PKR "Free Education" NOT FOR ALL

PKR statement "Pendididkan adalah hak rakyat dan Pelaburan Negara". "Pakatan Rakyat menjanjikan untuk menghapuskan PTPTN dan memberi pelajaran percuma kepada semua rakyat layak".

That sounds perfect and all in theory, but in reality it is not, and it’s not just budgetary issue. There’s more. My opinion…

PKR tidak menawarkan Pelajaran Percuma buat semua rakyat.

Saya setuju pendidikan adalah investment dan hak rakyat.  Pada pendapat saya, di bawah

naungan PKR, pelajar yang tidak "layak" di IPTA atau tidak mempunyai tempat di IPTA, tidak

akan mampu untuk menangung pelajaran di IPTS.

The term “layak” is not define, and while I initially thought that you could mean just mean

Academic qualifications but in reality that would also mean resources constraints.

If you are follower of my blog, you know I’m a fan of holistic view as in anything we do since everything is interconnected and co-dependent and I believe that the difficult job is finding that balance.

When making small changes, we may see some ripples, but when we are doing reformation to more than one element in our economy, one would expect big waves and unpredictable tides. The only question lies, how much of it can we surf, and what is the tipping point before we drown.

 En Rafizi made an impressive video on the free education thing. You need to really listen to it, and then you will hear what he is really saying.

En. Rafizi, I would like to discuss the following about PKR’s plan.

1. BUKAN SEMUA pelajar akan dapat pelajaran tinggi secara percuma

2. Inadequate budget

Dissecting the “Pendidikan Percuma” video

En. Rafizi made 2 statements:

1)      Crony issue re IPTS – I would like En. Rafizi to proof that there is ill intention that these were set up to sabotage students.

Private institutions (IPTS) do exist in Malaysia and are more costly than public institutions (IPTA).

IPTS entered into agreements with the government to

·         Deal with capacity issue

·         help absorb the students that do not qualify under public education system

·         For programs that are not being offered under IPTA.  

·         Twining programs and overseas exposure

·          

These agreements are legally binding. PKR is looking to reform this.

En. Rafizi, can you please explain :

·         Is it possible for PKR to just void all legally binding agreement?

If so,

·         How do you think it will impact PKR’s image and their value for agreements? What kind of message is that sending to other investors (both foreign and local)?

·         What is the cost to make this null and void?

·         IF PKR is really serious is offering all students free education, why did you not include this cost in your video?

I strongly believed PKR demonstrated their naivety in governing by continuously failing to consider cause-effect and providing adequate budgets.

Do you think, En. Rafizi, this is why PKR  fails to deliver this free education promise in the states that they currently govern?

I’m starting to wonder how much you believe in your slogan “nak seribu daya”!

2)  “There is a possibility that high achievers student cannot afford to further studies because of affordability factor”.

En. Rafizi, can you please clarify on what grounds did you make this statement? In my opinion this is rubbish feeds with intention to scare Rakyat, hence it a bullying statement.

If you believe him in this statement, than you haven’t read the MOE plans and the budget allocated under transformasi for education in Malaysia.

PKR is not offering Education to ALL

Logically under PKR plans, some students will be discriminated, and here is why…

Think about it, do all students score straight As for SPM? IPTA has limited spaces, IPTS are too expensive for self-funding.

If you a realistic and wise person, you would understand that SPM is only a snapshot of a student’s performance at the time. There are many factors that could impair students’ ability to perform for example choosing the wrong stream and their commitment at that time.

I was one of them. I studied in MRSM Berseri under Pure Science stream, I did ok, good enough to get an offering for a pre-med course in University Malaya. I didn’t want to be a doctor and I’m not naturally talented in science. I was put in the stream through assessment system. If I had it my way, I would’ve chosen a hybrid of commerce and art.

I decline the offer and pay my way to study in IPTS. It’s probably one of the best decisions I made in my life. Indeed it cost money but nothing beats passion, and I love doing what I do. How many of you actually love your job and does that passionately?  

There are many students who didn't perform well during SPM because they are in the wrong stream, but do well in IPTS because they adult enough to make the right choices.

Well then, these students will have budgetary issue since there are no more loans available to them.

Under PKR's plan, I believe that the academically high achievers will be rewarded, but those who fail to demonstrate good results during SPM, will be left behind. Or students will lack that choice to choose what is best for their future. That will be the new gap.

PKR’s justification of their plans

Once and for all, let us dissect this idea of look at Latin America and Nordic countries with regards to free education.

En. Rafizi surely you know that you are comparing Apples to Oranges.

