University admissions: Inclusive or discriminatory?

Malaysia's university admission system continues to spark heated debate over fairness, with calls growing for reforms that balance merit, equity and social cohesion

Inside a university lecture room - AI-GENERATED IMAGE

Follow us on our Malay and English WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram, Tiktok and Youtube channels.

The policy on public university admissions has been a political hot potato in Malaysian politics for decades.

It draws much attention despite it affecting only a small percentage of students in Malaysia.

The most recent outcry was over the higher education minister’s remarks on the subject. He said: “Malaysia will continue to support inclusive education and stand with institutions and communities affected by measures that limit access and weaken diversity.”

These remarks were probably in direct reference to the current fiasco in the US, where Donald Trump’s administration has banned or halted foreign student enrolment.

The minister’s comments sparked an immediate backlash. Various quarters pointed to the unequal access and lack of diversity in public universities in Malaysia, in particular at Mara University of Technology (UiTM).

UiTM (previously Mara Institute of Technology) has not allowed the enrolment of non-bumiputera Malaysian citizens since its inception in 1956 – other than a small number in preparatory courses for overseas-bound government scholars. However, it had always admitted some Singapore and Brunei Malays.

In recent years, the enrolment of foreign students, including from China, has increased to over 5,000. Most of them are postgraduate students paying much higher fees. This move was to enable UiTM to move up the QS World University Rankings.

It is a wonder that UiTM students or Malay nationalist groups did not protest against this!

On the other hand, this development must have felt like salt rubbed into the wounds of the ethnic minorities within Malaysia who are denied such opportunities.

Many have claimed that seemingly fairer admission criteria based on meritocracy have been sacrificed in the promotion of affirmative action and racial quotas. The result is institutionalised discrimination against the non-bumiputeras.

University admissions are an important political flashpoint as demand for higher education has grown while places in public universities are limited.

Although more private universities and colleges have mushroomed, their tuition fees have risen steadily. Not surprisingly, public universities with their much lower, subsidised fees are often the first or preferred choice for many.

Universities are often seen as places to gain knowledge and higher skills. The paper qualifications obtained help to ensure upward socioeconomic mobility.

But these days, many universities chase higher global rankings. They prioritise economic and market-oriented variables over students’ scholarly pursuits and holistic intellectual development.

Even so, public universities should be used as policy instruments to create greater social equity and social cohesion – though at times these seem like conflicting outcomes.

Equity or merit?

A recent report on admission policies for public universities in Malaysia by Ooi Kok Hin from Architects of Diversity provides important information about the centralised admissions system (commonly referred to as UPU). It also provides a robust assessment of the public universities’ admission process.

This report provides greater clarity while dispelling some misconceptions. It also outlines some policy recommendations to improve fairness and transparency in the process.

UPU was used for many decades as an instrument to further the economic restructuring envisioned under the New Economic Policy (NEP). This restructuring aimed to create an ethnic Malay or bumiputera professional middle class. One way was through ethnic quotas for university admissions, and its success has been well documented and largely acknowledged.

However, it has resulted in unequal and limited access for the ethnic minorities. This sparks public outrage every year when the university intake is announced. Ironically, it seems like social cohesion is sacrificed, at least in the short term, in the quest for social equity.

The AOD report states that explicit ethnic quotas for admissions were abolished in 2002, except for some specific programmes reserved for bumiputera students.

READ MORE:  Kenaikan pangkat Leftenan Jeneral Johnny Lim merupakan kejayaan yang wajar dirai

The admissions system over the last two decades has been handled by a centralised digital platform. Applications are evaluated based on a merit or points system, based on relevant public exam results (90%) and extracurricular activities (10%). Some courses include an entrance exam or interview.

This system covers more than 1,500 diploma and degree courses offered in public universities and colleges.

Candidates are offered places based on their merit score and fulfilment of entry requirements. These include entrance exams or interviews, availability of places, and the candidates’ ranking of their six to 12 chosen courses of interest. 

Applications from Orang Asli, students from low-income households, athletes and students with disabilities bypass this primary merit system. Their admissions depend on the students fulfilling basic admission criteria and on the availability of places.

Despite ethnic quotas no longer being used for public university admissions, many seem unaware of this. Many more still consider the system unfair and discriminatory, even if not by design.

