Foreigner as VC of local varsity?

Bernama, the NST and the Star all featured the announcement by the Minister of Higher Education, Shafie Salleh, that his ministry would set up a search committee in the appointment of future VCs in our local varsities. Looks like the pressure that has been generated online and offline have forced the ministry to respond, albeit in a rather limited way.

I want to pick up a point mentioned by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) vice-chancellor Prof Datuk Dr Mohd Salleh Mohd Yasin.

“Overseas, the appointments of vice-chancellors are largely based on their leadership abilities as well as academic prowess. Now that we are practising meritocracy, we should select the best candidate for the job,” he said, citing the recent decision by the University of Manchester in Britain to select an Australian as its vice-chancellor.

It is interesting to note that it was blogged here that two other recently appointed VCs in Oxford and Cambridge also had foreign connections. One is a New Zealander (Oxford) and the other (Cambridge) is a British born academic who has spent much of her professional life in the US.

Should one of our local varsities, let's say UM, appoint a foreign VC? Or should we look inwards first for a suitably qualified local academic who has both academic prestige as well as administrative experience?

There will be a not insignificant number of people who would cry out for the appointment of a non-Malay to the VC position since no non-Malay currently occupies that post in any one of our local varsities. While I think that this would be a great symbolic gesture on the part of the government, I think there are substantive and practical reasons as to why this might not necessarily be a good idea. I also want to put forth some arguments on why I think a foreign VC might be in a better position to do a better job than a local. I know that my arguments will tick off many people but hey, that's what discussions are for, right? No point us agreeing to everything.

Firstly, I don't think that just because a non-Malay is picked means that he or she is the best person to do the job. If he or she is firmly entrenched as part of the 'system', it is equally unlikely that he or she will have the courage and desire to overhaul and reform the sad state that our local varsities are in right now.

Secondly, we have to acknowledge the reality that our local varsities operate in a predominantly Malay dominant environment. Any move to reform the system can be misinterpreted and misused as an attack by a non-Malay VC on Malay 'values' and 'sensitivities'. For example, a move to examine the tenure system in UM might lead to accusations that a non-Malay VC is trying to 'roll back' the gains of the NEP and reduce the number of Malay professors or associate professors. Unless we can operate in an environment where the race of the VC will not be used against him or her, I suspect that a non-Malay VC will have little chance of implementing real reform.

Of course, the retort might be that a non-Malay who has the respect of the Malay academics and staff in a place like the UM but who also has the desire to reform the system might be the best person for the VC position. Someone like Prof Khoo Khay Kim comes to mind. But academics like Prof Khoo are few and far between and they might be so far advanced in their career that a demanding, stressful and politically sensitive position like the VC would probably not interest them.

A foreign VC has the following advantages. He or she will come in presumably with a fresh mandate to shake things up, perhaps even a mandate coming from the PM. He or she would also presumably not be in it for the long haul but instead be signed to a shorter termed contract. This will provide the incentives for the foreign VC to leave a legacy and to accomplish the set out objectives sooner rather than later.

A foreign VC would also be able to bring in best practices from overseas and hopefully also experience from a renowned university. It is difficult for a local academic - Malay or non-Malay- who has been 'entrenched' in our local system to implement new things, especially things which he or she has never experienced before in a university setting.

We also have to recognize the reality that often, we instinctively 'trust' a foreign (read: Western) face more than a local face. While I don't agree with this mindset (since many Western professionals come to work in the East because they can't 'make it' in the developed countries), I cannot deny the fact that this foreign 'premium' so to speak, decreases the resistance to reform, especially if the foreigner is well qualified and knows what he or she is doing.

In addition, a foreign VC would not face accusations of the racial type. He or she might be accused of being insensitive to local 'culture', a realm which has got to be tread with care, but it is unlikely that he or she would have to fight fires the same way that a non-Malay VC might have to. Furthermore, as a foreigner, he or she will be given the benefit of the doubt, initially at least.

Finally, a foreign VC who's here for a short-term contract doesn't have to worry about 'pissing' people off the same way that a local would have to since the local presumably would want to have a career after stepping down as VC. If you want real reform, sometimes you need someone who is willing to take risks and shake the system up. A foreign VC who is well qualified, brings experience from abroad and who understands the mandate for change would arguably do a better job than a local VC.