Market Forces and Globalisation

55

Introduction With the continuing emphasis placed on higher education institutions in many developing countries to produce knowledge workers for the next generation, there has been a continuous demand to strengthen the provision and delivery of higher education systems. The public debate on higher education in many developing countries these days seem to exclusively focus on a few key issues pertinent to the countrys development at a certain point in time. Arguably, the priorities placed on these issues, concerns, hopes and actions might be tackled for about five years to at most a decade (Teichler, 2004: 5). While many higher education systems in the developed world embrace marketisation as a result of their expansions, there are concerns that this can very well result in some dimensions of higher education being pedagogically limited (Molesworth et al. 2009). Nevertheless, these issues and concerns help to serve prioritisation and help shape the trends of higher education provision. With the ascendance of the knowledge economy and the existence of university rankings, the performance of universities is now thought to be improved further by value-added goods and services that are in turn dependent on technological knowledge and skills of innovation and enterprise. Naidoo (2007: 2) makes the observation that in developing countries, less attention has been paid to the more subtle and yet powerful barrier to building high quality systems of higher education. She sees this barrier as the growing commercialisation of higher education and the conception that higher education is a commodity to be traded internationally. The inevitable presence of market forces in this arena has affected the interrelated factors (push and pull) of demand for higher education and the fairly fragile higher education systems found in many developing countries. In this context, the massification of and ever increasing demand for higher education in countries like Malaysia, Thailand, the Phillipines, India and China, to name a few, pose attractive market prospects for potential exporters of higher education from developed countries. Indeed, while this creates and presents interesting opportunities, there are also potential pitfalls that have to be addressed by providers of higher education in developing countries. The indicators of whether a higher education system relies on market forces has more often than not relied on factors such as funding of institutions, institutional autonomy and funding aid. In the past three or four decades, Teichler (2004: 6) observed similar debates among providers of higher education in developed countries with respect to emphasising focus in debate and action on education and economic growth, equality of opportunity, improvement of teaching and staff development, links between higher education and the labour market, diversification of higher education, higher

Market Forces and Globalisation: Implications for Higher Education in Malaysia Sarjit Kaur and Shakila Abdul Manan

4

Sarjit Kaur and Shakila Abdul Manan

56

education management, evaluation and trends towards a knowledge society. In this sense, the future of higher education, especially the role of universities within the construct of the new economy has been a subject of intense debate and speculation. The commodification of knowledge (Jacob, 2003) and the impact of globalisation (Carnoy & Rhoten, 2002; Marginson, 2006) and the rapid pace of technological advancement (the digital revolution) have all impacted on the role of universities and prevailing systems of higher education. This paper discusses how the collective forces of globalisation, in particular, and other related market forces might affect the provision of higher education in a rapidly developing country like Malaysia which has set out to identify itself as a hub of education excellence in this region. In this way, this paper raises issues for further debate and adds on to the discourse of strengthening the provision of quality higher education in developing countries while encouraging international collaboration that may lead to improved capacity building. Defining Globalisation The impact of globalisation on higher education has been widely discussed, with some experts arguing that globalisation, the Internet and the scientific community will level the playing field in terms of knowledge interdependence (Altbach & Knight, 2006). Others see globalisation as a market force that is chiefly responsible for commodifying higher education in developing countries where the increasing need and demand for higher education pose attractive market ventures to private higher education institutions. With the prevalence of such factors at play, there has been considerable transformation in the attitudes of international organisations towards the importance of higher education in developing countries. Naidoo (2007) likens this scenario of knowledge economy within the context of globalisation as having a considerable transformation in the attitudes of international organisations towards the importance of higher education in developing countries. In discussing development through capacity building in higher education and research within the landscape of market forces, Thulstrup et al. (2006) hold the view that the following fast growth of three groups of people will dominate international relations during the coming decades:

The fast growing group of old, relatively wealthy people in Western countries and Japan

The group of increasingly wealthy and productive younger people in successful developing countries like China and India, and

The group of young people in high-birth-rate and low economy countries, who are only given few (educational) opportunities for a better life and are increasingly dissatisfied and bitter; this unfortunate situation is a significant part of the root system of terrorism.

