Just a quick follow-up to the post below particularly regarding the scholarship and education system in Malaysia. Some facts to consider (*taken from unicef, unescap) that prompted my questions:

• About half of the youth in Malaysia are not 'urban' youth.
• Only 29 % of the Malaysian youth between 15-23 have a tertiary education
• Only 34 Indian youth received the PSD overseas scholarships this year (NST 15th May)
• 25% of average Malaysian families survive on a household earning of less than RM 1000 a month (quoted in the Eighth Malaysian Plan)

I read with interest an interview with the Public Service director-general in the newspaper today, and think some steps taken should be rightfully applauded, like the steps taken to punish government-funded students who study overseas and refuse to return home to serve the country (a total waste of our tax-payers money):

"Before 2003, if you broke your bond, you or your guarantor had to pay. The amount was less than what was spent on you. But now, the penalty is the actual cost (of what was spent on the student). So, before this, if you were doing medicine, you had to pay RM160,000, which is less than a year’s scholarship. We spend RM1.2 million for each medical student. But over 90 per cent of our students come back. The ones who don’t come back are mostly medical students. If they don’t come back, we get their guarantors." - Tan Sri Ismail Adam

That being said, my opinion stems from the logic that monetary aid can benefit two groups of Malaysian youth:

1) The group that applies for a scholarship/loan and, if rejected, can still afford to pursue tertiary education

2) The group that applies for a scholarship/loan and, if rejected, cannot afford to pursue tertiary education

This was not covered in the interview, and my contention is that the criteria points-system of 70- academic excellence, 10- interview, 10- family economic background and 10- co-curricular activities, should be revised in favour of the lower-income earning groups. The second group should be given priority, and not just a mere 10 points bonus. Hey, some youth are already getting more pocket-money than 25% of all the families in the country (imagine 5 family members per family) every month.

According to the 8th MP, only 9.8% of Malaysian families have a household income of more than RM 5000 (the top of the income class). Let's assume these people can afford to send their kids to universities.

If one makes a further assumption that in each family there is 1 youth, 90 out of 100 youth in Malaysia are born to families that earn less than RM5000 a month. The lower the income groups get, the more difficult it is to support youth planning to pursue their education. Why give so much money to the top of the income classes who can afford it, when the bottom can barely get by with daily necessities and deserve this more? Which is more pressing- award according to merit (easily attained by the rich who have resources available to them) or aid for the poorer groups? Giving more money to the rich who already have the resources to study and who don't really need it is another form of elitism, I'm afraid.

Just consider: Rm 1000 per month, shared between 5 family members who have to eat, pay for school/electricity/water/petrol/rent bills... and then compare it to your monthly spending as an 'urban' youth.

Do things make sense? This is the world we'll live in for the next 50 or so years. The world of 6.6 billion, out of which 1.1 billion live on less than US$ 1 a day.