The Descartes Education Counselling Centre is organizing a forum on liberal arts colleges in the US this coming Saturday, August 23 2008 at 15:00 in Damansara Utama.
I will be speaking there, tentatively about public universities with the hope of giving prospective undergraduates some idea of the difference between public universities like Michigan and liberal arts colleges like Swarthmore.
If you have no idea where it is, just consult the map below:
Alright. See you there.
Borrowers obviously will celebrate if they see a reduction in their repayment obligation. When the National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN) reduces its service charge or really, interest rate, from 3% to 1%, already I read borrowers singing high praises to the body. The reduction of rate also turns the financing facility into a subsidy, small as it may be.
Even with the traditional inflation rate between 3% and 4% that Malaysia had enjoyed earlier, 1% interest rate has the PTPTN suffering negative returns. The borrowers meanwhile get to pay less in real terms. Accommodating inter-temporal consideration which is typical in calculation present values, clearly the borrowers are being subsidized.
Now, while I am vehemently anti-subsidy as I have consistently demonstrated in past postings, my opposition towards subsidy is based desire to eliminate certain kind of negative externality as well as a desire for freer market. When it comes to positive externality however, I can be quite supportive. The public benefit derived from well-educated citizens are far higher than any private benefit enjoyed by individual borrowers, assuming all else is constant.
Indeed, subsidization of education creates positive externality. As a result, I am willing to have a subsidy supporting students. This willingness of course has it own qualifications but I shall leave that topic for another day.
One potential issue with the lowering of the interest rate is the disincentive to pay the installments on time. Compared to previously, the penalty of not paying any installment is smaller now. This may encourage borrowers to delay their payments, preferring to incur minor penalty to manage their own cash flow. As a result, PTPTN may have trouble managing its cash flow.
Finally, the across the board cut seems too blunt. I prefer to turn the PTPTN into a convertible loan, rewarding the best students with subsidy, or if you like, scholarship. For those whom are less successful, let them take the full brunt. Under this scenario, I think we would introduce a strong incentive for students to succeed.
Ethnic integration does not top my list as an issue we as a society face. I used to be bothered a lot by it but I have long learned to accept the wisdom that birds of the same feather tend to flock together.
More importantly, I have accepted that organic integration is a painfully slow process. This effectively means the idea of Bangsa Malaysia for me remains a dream in the near future. Nevertheless, if indeed ethnic integration is a goal, then I think the special rights enjoyed by the Malays as well as the vernacular schools would have to go.
The idea of Bangsa Malaysia has never been satisfactorily and properly defined. What exists are competing definitions. For me personally, I take Bangsa Malaysia — or the Malaysian nation and not the Malaysian race — as simply the concept of rights egalitarianism embedded in the idea of Malaysian citizenship. That means the state does not discriminate its own citizens on anything except, mostly, merits.
I do not have to demonstrate about how large a role race and religion play in our society and I think a lot of us realize how central race and religion are to our society, for better or for worse. While I have resigned to the fact that it takes years to restructure our society organically, I still despise how race and religion are exceptionally central to our society and how both factors have been manipulated to the effect that they erode liberty.
As a result, a tiny insignificant part of me wants to throw liberty out of the equation and use coercion to encourage integration, to do away with factors which encourage ethnic division in this country. Part of me wants to hasten the integration process, preferring an inorganic method over organic.
But I am a libertarian and I am proud of it. I plan to neither resort nor consent to forced integration or assimilation. For others without libertarian tendencies and who are fiercely working for a more integrated society, coercion through the elimination of public funded vernacular schools and streamlining the education system with just one national school stream may indeed be a tool of great use.
Embracing the concept of rights egalitarian would be the first step in encouraging ethnic integration. Any policy which discriminates people based on creed and skin color only fuels anger of the discriminated against the favored. As long as the hatred is there, ethnic integration will be a pie in the sky.
Equality has the greatest potential in dousing the fire of communal hatred. Within the Malaysian context, this calls for the dismantling of various policies which discriminate our own citizens. It goes as far as requiring the Constitution to be amended to conform to the spirit of rights egalitarianism, where all are truly equal before the law which is ever conscious of individual liberty.
The dismantling of discriminatory policies, however, will not be popular with the majority power, which is Malay. In as much as the Malay community is not monolithic in its political outlook, considerable members of the Malay community do hold dearly to policies which grant them special privileges. The continuous support which UMNO receives from a majority of Malays proves that.
Due to that, removal of policies derived from the New Economic Policy will be highly unpopular. As a direct result, the political support for a rights egalitarian society may not be there. If equality of rights is a goal to be achieved, it is the Malays that the advocates of egalitarianism need to convince, especially in the illiberal democracy that we live in.
The first step in convincing the majority is an exposition of the weaknesses of the current race-based affirmative action policies and juxtaposing it with a better merit-based alternative. The majority has to be persuaded that if the majority of Malays are really poorer than the average Malaysian, a merit-based affirmative action would aid them anyway. Therefore, there is no reason for those who truly require aid to worry about the switch from a race-conscious to race-blind and merit-based policy.