Market Forces and Globalisation

57

At the same time, the group of desperately poor (for example in Africa) is not likely to be reduced fast enough. Globalisation, that has been useful for China and India, does not seem to help Africa nearly as much. Countries like South Korea and Singapore, while poorer than many African countries thirty years ago, have made phenomenal improvements in their economies through major educational efforts that have made it possible for them to use up-to-date technologies efficiently and this has helped reduce poverty (Thulstrup et al. 2006). For developing countries, higher education is not only useful for economic development but it may also have a significant political impact by creating the future manpower base that comprises informed and thinking young people in support of democratic reforms. Today, knowledge-sharing is fast becoming a catch phrase in higher education contexts around the globe -- those who have knowledge (often these are labelled the good universities) must share it with those who need it (e.g. industry, the public sector or the public in general). In trying to unpack the term globalisation, most stakeholders in higher education contexts view this concept as being mainly economic in nature but this phenomenon has profound social and cultural aspects. In attempting to understand how globalisation impacts teaching-learning contexts in higher education, one must first consider the realities of the environment in which higher education is operating as higher education environments these days are varied, face numerous challenges and are often in a state of flux. In this regard, Morshidi (2007: 6) sees globalisation as either a process (a heightened tendency towards interactions and interdependencies of socio-economic spaces) or a fact of the contemporary world (the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole). Generally, he loosely interprets it as a socio-economic and technological process, which tends to blur or diminish geopolitical borders and national systems. In highlighting the patterns and trends of transnational education in Malaysia, he considers the impacts of globalisation as contributing significantly to the competitive edge that currently exists among such education providers. Marginson (2006: 6) defines globalisation as the widening, deepening and speeding up of worldwide interconnectedness which determines the process of growing interdependence and convergence on a worldwide and continental scale, driven by more extensive and intensive flows of people, ideas, information, technologies and money. He lists the distinctive elements in globalisation as follows:

1. the open information environment with instant messaging and data transfer created by communications technologies so that higher education and knowledge are becoming thoroughly networked on a world scale; and

2. Anglo-American institutions will be affected by more plural environments because of growth of research in Asian countries like China, Korea and Singapore with the power of the internet, air travel and knowledge.

In adopting a slightly similar stance, Altbach & Knight (2006: 6) defines globalisation as the broad economic, technological and scientific trends that directly affect higher education and are largely inevitable in the contemporary world. In his view, these trends include information technology in its various manifestations, the use of a


