OF all things, I didn’t expect Sarawak’s free tertiary education policy would be a subject of criticism and scrutiny because, to me, there is nothing to criticise. This is a shared goal, vision and ultimately, a dream of all Sarawakians.
Arguments on how it should be expanded are sound and welcomed, arguments on how more can benefit from this scheme rather than dismissing the concept as a whole.
A supposed academician in an article recently argued that free tertiary education is inherently flawed. This is surprising. Aren’t educators meant to champion greater access to education, not stand in its way?
It’s like a chef saying food is overrated, or a doctor warning against modern medicine. It contradicts the very purpose of their profession.
Maybe next we’ll hear a firefighter argue that fires should just be left to burn, or a pilot suggesting we walk instead.
This academician pointed out three things: funding sustainability, employment economies and social outcomes as potential pitfalls to the free tertiary education initiative.
Let us go through this one by one. In terms of funding sustainability, the Sarawak Government is on solid financial footing. This allows long-term financial stability, meaning that the free tertiary education initiative will have its funding.
Let’s also consider the fact that the initiative is targeted to specific courses, with the goal of producing talented professionals to serve in the new economic sectors.
This is a targeted scheme, designed with intent and aligned with our development goals and labour market needs.
I believe the academician is of the view that we are opening the floodgates, overspending on education, while allowing its quality to diminish through free tertiary education.
This is not the case. We are investing in human capital where it matters most.
The second point is employment economies. The argument seems to suggest that free education leads to an oversupply of graduates and underemployment.
But that only happens when education is disconnected from economic planning. In Sarawak’s case, this initiative is not happening in isolation. It complements our push for a digital economy, green industries and high-tech sectors.
This is all integrated and well thought out. Now and in the future, there will be jobs waiting as Sarawak invests heavily in these new sectors but the issue would be finding the workforce needed to fill these jobs.
This is where the education initiatives become important along with the emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) to prepare students to take up high-paying and highly skilled technical professions.
Let’s also consider the economic direction in Sarawak, which is different from that of West Malaysia, being resource-rich, sustainability-driven, and strategically aligned with the emerging green and digital economies.
In other words, we are preparing a workforce for jobs that are coming, not jobs that are disappearing.
Now, onto social outcomes. Here, the academician warns of entitlement or diminished motivation if education is made free. This sounds like an argument from a place of privilege.
Access to education has never been the problem of the comfortable but it has always been the struggle of the underserved.
We all know the saying, and it has always been stressed to each of us: “If you study hard, and work hard, you can guarantee your future”. But reality is different and somehow finances get in the way.
We have heard stories of how people from less fortunate families, despite their academic achievements, are unable to pursue higher education as they can’t afford it. It means that they can’t escape the cycle of poverty even if they want to.
But now with free tertiary education, that financial barrier is being lifted. Meaning they can pursue higher education if they work hard for it and show that they want it.
The academician in his article said that free education increases inequality. I beg to differ because, with better access, it allows for equality of opportunity.
He also argued that urban families are poised to take better advantage of free tertiary education because they have superior secondary education.
This is a fundamental problem rooted in the underfunding of rural schools by the federal government and the policymakers in Kuala Lumpur.
If anything, he should be ashamed to even admit that this problem exists simply because the rural education funding approach and policy is flawed.
The Sarawak Government has been the one pushing for better education facilities in rural schools as well as ensuring that rural students would be better prepared to benefit from free tertiary education.
This is what the Sarawak Education Enhancement Programme (SEEP) is for – to raise education standards, particularly among the underserved community.
In the end, this criticism of Sarawak trying to develop its students and future workforce, preparing for the economies of present and future, simply reeks of envy.
Because, as I pointed out before, it does not make sense to criticise something that would universally benefit everyone.
If anything, Sarawak should be given the credit that is due. It is the first to introduce the free education initiative, something that even politicians from West Malaysia are urging the federal government to emulate.
But the question would be, could they emulate? In a sea of critics, all of whom are thinking they are smart; seeing things where there is nothing to see and questioning things when there is nothing to question, there is no unity of purpose.
That’s how I would describe this academician and those of his ilk – being intent on finding problems and in doing so, they missed the big picture.
We should be supportive of free tertiary education and appreciate the opportunities afforded by it to Sarawakians and the benefits it entails.
So, let’s debate on how to make it better. Let’s not waste time questioning whether it should exist at all.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at nazmixsuhaimi@gmail.com.
