By Mustaqim Badrul Hisham
The University of Malaya vice-chancellor’s recent remarks about its open pathway or direct intake programme once again raises a pressing question: are our public universities still truly public?
Noor Azuan Abu Osman Azuan claimed the Satu open channel does not provide ‘backdoor’ entry.
However, this statement appears to sow doubt among the public and students – a tactic that resembles gaslighting in psychological terms.
In reality, the existence of this open channel creates a second distinct pathway. The first (UPU) is subsidised; the second (Satu) is more expensive. But students from both pathways enter the same institution, study at the same colleges and receive the same syllabus.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN), Maybank a/c 507246118995 or CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
Imagine a pothole-ridden road, but some are asked to pay extra just to use the same broken infrastructure! This appears to be a form of injustice.
Malaysian students who enter through Satu are also citizens who pay taxes. Some of them also come from underprivileged backgrounds. A fee difference exists between the two admission pathways, and it is not based on the students’ socioeconomic status. As a result, poor students might end up paying far more than wealthier ones who entered through the subsidised UPU channel.
Some argue that students should just “try harder” to get in through the UPU pathway.
This argument is not only lazy. It indirectly admits that merit is no longer the basis for selection in the open channel, making the ‘back door’ label all the more fitting. Thousands of deserving students are denied entry, not because they lack merit, but because the subsidised UPU’s intake capacity has not increased.
Those entering through the back door (the Satu open pathway) are clearly not competing with as many applicants as those applying through the UPU subsidised system, which considers not just academic results but also co-curricular scores. All they need is the minimum academic qualification – and the ability to pay exorbitant fees.
To suggest that this open Satu route is not easier than the UPU route appears naïve and suggests a severe lack of intellectual honesty in assessing how the system truly works.
If the goal is to commercialise education, then why not put all students on a level playing field and charge fees based on household income? Wouldn’t that be fairer? Why must there be two separate systems, where the poor are forced to pay substantial fees?
If the university genuinely wants to help more students pursue higher education, why not increase the existing UPU intake capacity? Why has that been left unchanged, especially when no new public universities have been built?
Do those sitting in air-conditioned offices truly remain unaware of how problematic their decisions are? Whether or not they admit it, they bear responsible for every opportunity denied to those with no other options.
This move highlights concerns about policymakers who appear to fail to grasp the true meaning of the word public in ‘public university’. When citizens are forced to fork out up to half a million ringgit for higher education at a public institution – even after paying taxes – can that university still be considered public?
What distinguishes the University of Malaya from private universities now? Both demand substantial sums of money from citizens.
Meanwhile, much tax revenue is wasted or leaked by public officials who collect substantial salaries whilst questions remain about their job performance.
The University of Malaya vice-chancellor indirectly admitted that the open channel serves as a revenue-generating stream, as he did not deny it.
His failure to address this issue suggests that the university has strayed from the fundamental principle of a public university: to provide education to the people – not to operate as a business entity chasing profit through commercial channels. This principle was also reiterated by the higher education minister, who stated that public universities are not supposed to function as businesses.
Therefore, the existence of the ‘open’ channel must be halted, as it appears to violate that principle.
Without transparency, such a system may open the door to abuse of power and corruption.
The university should disclose full statistics: how many students enter through the subsidised UPU each year? Is the number really consistent, or is it shrinking? And if the number of students admitted through the open channel is increasing, doesn’t that suggest a possible reallocation of the number of seats between the two admission channels?
What happens if the seats allocated to direct intake students are not filled? Are they left empty even when there are students from low-income families who desperately need them? Are these decisions made with wisdom and knowledge – or driven by greed or profit considerations?
The vice-chancellor and university management should consider their positions. They appear to have failed to protect an institution founded to democratise access to knowledge and uplift those who cannot afford private education. They may have betrayed the social trust given to them by the people and the students.
Based on the arguments presented, the profit-driven direct intakes in public universities should be stopped immediately. The principle that public universities belong to the people – and are not exclusive spaces for those who can afford it – should be reinstated.
The government must fully fund public universities so that they are no longer forced to treat students as ‘customers’ to sustain their operations.
It is pointless for the government to keep insisting that public universities are not businesses while forcing them to behave like one due to insufficient funding. All the while, taxpayers’ money continues to be wasted supporting the lavish lifestyles and projects of the nation’s elite.
Mustaqim Badrul Hisham is a graduate in public administration and student rights advocate who is active in the Socialist Students’ Union Movement (Aksi) and the Malaysian People’s Advocacy Assembly (Haram). His writing focuses extensively on education policy, social justice, and the need to place people back at the centre of the country’s policymaking.
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