58

common language for scientific communication, the imperatives of societys mass demand for higher education (massification) and for highly educated personnel and the private good trend in thinking about the financing of higher education. With some of the definitions listed above, it is obvious that globalisation is a term and a phenomenon, which is on the minds of policy makers, academics and professionals/practitioners no matter what the sector or discipline (Knight, 2008). In most instances, globalisation engenders strong reactions, both supportive and critical of its process and impact. Knight (1997; 2008) defines globalisation as the flow of people, culture, ideas, values, knowledge, technology and economy across borders facilitating a more interconnected and interdependent way. Other experts refer to the changing context which poses a challenge to higher education or to changes which occur within higher education itself (Teichler, 2004; Knight, 2008). On the outset, it refers to borders of countries and infers a worldwide scope and movement between and among nations and thus, as a phenomenon, it tends to assume that borders and national systems as such get blurred or even might disappear (Teichler, 2004: 7). In some discourses on the subject the terms globalisation and internationalisation seem to be used interchangeably, thereby inviting one to question whether the issues we discuss in terms of globalisation are linked inextricably with internationalisation, whether they are more or less coincidentally related to one of these terms and could also be related to others. In connection with this and within the context of higher education, internationalisation and globalisation are two key elements that feed into debates and discourses (Enders, 2004: 36) and other experts too concur that market and global forces are popular and frequently employed concepts in varying contexts and for diverse purposes (Knight, 1997; Yang 2002; Stier, 2004). Increasingly, the view that seems prevalent these days is that the rise of the market and globalisation are interwoven factors that make any possibility of classifying marketisation and delocalisation aspects difficult. Generally, commodification refers to the development of university activities such as teaching and research within a framework of market relations. Around the globe, there have been strong pressures to roll back state regulation and transform non-market and social spheres such as public health and education services into arenas of commercial activity. In higher education, reduction of state funding is now a common phenomenon with the underlying assumption that this would introduce competition within and between institutions that will lead to greater efficiency, effectiveness and relevance. Even at the global level, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is likely to apply even greater pressure on governments to treat higher education as a commodity. Additionally, developing countries have been seeing an influx of new providers, including private for-profit institutions, which coincided with the relaxation of state regulation in a number of countries over the recognition of degree-granting institutions (Naidoo, 2007). This said, before discussing the political, economic and socio-cultural implications of market forces and globalisation on higher education, it is crucial to first trace the historical development of higher education in Malaysia.


59

Malaysian Higher Education System: Background and Present Landscape According to Lee (2004), the origin and development of higher education in Malaysia can be perceived in terms of three distinctive waves of expansion. The first wave saw the setting up of a first independent university in Malaysia at the time of British rule. During the second wave (in the 70s and 80s), many more public universities were set up to redress imbalances in terms of educational opportunities amongst the different ethnic communities. This remarkable development took place after Malaysia launched its New Economic Policy which took place soon after the bloody ethnic riots of 1969. It literally altered Malaysias higher education landscape. Finally, the third wave, in the 90s, witnessed the accelerated growth of private universities and colleges to meet the increasing demand for university education arising from the commercialization and commodification of higher education. The expansion of higher education was caused by two factors: the democratization of higher education and the emergence of a Neo-Fordist economy that called for drastic cutbacks in university funding (Lee, 2004: 4) and which then encouraged the acceleration of privatized higher education and the corporatisation of public universities. At the time of Malayas independence in 1957, there was a university in Singapore established in 1949 called the University of Malaya, a result of a merger of two well-known institutions of Singapore. The first institution, the King Edward College of Medicine in Singapore, recognized as a full-fledged medical college since 1915, was the only academic institution that offered courses leading to a degree. The second institution, the Raffles College, established in Singapore in 1959 offered courses in English, history, geography and some other subjects leading to a diploma. In 1959, a campus of the University of Malaya was opened in Malayas capital, Kuala Lumpur, and this heralded the first wave of higher education. University of Malaya was the only university that produced trained manpower for the needs of the country when Malaysia was formed in 1963 (Abdul Rahman & Musa, 2007). It had four faculties: arts, science, engineering and agriculture and in terms of its structure and curriculum content it was fashioned after the British educational system. As mentioned earlier, the ethnic riots of 1969 and the drawing up of the New Economic Policy resulted in the setting up of four new universities: Universiti Sains Malaysia (1969), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (1970), Universiti Pertanian Malaysia (1971) (now renamed Universiti Putra Malaysia), and Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (1975) (cited in Lee, 2004: 42). This marked the second wave of higher education expansion. These additional universities were established to correct the widening socio-economic disparities that existed between the Bumiputra (indigene population) and the non-Bumiputra (non-indigene) communities and the lack of national unity amongst the races. The latter was perceived as a direct result of implementing a university education that is modelled after Britain. Hence, these new universities adopted a