Education practice in Latin America countries or Nordics cannot be compared to Malaysia, especially under PKR. The reason being is that for starter, there are no discrimination under their law, all students are entitled to free education, but PKR are only half employing this module. PKR will sabotage their own high literacy campaign as per Buku Jingga. 

Economics conditions in Latin America

Latin America has the best education systems and the highest literacy in world. However, the country is poor.  En. Rafizi, what is the purpose of education when it does not benefit our life financially?

Many of their highly educated citizens flee to other country to do low skills jobs. I have friends from Chile, Cuba, Argentina and I know their stories and the tough life there.

En. Rafizi, perhaps you could explain to your supporter why a country with the highest literacy in the world has poor standard of living?

 My opinion is their government has not allocated their budget for good return on investment, thus failing in stimulating their economic, and that is similar to PKR’s plan.   

Economic conditions in the Nordic

Lucky for me, I’m living in Sweden thus I am able to experience the Nordics ways first hand.

Nordics have excellent economy and high literacy. Is this a better comparison to Malaysia?

Consider the following for a second,

Population size in Sweden is 9.5m, Finland 5.4m and Norway 5m. Their average growth rate is about 1.2% GDP Sweden $538b, Finland $266b, $485b.

Malaysia - Population size 28m and GDP $278b.

The concept is simple, if you are a parent who needs to feed 2 kids you can spend more, if you are a parent having to feed 6 kids, that income is diluted.

Nordics countries are rich and have stacks of reserves comparing to Malaysia. It is worth nothing also that the education is not really free, the people pay education through taxation system both through high income taxes and indirect tax on consumptions.

PKR is looking to cut taxes.

En, Rafizi, do you agree – apples and oranges?

Budgets

Jom kita semak sikit. Let us use PKR’s numbers to starts off, and then let’s dissect about the logic on those numbers.

It is of course naïve and unrealistic that IPTA cost is RM1,700 p.a/ p.p, but let us humor En. Rafizi for a second and use his numbers.

Numbers provided by PKR

IPTA

Pelajar IPTA : 466 ribu org

Yuran IPTA : RM 1,700

Total yuran IPTA : RM 791 million

IPTS

Pelajar IPTS : tak di sebut, tapi dlm yuran sara hidup di sebut 150 ribu orang

Yuran IPTS : tak di sebut, tapi melalu research, cost ini adalah lebih kurang 4 kali ganda.

Ratio pelajar IPTS secara anggaran, mengunakan number PKR

Student ratio:  IPTS/IPTA:  150k/466k = 32% pelajar belajar di IPTS, baki belajar di IPTA.

Anggaran yuran IPTS:

IPTA cost as per PKR RM791m.

From research, IPTS cost 4 times more. 

So,

If 32% of student in IPTS, the cost will be 1,012.48m ((RM791m*32%)*4).

PKR’s budget for IPTS loan is only RM450m per year.

This means there is a shortage of RM 562.48 juta and there are no longer PTPTN to help finance this.

En. Rafizi, given the shortage, can you explain …

·         how can these students finance their education?

·          In your opinion, is the RM 450m budget is sufficient for IPTS?

·         As I understand it right now and as you stated in your video, IPTA are operating at almost full capacity,  that you will need to build new IPTA. What will these students do in the meantime?

·         How will you manage these transitions and its cost?

Limitations to PKR budget

En. Rafizi, I find that there are limitation in your budget, can you please clarify why these cost are not included or considered?

1.      Student population growth about 2.4% per annum if assumed in line with population. 

2.   Labour cost increase since PKR promised for "selaras gaji guru to accountant dan doctor". The only possibility why you haven’t included is probably you are looking for salary cuts for government doctors and accountant?

3.  Insufficient “yuran sara hidup”.  Research shows RM12k per year is required, but only RM5k per year is offered. For those who argue “something is better than nothing” than consider this, you no longer have PTPTN to support the difference, you will need to support this yourself. 

4.   Discriminated against some students in yuran sara hidup. PKR budgeted IPTA student of 466k people but budgeted “yuran sara hidup” for 400k people. This is in En. Rafizi’s video.

5.   There are no budgets or committed timeframe for building new IPTA facilities. This will only make sense if there are transition cost accounted for IPTS, but that too is missing from the calculations.

6.  What about students under MARA, sponsorship and parents’ sponsorship. Is this included in your calculations since you focus only on PTPTN.

If PKR is serious to fund education for all, then you must include sponsored students in your calculations too because education will no longer be seen as a benefit, so large corporations will not have incentive to contribute.