I have come to believe that this is the strongest point that exists against the status quo. It is so because it appeals to the concepts of justice and fairness apart from being an economically superior policy compared to race-conscious affirmative action.
Theoretically, it is impeccable and I have seen it work in practice, especially during the election. This very line has been used from time to time. With patience and good orators at hand, many Malays who are genuinely concerned with the welfare of impoverished Malays are convinced by this point.
That notwithstanding, I personally do not subscribe to any kind of state-based affirmative action. A merit-based policy nevertheless is a potent tool to bring down the current policy; my support for a merit-based over race-based policy only exists due to the virtue of thinking on the margin.
But why should only the Malays sacrifice their position?
I am convinced that rights egalitarianism is one of few ideas that is capable of bringing this country forward. It is one of those abstract developments that this country needs more than physical developments. Our current societal structure is not conducive to attracting talents and egalitarianism — as well as liberty — is one of our best bets to catalyze our economy forward, which at this point, is stagnating.
So, I tend to think that this is not a zero-sum game. Rights egalitarianism has the prospect of increasing the economic pie but while the point is taken but a lot of Malays seem unconvinced about why they should give up their privileges.
It is possible that this is a matter of time horizon. While it is beneficial in the long run to have an egalitarian society for everybody, in the short run, the Malays really do not have the incentive to give up their privileges. This is even more so when there is a heavy discount on future gains.
This sounds like a bias called loss aversion. To explain the phenomenon slightly deeper, loss aversion describes a situation when a person considers a loss as unacceptable even when there is an eventual net gain.
This bias later transforms the original question into “Why should the Malays sacrifice their position while the rest have everything to gain?”
Failure to answer this question may cause the Malays to question the sincerity of others in building a less ethnic-conscious society. I think I can safely say that the conservative Malays see vernacular schools as the special privileges of others as how others see affirmative action enjoyed by the Malays as special privileges.
I have been thinking and I do not pretend I have given it very deep thought but my initial feeling is that the abolition of vernacular schools funded by public money could be the answer to that question.
This absolutely makes sense if we return to the original intention of ethnic integration. This is also important to demonstrate to the conservative Malays that there is sincerity in building unity among various communities. There are Malays whom distrust calls for equality because of the question. A sacrifice by the other sides do a lot in proving the sincerity in building an egalitarian society and thus renders the question irrelevant.
One cannot expect to have an integrated society when children are not given the opportunity to mingle with their peers of different backgrounds. Vernacular schools, be they Chinese, Indian or even schools like the Malay College, work like silos, isolating children in the same community from one another. It is the silo nature of vernacular schools that is detrimental to the idea of ethnic integration.
Surely separation from the very beginning does little in bridging the gap that already exists between cultures. If bridging the gap is truly the goal, then the silos have to be removed and replaced with the grand mixer that is the national school. Concerns about languages and religions, which are the typical criticism directed at the idea of national schools, could be addressed by making language classes available and making the national school neutral of religious influence.
All in all, in the abolition of both Malay privileges and vernacular schools, there would be a quid pro quo arrangement, solving the question of “why should the Malays sacrifice their position while the rest have everything to gain?” It gives the appearance that both are sacrificing something in the name of unity.
On a final note, I want to reiterate that I do not consider ethnic integration a burning question. With regards to school systems, I prefer the concept of charter schools to typical public-funded ones, which schools are given the liberty to do whatever they like as long as they deliver results. With a charter school system in place, it would be likely that the abolition of vernacular schools would lead to merely a change in label, which would render abolition meaningless.
Abolition furthermore seems to be an act to force individuals into a system with the system trying to mold an individual with a template. That disturbs me.
Thus, my agnosticism to abolition. And since I am agnostic to the idea of ethnic integration anyway, preferring to take the time to organically integrate our society instead, I really could not care less for abolition.
For those dreaming of a rights egalitarian society, however, the proposed quid pro quo arrangement is something for all egalitarians to consider. If the arrangement is rejected, the egalitarians would still have to answer the question why should the Malays sacrifice their position while the rest have everything to gain.
Unless that question is satisfactorily answered, I do not think we can see the rise of a rights egalitarian society anytime soon.
A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.
I felt the original version does not have a smooth logical transition. This is most likely due to me rushing the article through. Regardless, I have added a sentence or two in this version. In the TMI version, there are no sentences on sincerity.
Education empowers individuals by enabling them to utilize their faculties, freeing themselves from tyranny. With reasonably educated individuals dominating the society, the creation of a liberal society becomes more possible than ever. Self-empowerment is the seed to the creation of a liberal society and education is the key to such empowerment. Without the empowerment, individuals would forever stand timid in the face of tyranny, unable to rationalize the reason for liberty.
Education is the sculpture of a society and its importance cannot be overemphasized. Yet, the issue of education has always bogged me down. I struggle to answer the question whether the state is required in providing individuals with education, especially in poor societies.