60

much more national outlook as their main objectives, as outlined in the 2nd Malaysia Plan (1971-975), were to encourage national integration and unity (Abdul Rahman & Musa, 2007: 27-28). More importantly, in terms of administration, the university no longer adopted an autonomous system as it came under direct state-control. With this development, universities had to adhere to guidelines set up by the Ministry of Education with regard to financing, staff recruitment, and promotion, curricula, medium of instruction, and student enrolment (Lee, 2004: 42). The advent of the third wave saw a rapid increase in the number of universities and colleges as a result of the governments initiative to de-regulate higher education in order to meet the rising demands of higher education. According to Lee (2004: 42), this wave witnessed the establishment of 4 new public universities, 5 university colleges, 9 private universities, and 5 branch campuses of foreign universities. Additionally, two new universities were set up in Sarawak and Sabah respectively: Universiti Sarawak Malaysia (UNIMAS) in 1992 and Universiti Sabah Malaysia (UMS) in 1994. Subsequently, two colleges were accorded a university status: the teacher training college in Tanjung Malim which was ungraded and renamed Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (1997) and the MARA Institute of Technology which was renamed Universiti Institute Technology Malaysia (UiTM) in 1999. Over time, the number of higher educational institutions grew phenomenally with an attendant increase in student enrolment and programmes offered. Since 1996, student enrolment in higher education institutions has been increasing phenomenally chiefly due to an increased demand for higher education from school leavers who saw the value of having a higher education qualification. Public universities could not accommodate this demand. Hence through liberalisation policies, more private higher education institutions were set up to meet this surge in demand. The private higher education sector has recorded significant growth in student numbers and contributed in improving access and equity concerns in Malaysias higher education sector (The Sunday Star, 2009). In 2000, there were 11 public universities, 6 private universities and 283 private colleges. In terms of programmes, private higher education institutions offer a number of transnational educational programmes such as twinning programmes, credit transfer programmes, external degree programmes and distance learning programmes to cater to the growing demand for higher education. The Malaysian higher education system currently consists of 20 government-funded (public) universities, 40 private universities and university colleges and 545 private education institutions (Ministry of Higher Education, 2008). These are multi-faculty institutions, which offer a wide range of courses. Until July 2008, a total of 264,544 students were enrolled in various institutions of higher learning in Malaysia (Ministry of Higher Education, 2008). This figure includes public and private universities as well as polytechnics and community colleges. The general observation concerning undergraduate enrolment in public universities is that it has been steadily increasing (from 27,839 students in 2000 to 403,009 students in 2008). In private higher education institutions, the enrolment of students is also encouraging (419,788 in July 2008), despite higher fee structures than public universities. The Economic Planning Unit (March, 2006) operating within the Ministry of Higher Education, reports that


61

undergraduate students in Malaysian public universities obtain tertiary education that is heavily subsidised by the government. For instance a student following a Computer Science course in a public university pays RM 5,700 for the entire degree programme while a student doing the same course in a private university pays RM 36,500, thereby indicating that the government subsidises RM 27,161 of the fees for the student in the public university. In another example, a student studying Medicine at a public university only pays RM 9,800 for the entire degree course (with the government subsidising RM 265,718) while a student in a private university pays RM 271, 317 for the medical course. Further, an Arts student in a public university only pays RM 4,200 for the course while a private university student pays RM 65,072.

Table 4.1 displays student enrolment data in public and private higher education institutions from 2000-2008:


62

Table 4.1: Enrolment and output of students in higher education institutions, Malaysia (2002-2008)

*Figures for 2008 is up to July 2008 Source: Ministry of Higher Education (2008)

Institutions (all levels)