IS PKR plans to say “layak” is also means tested? That way, the poor can benefit this system more? If so, then the rich people will be taxed twice, and that would be unfair. It would mean that they will need to pay for their own kids education and then they would need to pay for another person’s kids education through tax. 

PKR policy lacks of balance. You see, taxation is the best mechanism for income distributions but the benefits must be shared equally. What say you En. Rafizi?

Finally without PTPTN, how can government continue to fund students studying abroad? Will you just create another type of funding? Apa beza dia?

Some people may argue, why study abroad? There are many reasons for studying abroad, but an important one would be lack of course offering or lack of quality especially for course that requires R&D but the skill sets is desirable and will benefit Malaysia’s economy.

7.  Failure to include cost of canceling existing contract and agreement that is already in place. This would mean that PKR will not be able to deliver this promise immediately.

So, where is the transition cost?

Myth busters- Ethnicty versus education

Some stats

·         IPTA intake statistic average Bumi 75%, Chinese 20%, Indian 3% and other 1.7%.

·         Average academic success rates are Bumi 75%, Chinese 88%, Indian 83% and Other is 63%.

·         Population distribution Bumi 60%, Chinese 23% Indian 7%, others 9%.

·         Malay fertility rates are 40% higher than Malaysian Indians and 56% higher than Malaysian Chinese .

Do students really get discriminated by race and do not get the education they deserve?

Let’s put that into context, on average, I believed that the Bumi and Chinese population by ratio is doing pretty good, in terms of IPTA intake and success rate. If you compare to ratio by population size, it also demonstrate fairness.

In my opinion, there is to be a need for redistribution of space for the Indian population, if you average that out by success rate, I think there should be a movement of 4% and re-allocation maybe can come from “other race” given lower success rate.  

Is that fair? Should we do the reallocation by race? How?

In my opinion, under PKR current policies, there is a big chance that “other” race may get left behind, given the lower education success rate. PKR policies focus on the education success at IPTA and IPTS level “mengikut syarat kelayakan”, which is academically and also resources.

However, to date, I’ve not seen emphasis on education for primary and secondary school, not in their highlight budget or in buku jingga.

Guys, think about it, if the success rate is high for a certain race, but the intake is low, something in the system is not working as it should. We have to ask why?

A better education system is to invest in education system holistically especially in developing areas, kampung areas, Felda and plantation areas.

First, we need to bridge this quality of education gaps in primary and secondary schools.

Next , the system must offer a more variety of education stream so that this can be match with talents and interest.

Then, the government must make it affordable and accessible.

Finally, the system should aim to increase the student’s chance of success so that Malaysia can yield from them and benefit from their future contribution to the economy.

Oh yes, En. Rafizi, it is not easy being government. It is not simple “Hapuskan PTPTN” will help reform education system in Malaysia. Don’t you agree?

Malaysia has good education system, but it needs to be made more effective. We need money injected in the system to actually bring this to the next level.

My opinion is it is better under Transformasi.

Under Transformasi and consistently also under national budget and MOE manifesto, I found that there is a focus for cash injection to the overall system addressing stream, skill training, quality teachers and across broad spectrum from pre -school to higher learning.

I’m especially pleased to the focus on cash injection for the Indian community. If I’m honest, when I did the Myth buster ratio, I was hoping to proof there are no gaps but instead I found one. For me, by this cash injection, it shows the government acknowledges this issue.

But taking away from the “other” race is unfair. So, under transformasi, there are budgets for increasing capacity and bridging education quality gaps.  

Skeptic- look,  the budget is there, if you are not seeing the progress, then push MOE. I believe strongly that if you learn to work with the system, you will get what you want. After all, isn’t our whole debate is about improving our life now and for the future?

Thank you.

-fida.i-

Footnote

Some things I pulled from the budget under Transformasi:

·         Govt budget 38.7b for pembangunan dan pengurusan – 21% of budget Negara

·         RM 500m increase for teachers competency

·         RM1b for developement and pembinaan plus additional RM1billion to adding ethnic schools.

·         Budget for pra sekolah – early foundation and for OKU

·         Employability task force RM20m - this is for economy stimuli effort.

·         Softskill training – incentive by tax reduction

·         RM440m for tahap kemahiran

·         RM366m for latihan kemahiran perindustrian dan belia

·         RM600m for R&D

Under the highlight budget, I’m unable to compare  Reformasi plans (vague) to Transformasi.  I’m unable to get access to their full budget. I have messaged and tweet En. Rafizi and Nurul Izah and their supporters but to date I did not get any response. If PKR is really serious about being government, their full budget should be readily accessible to public.