey) was 4,599 and not 4726 as reported earlier. The population of the USA has also been revised upward to 324 million to reflect the latest (2016) figure. Likewise the GDP of Taiwan has been revised based on the latest figure obtained.

Hence the following tables with the revised data are being presented to our readers.

Table 1: Comparison of 3 nations’ tertiary education: population, per capita GDP & number of tertiary institutions (revised)
Country USA Taiwan Malaysia
Population (millions) 324 23.38 30.75
Per capita GDP (US$) $55,837 $22,294 $9,766
No. of accredited tertiary institutions 4,599 167 574
Tertiary student population (millions) 21 1.34 1.42
Average population per institution 70,450 140,000 53,5711
No. of student per institution 4,566 8,024 2,474
Table 2: Comparison of Taiwan’s & Malaysia’s sustainable number of tertiary institutions based on the USA’s model using population data (revised)
Country USA Taiwan Malaysia
Population (millions) 324 23.38 30.75
Maximum sustainable number of institutions 4,599 332 436
Table 3: Comparison of Taiwan’s & Malaysia’s sustainable number of tertiary institutions based on the USA’s model using per capita GDP data (revised)
Country USA Taiwan Malaysia
Per capita GDP (US$) $55,837 $22,294 $9,766
Maximum sustainable number of institutions 4,599 1836 804
Table 4: Comparison of Taiwan’s & Malaysia’s sustainable number of tertiary institutions based on the USA’s model using both population & per capita GDP data. (revised)
Country USA Taiwan Malaysia
Population (millions) 324 23.38 30.75
per capita GDP (US$) $55,837 $22,294 $9,766
Maximum sustainable number of institutions 4,599 133 76

We shall not be Zombies

With our multi-religious, multicultural, multilingual and diverse dietary preferences, it would not take much to start a sectarian firestorm if restrain is no longer applied. I feel that the phrase “tolerant of each other” is wrong. To survive as a nation, Malaysians collectively should be accepting each other as we are and get on with our lives.

[show_post_categories show=”category” hyperlink=”yes”]

[show_post_categories show=”tag” hyperlink=”yes”]

Commentary (Jan 28, 2017):
This article was written by me around August 2015 and published in Han Chiang News in September 2015 just before “Malaysia Day”. I feel that Malaysians who, unlike yours truly (and my contemporaries who studied in Northern Ireland during the period of 70s to 90s) who have seen at first hand how bigotry have brought man-made calamities to a nation, will not be sensitive to the perils of such political tragedy as in the “Troubles” of Northern Ireland. Malaysia of today is a lot more divided than the Malaysia of the 1970s that I had grown up in. Despite the fact that we are more educated, with almost everyone being literate, and better connected & better informed by modern communication tools, today we are more divided as a people of our most endowed homeland as ever. “Are we all going to be Zombies? ” That is a poser for my readers.


During my stint as the Principal / Vice-Chancellor designate of Han Chiang College / University College (2015 -2017) I mooted the idea of giving my students a chance to both organise and experience what I had when I was an undergraduate at Queen’s University of Belfast: a live concert with live bands and real singers. I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised by the kind of talents that we had among our students and even staff. I left the concert shortly after the DJ entered with his gig so that my students (and perhaps some of the staff on chaperon duties) could let their hair down and boogie the night away without the invisible “intimidation” by my presence.

A very meaningful song – Zombies

One song that was played that night really rekindled my memory of my second homeland, Belfast, Northern Ireland where I spent eight and a half years, most of which was during the so called “Troubles”. The Cranberries’  “Zombies” was a protest song about the “Troubles” of Northern Ireland which was released in 1994 but very well received in Malaysia up to early 1996. My then baby son somehow was fond of this song. The saying was, shortly after the release of this song, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) that had waged a war of terror in Northern Ireland to oust the British since 1968 (and then moved their activities “across the water” to England in the mid 1980s) declared that they would abandon their insurgency and would be switching their fight to the ballot box. It was not till 1998 that peace finally was declared in Northern Ireland. I had a chance to visit Belfast in 1999 and was amazed by the change (for the better) that I would not have imagined when I left my second homeland in 1991.