Enrolment/Output

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 *2008

Public higher education institutions

281,839 57,435

294,359 75,842

293,978 71,924

307,121 79,934

331,025 81,095

382,997 85,448

403,009 56,317

Private higher education institutions

294,600 139,150

314,344 137,018

322,891 134,987

258,,825 57,953

323,787 83,186

365,800 83,431

419,778 51,571

Colleges/Polytechnics/ Community colleges

56,105 18,774

59,916 20,714

73,327 21,441

83,707 28,555

93,318 31,870

98,688 34,451

102,429 35,873

TOTAL 664,402 221,166

698,156 244,643

716,294 239,682

674,499 177,647

774,280 205,076

873,238 212,304

925,216 143,761


63

The current enrolment for the 2008/09 undergraduate academic enrolment in public universities stands at 403,009 students and of this total, 57.7% of students are in the science stream while 42.3% are in the Arts stream (Ministry of Higher Education, 2008). In the Malaysian higher education system, the bachelors degree requires at least three years of full-time study while the masters degree requires an additional two years. Full time studies for a doctoral degree take approximately another four additional years. In most fields, students are able to choose from a wide variety of options, including their choice for minor subjects. The private colleges offer twinning programmes often with foreign universities. Postgraduate student enrolments have also increased in both public and private higher institutions in Malaysia as the demand for knowledge workers grow in workplace environments. Public universities record a higher percentage of postgraduate students (15%) compared to private universities (9%). Table 4.2 below shows the enrolment and output of postgraduate students in Malaysian public and private higher education institutions:

Table 4.2: Percentage of enrolment and output of postgraduate students in higher education institutions, Malaysia (2008)

Institutions

Enrolment/Output (2008)

First Degree Postgraduate

Studies Total

% of Postgraduate

Studies

Public higher education institutions Enrolment Output

258,572 37,655

46,085 5,746

304,657 43,401

15% 13%

Private higher education institutions Enrolment Output

158,158 15,058

9,847 635

168,005 15,693

9% 6%

Source: Ministry of Higher Education (Quick facts, 2008)

Increasingly, globalisation is seen as a trend that identifies the increasing supra-national context in which higher education institutions often operate. In Malaysia, pressures from globalisation have made it an imperative upon the government to ensure that public higher education institutions become more competitive and at par with their global counterparts (Muhamad et al. 2006). In 1995, the Universities and University Colleges Act of 1971 was amended to pave the way for the corporatisation of public universities and by 1998, five of the older public universities were corporatised and as such, these institutions were expected to generate more and more


64

of their operating expenses through other non-governmental sources. Corporatised universities are allowed to borrow money, enter into business ventures, set up companies and acquire and hold inverstment shares. In the Malaysian model of corporatising public universities, the government continues to own most of the universities existing assets, and to provide development funds for new programmes and expensive capital projects (Lee, 1998). In essence, such moves aimed to provide greater access and liberalisation to public universities to manage their own finances (through a variety of revenue-generating activities such as raising tuition fees, increasing student enrolments, conducting consultancies for industry and government and running short-term courses to meet the needs of the private sector) and allow for greater dynamism at institutional level to respond to the changes taking place in the landscape of higher education. It has been noted that some of the effects of corporatisation include greater willingness to follow corporate practices of quality assurance, capital budgeting, governance and other corporate activities.

The Malaysian higher education system underwent considerable expansion from 1980 to 2000, and there are now universities in all parts in Malaysia including the East of Malaysia. The universities were, until 2004, administered under the Department of Higher Education under the Ministry of Education. In 2004, after the recent general elections the governance at the ministerial level has been re-arranged to ensure expansion and sustainability of tertiary education in Malaysia. The Ministry of Education was split into two. The emergence of the new Ministry of Higher Education will help to promote Malaysia as an education hub. Foreign education offices have been set up in Beijing, Dubai, Ho Chi Minh City as well as Jakarta to market the education products that Malaysia has to offer. A special envoy equivalent to a ministerial status was elected to attract blue-ribbon foreign universities to set up branch campuses in Malaysia. Table 4.3 below displays the various foreign universities that have established their campuses in Malaysia:

Table 4.3: Foreign universities in Malaysia

No. Name of University

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

University of Nottingham in Malaysia (UNIM)

Monash University Malaysia (MUSM)

FTMS-DeMonfort University, Campus Malaysia (FTMS)

