Education is the federal government's top developmental priority and it has put its money where its mouth is.

Under the Ninth Malaysia Plan (9MP), education and training received the largest development allocation - 20.6% of the RM200 billion federal government budget for the five-year period 2006-2010 will be channeled to the development of our nation's human capital.*

For the Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE), this translates to a five-year plan to spend over RM3 billion per year to achieve its goal of’‘increasing access to quality tertiary education’.

We are now a little more than half-way through the 9MP period and it would be appropriate for the MOHE to undergo an interim performance appraisal: Has access to tertiary education increased? Has the quality of tertiary education increased?

Not being a cabinet member or an MOHE official, I don't have the facts and figures to conduct the appraisal. But I'd like to point out a few things that the appraiser should take into consideration:

1.With all due respect to USM, the MOHE's decision to appoint them as the apex university was premature. At the time the decision was made, USM was not the highest rated local university.

Since then, they are the only Malaysian university whose Time Higher Education Supplement (Thes) ranking declined. MOHE officials defended their decision stating that the Thes ranking did not count towards their choice.

But that contradicts MOHE's very aim of the apex programme, which is to be produce a Malaysian university ranked in the world's top 200 in five years, and in top 100 by 2020. S

Surely the MOHE has not quietly changed the objectives of the apex programme? If so, what are the new objectives?

Is the MOHE spending billions of my tax dollars a year to produce a Malaysian university that has the best gardens and deploys the least amount of styrofoam packaging?

2. As a taxpayer, I want my money channeled into projects with the best prospect of national benefit. The goal of the apex university is to be ranked within the world's top 200 universities in five years.

USM's world ranking is currently 313. On the other hand, UM are UKM only have 30 and 50 places respectively to go before they reach 200. Why are we spending so much money to get a university up 113 places in ranking when we can probably use the same (or less) amount of money to get not one, but two universities into the top 200?

If the MOHE cannot discharge their public duty on how best to spend one of Malaysia's largest development allocations, then my tax dollars should be re-allocated to other ministries that can exercise better judgment.

3. With all due respect to Prof Ghauth Jasmon, the MOHE's decision not to renew Rafiah Salim's contract as the vice-chancellor of UM was premature. After just two years at the helm, Rafiah arrested UM's downward spiral, improved its Thes ranking and obtained the best ranking under the local Sistem Penarafan Institusi Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia (Setara).

We've also seen the various awards won by UM for research and science (although admittedly, they don't have the gardens that USM has).

Imagine what Rafiah could have done for the UM if she had been given five years.

It is a travesty that the certain progress of our nation's premier university into the world's top 200 must be handicapped by the short-sightedness and flawed judgment of politicians and bureaucrats who do not or refuse to understand what makes Oxford/Cambridge/Harvard/Yale etc. the great universities they are, and are therefore unable to make the right decisions for Malaysia.

4. The MOHE has denied there is gender discrimination in its selection of university vice- chancellors and deputy vice-chancellors but MOHE's denial can only be credible if the selection committee itself is comprised of members from both genders.

It is shameful that the institutions responsible for the development of our nation's human capital, that the highly-educated officials in charge of Malaysia's tertiary education, have not yet eradicated gender inequalities embedded within the system.

If Malaysia's decision-makers, fifty years post-independence, still have such a parochial mindset, then is it any wonder that our local graduates are unable to be internationally competitive?

Perhaps there should also be a selection committee to evaluate the decision-makers at the MOHE.

5. Speaking of selection committees, why has the higher education minister placed responsibility for vice-chancellor post decisions with the selection committee? They are advisers who provide a recommendation to the minister himself for his ultimate decision.

Surely the minister is not constitutionally-bound to accept the selection committee's recommendation?

With the slowing global economy, with a national budget deficit, surely my tax dollars can be better utilised for the nation's benefit to form a gender-neutral selection committee with a mix of academicians and management professionals (to mitigate the risk of groupthink), rather than to pay the salary and expenses of a figurehead minister?