As the majority of low-income households are bumiputera, it could help explain why Malays and other bumiputeras make up about 80% of the enrolment in public universities. A significant number of them secured admission by bypassing the primary merit system.

While there is no explicit ethnic quota that favours the bumiputeras, the ‘equity factor’ does result in an inbuilt bias, favouring more bumiputera candidates from lower-income households.

Does this make it unfair for the others then? Would it amount to reverse discrimination?

The AOD report also highlights another point of contention: the perceived unfairness of the dual-track entry pathways through either the STPM higher school exams (Year 13) or the matriculation pathway, which involves 90% (or more) of the bumiputera students.

The STPM exams are generally seen as more difficult than the matriculation pathway.

The absence of a common, uniform entrance exam is perceived as disadvantageous and unfair to the ethnic minorities, who are mainly in the STPM pathway.

This is borne out by statistics which show that matriculation candidates are far more successful in securing admission into high-demand courses like medicine, dentistry, law and pharmacy.

Last year, the prime minister announced that all students who achieve at least 10As in their SPM (Year 11) exams – almost 5,000 students – will be offered a place in matriculation colleges, irrespective of ethnicity. (The 90% quota reserved for bumiputera students would be maintained.)

This would address to some extent one of the long-standing points of ethnic minority grievance.

But it does not resolve university admission-related issues in any substantive or effective manner.

Then again, would a universal or uniform ‘merit’ system based on public exam results be a fairer and more inclusive system – especially if there is no level playing field?

Those of us who come from small rural schools or poorer segments of society would be acutely aware of the inherent deficiencies and obstacles in facing such public exams. These put students from poorer backgrounds at a clear disadvantage from the start.

Beyond ethnic discrimination

Interestingly, the AOD report points out that the 2023 university admissions statistics showed that the success rate among eligible bumiputera candidates for admissions to degree courses was 69% compared to 78.7% for eligible non-bumiputera candidates.

This means there were many more eligible bumiputera candidates who were unable to secure admission into public universities. However, it could also mean that many ethnic minority students did not even bother to apply to public universities in the first place.

READ MORE:  Embrace Johnny Lim's promotion to lieutenant general as meritocracy in action

It would be simplistic and inaccurate to look at this issue as a case of Malay versus non-Malay racial discrimination. The disadvantages and obstacles faced by students often cut across ethnic boundaries. Students from rural areas or low-income households are more negatively affected, irrespective of ethnicity. This is true not just with university admissions but with many other aspects of life as well.

The AOD report points out that several factors make it more difficult for economically disadvantaged groups to access available opportunities. Unequal access to information, including about the intricacies of the UPU selection process, does not help. Disparities in internet access due to the digital divide limit knowledge of opportunities. The lack of additional tutoring and personalised guidance from teachers, mentors and parents handicaps students from low-income households. All this on top of a lack of financial means.

Ironically, some universities that were given autonomy to bypass UPU and admit students directly have enabled students from more privileged backgrounds to gain entry through the direct intake pathway. This pathway, managed by the commercial units within the respective universities, is variously labelled as “offshore programme”, “premium channel” or “commercial channel”, for obvious reasons.

This direct intake pathway gives candidates better access and more control over the choice of university and academic programme. One public university even advertises the advantages of this pathway: less competition and no UPU merit point assessment.

The downside is that the places available through this pathway are not subsidised by the government. Students pay the full fee for Malaysian students, which ranges from about RM50,000 to RM300,000.

This pathway is also open to international students who are required to pay even higher fees. As one social media commentator succinctly put it, “You only compete with people with money!”

Whither equity and inclusivity?

When privilege trumps poverty

This capture of public university places by the rich can also be seen in UiTM, whose original objective was to uplift and provide upward mobility for underprivileged Malays, mostly from rural areas. Over the last six decades, the institution has expanded and evolved to become the largest public university in Malaysia. With 34 campuses across country, it has so far produced over a million bumiputera graduates. Undeniably, UiTM has contributed to the NEP objective of restructuring society and producing a sizeable bumiputera professional middle class.

But even in UiTM, candidates from poorer segments of the Malay or bumiputera community were often not able to access opportunities for higher education. Many did not have the minimum entry requirement of three to five SPM credits, including in Malay, English and maths, for most diploma courses. Thus, ‘merit’ did not result in equity.