Curtin University of Technology, Campus Lutong (CUSM)

Curtin University of Technology, Campus Miri (CUSM)

Swinburne University of Technology (Sarawak Campus)

Source: Ministry of Higher Education (2008)

Within the Malaysian context, some of the following factors have put additional pressures on public universities: the reduction in public funding for higher education, the increasing push for industry-university collaboration, the transition to a high-tech


65

economy, value-added and innovation are assumed imperatives, and the advent of private higher education institutions. As such many public universities feel the strain of having to re-engineer and re-invent themselves to cope with social and economic change. However, most public universities view this aspect favourably as they value the role they play in effectively nurturing and promoting innovation in research and teaching. Having said this, one must also consider the flip side of corporatisation and commodification and their implications for higher education which Naidoo (2007) aptly refers to as the perils and pitfalls assailing developing economies. Implications for Higher Education Corporatisation of universities in the country emerged with the primary objective of making these tertiary institutions financially independent and sustainable. Very much in line with the neo-liberal economics being pursued by the government, corporatisation is also seen as a mechanism to help reduce the expenditures of government particularly in the area of higher education. This involves certain measures taken by the universities with the aim of generating income, such as offering more courses, preferably practical ones, that are normally regarded as serving the needs of the industry and therefore providing practical preparation prior to a graduates employment. The implication of this is that certain universities, in their enthusiasm to increase their profits, may be inclined to fine-tune some of the courses by watering down their content and by offering more practical or skill-based courses so as to attract more students. This may be done at the risk of transforming the universities into vocational institutions. As a consequence, this can affect the academic quality and standing of these institutions with the watering down, or marginalising, of certain theoretical offerings. The corollary to corporatisation is the commodification of higher education where knowledge is given a commercial, if not market, value. For one thing, this approach to education is likely to cause certain academic courses being marketed aggressively, such as management, economics, engineering, biotechnology, while other courses, which are equally, if not more, important in nation building, such as history, philosophy, sociology, political science, art, and literature, get sidelined simply because the latter are considered less marketable. Another serious implication of commodification of knowledge is that courses, especially those deemed marketable, may be priced at a level that may not be within the financial reach of especially those in the lower income bracket and the poor. Obviously, such commodification can cause socio-cultural gap between social classes, which may culminate in inter-class conflict in the long run. Besides, this also means that the right to higher education for the less endowed is rudely denied. In their desire to stay financially afloat as well as making profits, universities find themselves compelled to attract and accept more students, local and international.


66

This may be done to the extent of increasing the student-teacher ratio so that teaching becomes less effective within a crowded classroom. Lecturers may find it difficult to pay attention to each and every student who joins a class. One way of overcoming this potential problem is of course for the universities concerned to make a conscious attempt to employ more academic staff, especially those who have impeccable academic credentials to their names. A mere presence of qualified and experienced academic staff should be an attraction to student applicants. On the other hand, the deliberate policy of universities to attract more graduate students, particularly those from overseas, may produce a positive result insofar as opening up possibilities for vibrant and richer cultural and intellectual exchanges and sharing between local and foreign students in their respective fields of studies. New ideas and perspectives of things can emerge which in turn could help to enrich or boost the intellectual development of the students as a whole. Additionally, the end-result of the academic pursuit or research of especially the foreign graduate students would also help to enhance the local collection of academic studies in each of the universities concerned. It is envisaged that the exposure to new perspectives and ideas brought about by the aggressive policy of wooing foreign graduate students would create a vital space for freer and vibrant exchange of ideas, including those that may not find resonance within the educational institutions or the local intelligentsia. The primary aim to attract more students into the respective universities as one way of boosting their coffers may also produce yet another positive outcome, that is, the stiff competition between the universities may compel them to not only be at the frontier of knowledge and advanced research, but also to be more concerned about the need to be rigorous and stringent in the maintaining of academic standards. The liberalisation of education in the country has also given rise to the burgeoning of private universities in Malaysia to cater to the educational needs of both local and foreign students. In the present structure, public universities by and large offer courses in the Malay language while the medium of instruction of the private ones is largely English language. In the long run, this may pose and create serious problems of structural ethnic polarisation given that most Bumiputras dominate the public universities while the non-Bumiputras are largely found in the private institutions. In this connection, Lee (2004: 31) states that about 90% of the student population in private higher education institutions consist of non-Bumiputras. To overcome the challenges posed by this ethnic divide, the government suggested that all courses conducted at these institutions be conducted in the Malay language to allow more Bumiputra students, in particular the Malays to study at private universities since they are much more conversant in this language. This suggestion drew large protests from private education providers as all the transnational education programmes came from Western countries.