I am predisposed to answer no.
The path is chosen due to my minarchist tendency which seeks to limit the roles of government to simply the protection of individual liberty and private property only. This is the only social contract which a libertarian seeks. Anything more increases the opportunity for tyranny.
All other areas should be left to means of individuals in the society. The reason for that is the market in many cases has proven to be more than capable to play roles played by statist state as effective if not better. It is part of the spontaneous order doctrine so close to the heart of libertarianism.
The issue of education and the state arises when I come to consider the effect of endowment on eventual outcome. In a poor society, attainment of education requires a quantum leap. Resources well beyond the means of the poor are required to invest in education.
It is not uncommon for children of poor families to face strong pressure to forgo basic education in order to answer immediate question surrounding matter of survival. Without coercion by the state in form of compulsory basic education as well as other aids, it would be highly probable for these children to stay away from any kind of formal education. As they grow up, they would become susceptible to manipulation of the elites whom might have insidious plan to promote themselves in a society. Through this manipulation which usually comes in form of populism, a mob could easily overrun individuals, transgressing individual liberty with impunity.
Only a strong liberal culture could fight such tendency fearsomely. It is worth repeating that the birth of a liberal society is only possible through self-empowerment usually brought upon by education. By education, I do not mean simply the ability to read and write. I am referring to the development of the critical minds which take more than merely learning about humanities and sciences. I speak of liberal education which students are able to explore their potential freely.
Leaving education to the workings of market of a poor society may not encourage the creation of a liberal society. There is always competing demand between immediate demand and the future prospect. Not too many people have the luxury of looking beyond a hill when no food is guaranteed on a table everyday, assuming there is a table in the first place.
The misalignment of temporal requirement for education could perhaps be tweaked to impress on individuals the importance of education through market means without the use of force. For instance, a philanthropist or foundation could fund schools or offer need-based scholarships, making the cost of education of a child more bearable to poor families. To bring the idea farther down the road, a corporation in need of talents could adopt a child by financing the child’s education. Graduated individuals under such program could repay their sponsors when they start their professional career.
Then again, this only repeats the problem of citizenship for liberals and mismatched timelines: the ones most likely to make such bond for the children would be the parents while the children really had no say in the matter. As they matured, they found themselves in bond they did not choose to be in.
How well private institutions tailored for basic education fares against the idea of universal basic education has yet to be explored however. Even on the surfaces, private institutions may disfranchise the poor for reason made clear earlier. And I am uncertain how a system dominated by private institution for basic level encourages a society’s progress towards liberal ideals.
All that considered, it seems that the institution of universal education on the basic level supported by the state looks promising in creating a liberal society, especially for poor societies. As for affluent societies, the problem of endowment is less of an issue. It is probable that members of an affluent society are well-educated and liberal enough in their outlook to fight tyranny.
The progression towards an affluent society however requires education and this creates a conflict in my thinking. Ignorance is a barrier to self-empowerment and liberty.
Perhaps, universal basic and general education with involvement of the state for poor society is the spark plug for liberalism. Perhaps, I am trying to be too rigid, ignoring a virtue of pragmatism.
p/s — Milton Friedman’s The Role of Government in Education is an essential read. Friedman’s Free to Choose is for further reading. For wider scope, the Friedman Foundation has more.
USA For Students, an education fair is on for this Saturday at Wisma MCA on Jalan Ampang. Come and visit us. In fact, do come and visit the Michigan booth. We are at Booth 19.
And I am also part of Michigan’s recruiting program (I am not sure what I am suppose to do yet; I am still unclear of how that happened too but people in the alumni association and the admission office want me to adopt a school in Malaysia; I am thinking the Malay College of course!). So, you may want to talk to me if you want to hate Ohio State for the rest of your lifetime!
Hating the Buckeyes is really an entertaining and fulfilling activity. Really. You can start practicing “I hate Buckeyes” by visiting this link and write 100 times “I hate Buckeyes” on every post written by Tim.
And damn you all Malaysian Wolverines, what have you done for your school lately?
Yeah, yeah. I am over-excited about it. But who can blame me? Just earlier this week, while in a meeting with a person tagging along with a visiting World Bank team, the person asked, “did you go to school?”
I do not what prompted that question (it is probably my supposedly youthful look — shaving does not help — which allegedly makes me looks like a teenage who is supposed to be in school) but when I said Michigan, he was shocked?
“The University of Michigan?” with wide eyes.
“Yea, Ann Arbor”.
And guess what he said after that: “Me too!”
And then it was all about Lloyd Carr and Coach Rodriguez!
Before he left, he said, “It is really good to see a fellow Wolverine, especially a Malaysian”. And this guy has never been to Malaysia. Ja, vie Woverin arr all oer ze vold!
It is like a sign with the phrase “Go Blue” all over it.
Okay, back to the usual programming involving dull subjects suitable for angry people.