AS Malaysia faces perhaps the most difficult political-economic and health crises in her history, many major policy and strategic decisions are being left in the hands of our civil servants. 
 
In this regard, Gerak is deeply troubled to learn of inconsistent decisions being made by the Higher Education Ministry (MOHE). 
 
The most recent involves the appointment of the CEO of the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) Professor Dr Mohammad Shatar Sabran, to the board of directors (LPU) of Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP), with effect from August to August 2024.
 
Gerak is bewildered by this appointment as it does not reflect any effort by MOHE to improve professionalism in the management of higher education institutions.
 
It reflects continued poor and inconsistent decision-making with little reference to agreed policies in the ministry.
 
Shatar was formerly vice-chancellor (VC) of Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris. In early February, he was seconded to head the MQA for a three-year term. 
 
The MQA is a national ‘quality assurance body’ that was set up to ‘monitor and oversee quality assurance practices and accreditation of national higher education’. 
 
This is a gargantuan task.
 
It is obvious that Shatar already has his work cut out for him as the MQA CEO, considering the shabby state of academic quality and lack of policy direction in Malaysian higher education.

This recent UMP appointment more than suggests a probable case of a conflict of interest for the MQA CEO. 
 
On the one hand, he is tasked with maintaining academic standards at all levels of Malaysian higher education and for all institutions, private and public. 
 
On the other, as a member of the UMP LPU, he is now subjected to collective responsibility within the UMP LPU, the autonomous policy-making body of the university.
 
We need to understand that both the MOHE and MQA have their very own University Transformation Programme Green Book that aims at “Enhancing University Board Governance and Effectiveness”.
 
How, pray tell, can Shatar’s appointment ensure the development and promotion of university autonomy in UMP if this decision by MOHE is going to undermine UMP’s Board and Senate responsibilities as stipulated by MOHE’s very own Green Book?
 
Is it also not a potential conflict of interest for a university professor of one university on secondment to MQA to be appointed to sit on the Board of Directors of another university?
 
Are there really no other former academics of good international standing to serve on the UMP board as its “knowledgeable and experienced representative”? 
 
Gerak firmly believes there are. But did MOHE even try to get them to serve?
 
Additionally, during this pandemic, MQA appears to have taken on the novel role of a welfare service. In early August, Shatar distributed MQA-funded food vouchers and hygiene kits to 2000 UKM students - but not to other students elsewhere in Malaysia evidently. 
 
What was the point of all this, beyond being a publicity stunt? Are welfare handouts a new role for MQA? But isn’t student welfare policy the purview of University Boards?
 
A week after this caper, MQA was acting like a civil service super agency instructing all higher education institutions in EMCO areas via an “MQA advisory note” that they could relax their minimum student study hours to 70-80% to maintain their student credit requirements. 
 
Gerak would like to ask: Aren’t academic quality assurance and study requirements the responsibility of university senates?
 
Further, by issuing instructions to universities, aren’t MQA and MOHE undermining the statutory role and responsibilities of autonomous university boards and senates as enshrined by the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA) and respective university statutes? 

Where is the policy consistency here? Does MOHE not follow through on its policies? Or is policy inconsistency the current normal in MOHE?
 
Gerak has constantly called for improved quality standards and procedures in the management of higher education. Troublingly, instead of growing professionalisation, what we see in MOHE is inconsistent decision-making and continued policy haphazardness. 
 
This perception is not helped when one realises that many appointments to University Boards of late have been loaded with political considerations.
 
This policy fuzziness is also reflected in the appointment of the new VC of UiTM, Prof Dr Roziah Mohd Janor, who took office on August 9, 2021. 
 
An earlier Utusan Malaysia (August 7, 2021) report suggested that she is the first woman VC of UiTM. But a later report (The Star, August 12, 2021) suggested that she was appointed in an acting capacity.

Fuzziness aside, it may well be that the timing of her appointment is such that MOHE wants the next Minister to authoritatively endorse her candidacy. 
 
But is this necessary? Especially if in all likelihood, the decision to appoint her was made on the recommendation of the Jawatankuasa Tetap Perlantikan Naib-Canselor Universiti Awam, a body created to advise the minister on all VC appointments under Section 4A of the UUCA.
 
But even if it was necessary to appoint Roziah in an acting capacity, why then wasn’t the appointment of Shatar to UMP’s LPU similarly made in an acting capacity until the next minister takes office to endorse his candidacy? The inconsistency is glaring.
 
In the wake of these disturbing inconsistencies, Gerak calls on the MOHE to explain to the Malaysian public what higher education policies and standards it genuinely adheres to.
 
MOHE must also explain what standard operating procedures are currently in place, if at all, and how these troubling decisions and procedures conform to these higher education policies. – August 20, 2021.

* Pergerakan Tenaga Akademik Malaysia is an association of Malaysian academics committed to educational reform. 

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.