67

In trying to indigenise higher education, the Malaysian government also implemented a language policy by making all foreign students learn Bahasa Malaysia (the national language). However, the governments nationalistic sentiments had to be sacrificed as they interfered with Malaysias efforts in making itself a hub of educational excellence. It was found that such a policy was not relevant to the needs of the foreign students. As a provider of education often recognised worldwide as an emerging contender for the market for international students, Malaysia had to include more universalistic elements in the programmes that are being offered. Additionally, as intimated earlier on, although the liberalisation policy of the government widened the access to higher education, it may just benefit the privileged class as the cost of learning in a private university is much higher than in a public university. As such, these have serious implications not just in terms of ethnicity but also of class. Quality assurance is yet another important issue as it involves all stakeholders, including branch campuses that have been set up by foreign universities. Programmes that are being offered by these transnational providers should reach a minimum level or they should be on par with the ones taught in the foreign universities. In maintaining quality, the government had established the National Accreditation Board or LAN (now replaced by the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (hereafter, MQA)) whose primary function is to monitor standards reached by private higher education institutions. In the past, MQA had been shown to be ineffective due to staff shortage. This has resulted in private higher education institutions advertising their courses and recruiting students before getting the approval from the MQA. In this regard, governance and the management of private higher education should be prioritised to ensure that programmes and courses that are offered are of high quality. Conclusion On the whole, this paper has attempted to demonstrate the impact of globalisation and related market forces on the provision of higher education in a rapidly developing country such as Malaysia. This is line with global trends that dominate the debate whether to rely on market forces to achieve key policy objectives in higher education, even though many systems acknowledge such privatisation debates have lacked a clear definition of what it means to rely on market forces. On a positive note, such debates have brought forth relevant questions pertaining to the role of government intervention and academic self-regulation in harnessing the benefits of increased competition and efficiency without losing the traditional conception of a universitys mission in championing public good which society still continues to value. With globalisation and, subsequently, internationalisation, student enrolment had steadily increased in Malaysian institutions of higher learning as observed in their steady influx from neighbouring countries. This increase is also due to the massification and democratisation of higher education. In order to cater to the growing need for higher education and rising student intake, private higher education institutions have been invited to set up branch campuses and to offer a number of


68

transnational educational programmes. Viewed from an economic perspective, such cross-border delivery of education is lucrative as it brings in foreign exchange to the host country. Because it has evolved into a multimillion dollar business, higher education has also become highly competitive. In this regard, providers of higher education are constantly kept on their toes, offering only the best programme and facilities so as to attract potential clients. Public universities have been pushed into forming smart partnerships with the industry and foreign universities to embark on collaborative research which will help to nurture and promote good research and teaching practices. Links forged with the latter can also help in capacity building as trained and knowledgable workforce is vital elements for developing economies. This is particularly true for Malaysia in her quest to become a hub of educational excellence. However, corporatisation and commodification can also pose a danger if we do not exercise caution. This is because market forces can determine the types of courses to be offered and marginalise national needs and goals. Although the massification of education and globalisation can provide students greater access to higher education, it can also further increase the ethnic divide as more Bumiputra or the indigene students are enrolled in public universities than private ones. Corporatisation and commodification become untenable especially if and when it results in deepening the gap between the haves and have nots. As mentioned above, it can also engender ethnic polarisation and, ironically, the lowering of academic standards particularly if quality education is sacrificed at the altar of corporate profits. In sum, these are some of the pertinent issues and challenges assailing all stakeholders which need further study and scrutiny. References Abdul Rahman, H. I., & Mahani, M. (2007). Sejarah perkembangan dan pembangunan pendidikan tinggi di Malaysia. In Z. Moris (Ed.), 50 tahun pembangunan pendidikan tinggi di Malaysia (1957-2007) (pp. 1-37). Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia Press.

