The recent decision to keep University of Malaya's matriculation centre open was instructive in the manner it was done. The university announced the closure in 1999, but early this January some professors and students protested. Their views were prominently reported in a vernacular newspaper widely regarded as reflecting Umno's grassroot sentiments.

Sure enough, as if on cue, our deputy prime minister quickly chimed in, suggesting that the centre should remain open. Sensing a wind shift, the education minister, too, readily chirped his intention of conveying "in the strongest possible terms" his and the deputy prime minister's view to the vice-chancellor. To its credit, the university reiterated its stand to close the unit.

Meanwhile, Umno Youth, desperate for a populist issue to latch on, began championing the cause of those professors and students. The issue was finally brought up at the Umno supreme council, with the prime minister, no less, making the final decision to keep the facility open.

A number of points deserve highlighting. First, the centre is only a minor academic division within the university. In budgetary terms it is minuscule, perhaps a million ringgit per year. Yet it commanded the attention of the prime minister, his deputy, the education minister, and of course, the entire Umno Youth hierarchy.

In contrast, the recent purchase of MAS shares, involving billions of ringgit in public funds, was hardly debated. No mainstream papers ran editorials on the issue. There is a grossly misplaced priority somewhere here.

Second, there must be good reasons for the initial decision to close the centre. Surely such decisions are not made capriciously. Are those reasons less valid now? The individual who made that first decision must be able to defend it publicly. Merely saying he or she is following minister's orders will not cut it.

Greatly relieved

I am a strong proponent for closing the centre. Our universities are squandering their valuable academic and physical resources doing something that could be done more efficiently and cheaply elsewhere.

If those impressively titled professors insist on teaching matriculation classes (which are nothing more than Sixth Form) then they should be paid as teachers. No inflated professor's salary or title for doing glorified high-school teaching.

I would have expected those academics to be greatly relieved if not jubilant in not having to teach elementary level classes so they can pursue their own scientific interests and scholarly activities.

Perhaps these professors are not interested or may be incapable of teaching and doing research at the university level, their glittering doctorates not withstanding.

Twenty years ago the centre was a smart idea. It was rightly credited for increasing substantially the number of bumiputra science undergraduates. But times have changed. Now with a multitude of residential schools, matriculation classes can be taught far more cheaply outside the university.

Our universities should be doing only those academic activities that cannot be done elsewhere, that is, education at the undergraduate, graduate, and professional levels.

Now that the decision is reversed, the original basis for closing must be reexamined so that those concerns can be addressed. The centre was initially designed to increase the number of bumiputra science students.

They were deemed to be at a disadvantage for having attended poor rural schools where the teaching and laboratory facilities were inadequate. We should reemphasise those goals, stressing disadvantaged bumiputras.

Keeping true to its original objective, I suggest that the centre cater only to disadvantaged rural students. That is, use it as the university's outreach programme. Students currently attending well-equipped urban or residential schools should not be admitted. I would also exclude children of parents with degrees. By being restrictive in this manner, the centre will truly augment the pool of bumiputra undergraduates.

Curriculum revamp

In a recent interview with Utusan Melayu, the professor in charge bragged about the centre having trained children of many prominent Malays. These are precisely the students the centre should not admit.

The sons and daughters of the likes of Hussein Onn will do well with or without the centre. They should be able to take care of themselves and should not crowd out those kampong kids who truly need the extra help provided by the centre.

The university should not use its precious professors to teach these classes. Rather it should employ those with masters or good honors degrees as instructors. Leave the professors to do research and to teach at the degree level. This would optimise the use of valuable academic resources.

I would also revamp the curriculum, making English compulsory and taught daily. To improve the students' verbal skills, I would have them take part in small group seminars in English where they would read aloud and participate in class discussions. Additionally, the students are to be made computer literate. Equip them with laptops and wire that part of the campus with a view of extending it later to the whole campus.

This controversy holds an important lesson. If our senior public officials constantly have their decisions second-guessed and reversed by political operatives, it would certainly undermine their authority and credibility. No executive worth his salt would tolerate that.

Executives must make major decisions and be held accountable for them. If we treat them as mere administrators then we should not be surprised if we cannot attract and retain top talent. In the end our public service would be the loser. The already low esteem in which it is now held would only suffer more.