Every time universities, especially public ones, announce new admissions following the release of Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) examination results, complaints of unfair treatment from certain groups inevitably arise.
Most of the complaints revolve around why some applicants with excellent results fail to gain entry while others with lower results are admitted.
What could have possibly gone wrong? If the complaints are valid, why do they remain unresolved? Is there a genuine cause for concern? Or are they simply expressions of frustration?
I don’t want to sound biased, but I believe some of the cases are genuine. As the famous Malay proverb says, “Jikalau tiada angin, manakan pula pokok bergoyang,” which means, “If there is no wind, the trees will not sway.”
To conclusively resolve this issue, it is imperative that authorities, especially universities, thoroughly investigate the complaints.
Dismissing them outright is inappropriate, considering that this issue seems to have no foreseeable resolution. Moreover, it would cause unnecessary tensions in the education system.
It is even worse when the applicant’s qualifications meet the criteria. Could it be that the applicant failed to impress during the interview, thus affecting their admission qualification? In such cases, an explanation might be necessary. Or is it due to the so-called quota system?
Proponents argue that affirmative action and fair admission policies are necessary to address historical and systemic inequities.
Minority groups have faced centuries of discrimination and exclusion from educational opportunities.
Ensuring fair admission is a way to level the playing field and provide these groups with opportunities that have historically been denied.
Recently, former Law Minister Datuk Mohd Zahid Ibrahim suggested that the government should stick to a meritocratic approach in allocating matriculation spots if it wants to reduce tensions in the education system.
Commenting on Putrajaya’s move to guarantee matriculation spots for all students who score at least 10 As in their Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) exams, Zaid questioned how many non-Bumiputera students would be able to achieve this mark.
Zaid proposed that the Bumiputera quota in matriculation colleges should be abolished so that high achievers with fewer than 10 As could enrol, regardless of race.
Students sitting for SPM typically take nine subjects in school, with the addition of electives, to achieve higher distinctions and score 10 As or more.
“What about those who score nine, eight, or seven As? I feel sorry, especially for the poorer Indian and Chinese families. Ninety per cent of matriculation places are already reserved for Bumiputeras, and their children have to get 10 As to qualify.”
Anwar, recently, stated that students who score 10 As and above in their SPM exams will be guaranteed a spot in matriculation colleges regardless of race or background, starting with the 2025 intake.
However, he stated that the existing Bumiputera quota for the matriculation programme would not be affected because, while meritocracy was important, there was still a need to avoid putting marginalised and poor communities at a disadvantage.
In a post on X, Zaid suggested that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim should aim to reduce tensions in the education system and provide a long-term solution by being fair to everyone.
He mentioned that Putrajaya could still be fair and equitable while upholding Article 153 of the constitution “reasonably and rationally.” Article 153 addresses the “special position” of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak.
Racial quotas for admission to public universities were abolished in 2002. However, matriculation colleges maintain a 90% quota for Bumiputeras, and certain foundation courses are exclusively for Bumiputeras.
The country’s education system would benefit immensely from fair admissions across all races. It promotes a diverse learning environment and, at the same time, enriches the educational experience by exposing students to different perspectives and fostering critical thinking.
This, in turn, prepares students for a globalised workforce and society, enhancing their social and cultural competence.
Fair admissions are also seen as a form of social justice. They help rectify the disparities in educational access and outcomes that exist along racial lines.
By ensuring that students from all races have equal access to higher education, the government can promote social mobility and reduce the socioeconomic gaps that persist in society.
I don’t deny that those not in favour of fair admission would argue that it may undermine meritocracy and lead to reverse discrimination. They would argue that university admissions should be based solely on merit, not on racial quotas or affirmative action.
But don’t get me wrong. What I am suggesting is fair admission based on meritocracy, not racial quotas.
I also agree with the prime minister on lowering the criteria for students from rural areas, as they do not have the same privileges as their counterparts in urban and suburban schools, which have access to more amenities.
Ensuring fair admission based on race can lead to reverse discrimination, where individuals from majority groups or other minority groups feel unfairly disadvantaged.
Policies that prioritize race over merit can create resentment and division, undermining social cohesion and perpetuating feelings of injustice.
Therefore, the best solution, although a significant challenge for policymakers and educational institutions, would be to find a balanced approach that addresses these concerns while promoting inclusivity and fairness.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of the New Sarawak Tribune.