To overcome this problem, UiTM introduced pre-diploma and foundation programmes with lower entry requirements. It also held regular recruitment drives and education expos in rural areas, providing counselling and guidance to potential candidates. This enabled many from disadvantaged segments to gain access to higher education opportunities and move up the socioeconomic ladder.

Despite measures like these and in the face of stiff competition to gain admission into UiTM now, concerns have been raised about students from the affluent top 20% bumiputera segment being given admission to UiTM.

These students could easily have gone to private universities here or even abroad. But they chose to study in the heavily subsidised and tax-payer funded UiTM. Some even flaunted their luxury bags and cars on campus, drawing criticism from Malays as well.

While these students may have valid reasons for choosing UiTM, their admission has clearly deprived thousands of bumiputeras from poorer backgrounds.

READ MORE:  The meritocracy debate

Perhaps in response to social media chatter, the UiTM vice-chancellor clarified in May last year that only 28% of the 190,000 students are from the top 20% of households. The enrolment of those from the bottom 40% has increased since the Covid pandemic from 40% to about 60% of total enrolment.

Still, it does raise serious questions about the government’s commitment to equity and fairness. It has also raised concerns about the top 20% of the bumiputera community’s moral and ethical position on the issue. It would seem that UiTM, originally conceived as an affirmative action policy instrument, is now seen as an untouchable and irrevocable bumiputera entitlement, irrespective of socioeconomic status.  

While some may see it as political suicide to suggest that UiTM open up some places for deserving ethnic minority students, the idea was actually mooted by Anwar Ibrahim when he was education minister in the 1980s – but promptly shut down due to protests. Are we still in square one on this issue after four decades?!

There is nothing in the Federal Constitution to bar the enrolment of non-bumiputeras in UiTM.

With over a two-thirds’ majority in Parliament now, the “Madani” government and Prime Minister Anwar should be able to amend the Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Act 1976 quite easily – if there is that elusive ‘political will’ or courage to make it happen.

If not, then similar opportunities for higher education for disadvantaged ethnic minority students must be made available through other means. This would promote both social equity and social cohesion.

Expanding the pie

University admissions need not be a zero-sum game. It can be an expanding pie. The private sector can play a more responsible role in promoting equity and social cohesion, and not simply use higher education as a money-making venture.

The pie can be further expanded by opening up access to opportunities for technical and vocational education and training, provided by both public and private entities. The government should accelerate and intensify initiatives to promote and upgrade such education and training and address the lack of ethnic and gender inclusivity so far.

It will be interesting to see how the Madani government will promote both social equity and social cohesion, without sacrificing meritocracy in higher education. That would actually require comprehensive and integrated structural reforms, beginning from pre-school education.

Hopefully this is what the ex-economy minister, Rafizi Ramli, has set out in the 13th Malaysia Plan. And hopefully it gets to see the light of day, now that Rafizi is sadly no longer in the cabinet.    

While some race-based affirmative action policies are seen as sacrosanct and politically expedient, the danger is that bumiputera privilege, especially if not needs-based, will result in personal stigma that calls into question the individual’s competence and integrity – no matter whether the bumiputera is a student, professor, professional or even prime minister. More importantly, it could result in irreparable damage to social cohesion and ultimately cause national decline.

Hence, we cannot afford to be fence-sitters and spectators waiting for the government and the politicians to do what is necessary. We need to become more vocal, more visible and louder in our demands for vital reforms.

As Aliran’s Francis Loh urged in our last newsletter, we need to intensify and strengthen our “small p politics for social reform, inclusiveness and participatory democracy”.

Mary Magdaline Pereira
Co-editor, Aliran newsletter
6 June 2025

The views expressed in Aliran's media statements and the NGO statements we have endorsed reflect Aliran's official stand. Views and opinions expressed in other pieces published here do not necessarily reflect Aliran's official position.
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
  1. Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
  2. Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
  3. Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
  4. Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
  5. Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
Support Aliran's work with an online donation. Scan this QR code using your mobile phone e-wallet or banking app:
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
U K Menon
13 Jun 2025 9.12pm

This is an excellent article. Mary raises pertinent questions about the segregation of higher education in Malaysia and the dangers of the policy that attaches a stigma to the very people segregation is meant to support. The solutions implemented in 1957 to advance affirmative action must be reviewed urgently. Educational development since 1957 has provided more effective solutions to ensure equitable opportunities in education than the strategies formulated before that year.