My first encounter of the “Troubles”

I arrived in Belfast in early October 1982, shortly after the end of the republican’s hunger strike crisis where ten convicted and jailed members of the republican movements went on hunger strike resulting in their death. Tension was high. People were suspicious of each other and some (including a good number of my classmates) were not exactly friendly to foreigners like me. Then on the first night that I moved into a shared house with 3 other Malaysian students, I heard something like a motorbike backfired at around 11 pm. It was, we found out the next day in fact a sectarian killing where a young man was shot dead for being from the “wrong” community just a street away from our house. I experienced at first hand the “Troubles”. Unfortunately I was to experience a great many more of these kind of incidences during my stay in Belfast. As a postgraduate student, naturally my peers and Malaysian buddies were mainly medical doctors. Their tales of injuries and bodily harm due to sectarian violence that they had to treat were even more gruesome to depict here.

A Catholic Buddhist or a Protestant Buddhist?

After a few weeks attending classes as a freshie (first year undergraduate), I managed to break the ice with most of my 27 other classmates. One of my classmates (who shall remain “nameless”) then casually asked me, “Chow, wat arre ye?” (Chow, what are you?)

By then I was beginning to understand the many different accents of the people of Northern Ireland and starting to adopt some of their accents and way of pronouncing English words so that I could be understood. My reply was, “Marn (man), what do ye (you) mean?”

My friend then said, “What’s your religion marn?” “I’m a sort of Buddhist,” I answered (I knew it would be pointless to explain that Chinese Malaysians have this other religion called Taoism that is mixed with Buddhism).

The next question from my friend was devastating. “Are ye a Catholic Buddhist or a Protestant Buddhist?

The sectarian divide in Northern Ireland was so intense that even university students would just classify themselves, inclusive the foreign students like me into either a Catholic or a Protestant.

zombies1-770x470
The “Troubles” in Northern Ireland had caused at least 3,600 deaths with 50,000 people maimed. After experiencing what incited hatred could do to communities in Northern Ireland, I cannot bare to imagine what could happen in my homeland if the bigots are allowed to roam freely!

My first taste of a car bomb

Jobs for graduates in Northern Ireland during the period of the “Troubles” were difficult to come by. Unemployment rate for the population was the highest in the UK. All because of the lack of confidence in the political situation there which deterred business investments. During the early eighties, car bombs were regularly planted at strategic commercial areas around Belfast. On the eve of my Master’s degree graduation in December 1987, I encountered my first car bomb: I was in a car with a friend (who was graduating at the same time with his Ph.D) and we were suddenly diverted by the Police to a side road. The bomb went off on the next street as we were turning! Fortunately for us, the great old Morris Minor that my friend, Dr. Sean D’Arcy had was very solid indeed & the bomb was not too near or powerful to cause us any injury.

Police stations and the security personnel were “legitimate” targets. To compound the matters there were the terror groups on the opposite side of the republicans (the so-called loyalists) waging a similar campaign of terror onto the republican communities. The “Troubles” had caused at least 3,600 deaths with 50,000 people maimed. Such was the scale of this political tragedy.

It’s in your head!

Today, 17 years after the ceasefire, the memory of the “Troubles” still haunt many who have lived through the period, including this writer. Perhaps some of the lyrics of “Zombies” sum up the collective feeling of the people of Northern Ireland well:

And the violence caused such silence

Who are we mistaken

But you see it’s not me

It’s not my family

In your head in your head

They are fighting

With their tanks and their bombs

And their bombs and their guns

In your head in your head they are crying

In your head

In your head

Zombie zombie zombie ei ei……………..

We are not zombies, we SHALL NOT be zombies!

One thing that puzzles me even today is, how come two communities in Northern Ireland which had lived for centuries together, speaking the same base language (English) with similar culture and food could be driven to exert such mistrusts that resulted in many horrible acts of violence against each other. But when these two communities could find a common ground, they could bring peace, prosperity to their common homeland in a short span of just a few years.

We shall not be zombies!

Meanwhile 10, 814 kilometers away in Malaysia, we are being manipulated by those who bank on creating the worst sectarian divide among our people with the power that be often sitting on the fence or turning a blind eye to these acts. After experiencing what incited hatred could do to communities in Northern Ireland, I cannot bare to imagine what could happen in my homeland.

With our multi-religious, multicultural, multilingual and diverse dietary preferences, it would not take much to start a sectarian firestorm if restrain is no longer applied. I feel that the often-overused phrase “tolerant of each other” is wrong. To survive as a nation, Malaysians collectively should be accepting each other as we are and get on with our lives.

If we let the minority with ulterior motives to impose bigotry on our society unhindered then we deserve to be heading towards the Malaysian version of the “Troubles”, which I shudder to think could be overcome in 30 years as it did in Northern Ireland!

Perhaps the keyword to deal with this threat is “Restrain”. We should restrain ourselves from being lured by these minority. We are not Zombies and we shall not be Zombies.