Altbach, P. G., & Knight, J. (2006). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. The NEA 2006 Almanac of Higher Education, 2006, 1-11.

Carnoy, M., & Rhoten, D. (2002). What does globalisation mean for educational change: A comparative approach. Comparative Education Review, 46, 1-9.

Economic Planning Unit. (2006, March). Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia. Retrieved July 2, 2007, from http://www.mohe.gov.my/statistik

Enders, J. (2004). Higher education, internationalisation, and the nation-state: Recent developments and challenges to governance theory. Higher Education, 47, 361-382.

Jacob, M. (2003). Rethinking science and commodifying knowledge. Policy Futures in Education, 1(1), 125-142.

Knight, J. (1997). Internationalisation of higher education: A conceptual framework. In J. Knight & H. De Wit (Eds.), Internationalisation of higher education in Asia Pacific

countries. Amsterdam: European Association for International Education. Knight, J. (2008). Internationalisation of higher education in the 21st century: Concepts, rationales, strategies and issues. In S. Kaur, M. Sirat & N.Azman (Eds.),


69

Globalisation and internationalisation of higher education in Malaysia (pp. 22-50). Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia Press.

Lee, M. N. N. (1998). Corporatisation and privatisation of Malaysian higher education. International Higher Education, 10/3.

Lee, M. N. N. (2004). Restructuring higher education in Malaysia. Monograph Series No: 4/2002. School of Educational Studies: Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Marginson, S. (2006). How do you define globalisation? The Navigator, VI(1), 6. Ministry of Higher Education. (2008). Statistics. Retrieved July 3, 2008, from http://www.mohe.gov.my

Ministry of Higher Education. (2008). Quick facts: Malaysian higher education statistics 2008. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Higher Education.

Molesworth, M., Nixon, E., & Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education: The marketization of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(3), 277-287.

Morshidi, S. (2007). How do you define globalisation? The Navigator, VI(1), 6-7. Muhamad, J., Chan, H. C., Suhaimi, S., & Suzyrman, S. (Eds.). (2006). Enhancing quality

of faculty in private higher education institutions in Malaysia. Higher Education Research Monograph 9/2006: Series Editor, S. Morshidi. Penang: National Higher Education Research Institute (IPPTN).

Naidoo, R. (2007, February). Higher education as a global commodity: The perils and promises for developing countries. The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education. Retrieved June 20, 2007, from http://obhe.co.uk

Stier, J. (2004). Taking a critical stance toward internationalisation ideologies in higher education: Idealism, instrumentalism and educationalism. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2(1), 83-97.

Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalisation of higher education. Higher Education, 48, 5-26.

Lim, R. (2009, October 4). In pursuit of excellence. The Sunday Star, Education, p. E8. Thulstrup, E. W., Hansen, J. A., & Gaardhoje, J. J. (Eds.). (2006). Capacity building in

higher education and research: A key component of efficient global development. Retrieved July 13, 2007, from http://pub.uvm.dk/2006/unescoworkshop/kap01.html

Yang, R. (2002). University internationalisation: Its meanings, rationales and implications. Intercultural Education, 13(1), 81-95.

Documents

Market Forces and Globalisation