Funding and Governance of Islamic Higher Education in SE Asia: Indonesia and Malaysia

1. Funding and Governance of Islamic Higher Education in SE Asia:Indonesia and Malaysia • Anthony Welch, University of Sydney • Fulbright New Century Scholar, 2007-8.

2. Geography / Location

3. Indonesia and Malaysia Context • SE Asia embraces around 540 million people (Indonesia 230m, Malaysia 25m), with a combined GDP of US$ 610 billion (or US$ 1.9b in PPP$), but with very wide disparities – both across the region, and within countries. • The highest GDP growth rate of any region in the world (World Bank 2006) • Per capita GDP ranged from US$ 9,120 (Malaysia) to US$ 2,300 (Indonesia) in 2005. • HDI ranks ranged from 59 (Malaysia) to 111 (Indonesia) in 2002. (UNDP 2005). Poverty rates range from 16.6 percent in Indonesia (for 2004), to perhaps 5 per cent in Malaysia (for 20005) (ADB 2005). • Almost half the substantial numbers employed in agriculture are women. • Very high aspirations for higher education at both individual and social levels, and a high commitment to learning. • Very young demographic profile: close to 1/3 of the population in Indonesia and Malaysia are under the age of 15. • Malaysian history of discrimination against non-Bumiputras (i.e. Chinese and Indian Malays), including in higher education. • Constitutional differences in relation to the status of Islam in the two societies.

4. Changes to GDP Growth Rates, last decade.

5. Homogenising Effects on Higher Education • ECONOMIC - powerful homogenising effects of economic globalisation / structural adjustment regimes, which move many systems in a similar direction - at different paces, and to differing degrees (Welch and Mok 2003). Only recently recovered from East Asian economic crisis of late 1990s, and current economic crisis is having powerful effects, esp. on poor. • CULTURAL - homogenizing effect of the rise of global English (Crystal 1997, Wilson, Qayyam, and Boshier, 1998), which is exerting pressure on both teaching and research, not merely regionally. • SOCIAL - gap between official rhetoric and actual practice in each case.

6. The Status of Higher Education • Neither Indonesia has a major research university (none are listed in the Shang Hai Jiaotong 500 Leading Research Uni’s.). • “Another very telling feature of contemporary Islamic societies is the near absence of world-class universities. The standard of publicly funded universities is dismal by international standards.” (Hassan 2008) • But Malaysia is much better placed, and has ambitious plans, incl. becoming a regional Eduhub., and selecting an ‘APEX’ university for special development, in 2008. (University Sains Malaysia).

7. Innovation Indices (World Bank 2006)

8. Relative Research & Development Effort

9. Patents Granted by US Patent Office, by Country, Region and Year

10. Papers and Citations by Country and Year (World Bank 2000)

11. R & D Performance by Sector(World Bank 2006)

12. Proportion of Public and Private Universities (late 1990s)

13. Islam in Indonesia and Malaysia • In Malaysia, Islam is the official religion, whereas in Indonesia, moves to enshrine its constitutional status were resisted in the 1950s. • In Indonesia, Muslims comprise close to 90% of the population, in Malaysia around 60%. All ethnic Malays are defined as Muslim under Article 150 of the Constitution, some Indians are Muslim and a few Chinese have converted. • If ethnic Malays convert from Islam, they lose their ethnic Malay status (with all its privileges), but if a non-Malay converts to Islam, they do not gain Bumiputra status.

14. Islam in Malaysian Higher Education. • Malaysian Islam dates from late 9th. Century. Over the last decade, private HEIs have expanded rapidly, but are largely for and by non-Bumiputras (90% +?). • In practice, ethnic quotas at public HEIs exclude large numbers of Chinese and Indian Malaysians (leading to a loss of domestic talent, and to some brain drain). Discrimination against non-Bumiputra staff persists. • Until 2003, non-Bumiputra enrolments were restricted to 45% of total; informal barriers continue to exist. • The state invests heavily in public HEIs, (incl. the International Islamic University of Malaysia [IIUM]), (also supported by 8 other gov’ts., and with representation from Organisation of Islamic Conference [OIM]), & the Islamic Science University (USIM).

15. Islam in Indonesian Higher Education. • Some of earliest forms of higher learning in Indonesia were Islamic, some of its brightest students went on to Al Azar. • Public HEIs currently comprise 60% of enrolments, and gain most public finance, from Ministry of National Education (MNE). Some well-known public universities are affiliated with major nat’l. Islamic Organisations (Muhammadiyah and Nahdatul Ulaama. • Private HEIs (IAINs UINs and STAINs (small IAIN, with 2-4 faculties), are funded by Ministry of Religious Affairs (MORA), but at a much lower rate than public HEIs.(cf. Sekolah v Madrassah). Fees, minor donations, and bank loans (from Islamic Devel’t. Bank) make up the bulk of income. • Islamic HEIs tend to be patronised by parents who can not afford better quality institutions, hence can not afford to charge significant fees.

16. Governance of Higher Ed.Indonesia • Indonesia has been experimenting with decentralisation of H/Ed., but Ministry of National Education (MNE) is keener than Ministry of Religious Affairs (MORA) - responsible for Islamic H/Ed. Current situation fluid. • Badan Akreditasi Nasional (BAN) responsible for quality audits, including of Islamic HEIs, but in practice there is competition between it and other agencies (such as Kopertis). • In practice, there have long been two categories of Private HEIs: accredited and non-accredited. • Governance complicated by incomplete data on staff numbers etc., partly because of widespread moonlighting.

17. Governance of Higher Ed.Malaysia • Public universities corporatised after E. Asian econ. crisis of late 1990s. • The 20 new private HEIs were still to be controlled by Malaysians, (minimum 40% equity). Quality monitored by National Accreditation Board & Dept. of Private Education (MoE), which was to be replaced by the Malaysia Qualifications Authority in 2007. • Rapid growth of private HEIs led to concerns about programme quality, staff qual’ns., and declining staff-student ratios: “Do less privileged student pay more for inferior education?” Moonlighting by public sector faculty is common; concerns have also been voiced about parity of programmes offered by overseas providers (UK and Australia). • Quality audit in Malaysia introduced ISO type quality management systems, at government behest. MOHE published a Quality Assurance Code of Practice in Public Universities, which involves institutional self evaluation. • A Malaysian rating of institutions, similar to UK’s RAE exercise has also been introduced, as part of Malaysia’s effort to become a regional Eduhub. (Current intnl. enrolments 50,000, with ambitious growth plans).

18. Conclusion • In world terms, both Indonesia and Malaysia are relatively peripheral, although Malaysia is much better placed, and ambitious. • The role of Islamic H/Ed. in each society is complex and longstanding: Malaysian public HEIs gain most of H/Ed. budget, and discriminate against non-Bumiputras; in Indonesia, some public HEIs are Islamic, but those funded by MNE are much better funded than those financed by MORA. • Quality assurance is national, but subject to problems, including competition for control, and corruption, notably in Indonesia. • Indonesia has piloted decentralisation; Malaysia has corporatised its universities and aims to become a regional Eduhub. • While significant expansion has occurred, quality, funding, equity and regulation are all longstanding issues for each H/Ed. system, including among Islamic HEIs.