Dr Wee concerned STPM top scorers may be missing out

The Star

31-07-2025

DATUK Seri Dr Wee Ka Siong (BN-Ayer Hitam) ( pic ) has raised concerns over the declining number of top Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia (STPM) scorers being admitted into public universities through the Unit Pusat Universiti (UPU) system compared to matriculation and foundation pathway students since 2018.
In response, Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir said offers to STPM and equivalent leavers for entry into public universities have actually increased by 90.1% over the past seven years.
He said a total of 4,530 STPM and equivalent students were offered placements for the 2018/2019 academic session, compared to 8,612 in the 2024/2025 session, in a written reply in the Dewan Rakyat yesterday.
However, Dr Wee later said in a Facebook post that Zambry's response warranted further clarification with more detailed data.
'The statement that the number of offers to STPM graduates has nearly doubled must be clearly broken down, as it does not distinguish between qualification categories and critical study programmes.
'Why wasn't the data detailed according to the qualification types as asked – namely STPM, matriculation and foundation – as well as according to the programmes offered? The government must address public concerns and anxieties over a perceived decline in the intake of STPM students in critical programmes compared to matriculation and foundation students,' he said.
Dr Wee also questioned the apparent lack of government funding for public universities, which he said had forced institutions to compensate for shortcomings through open admission channels, resulting in higher tuition fees for students.
In response, Zambry clarified that these channels operate on an 'over and above' principle and do not affect the intake projections for the main admission stream.
'Open channels are also subject to an evaluation process and must meet all academic, language and programme requirements. There is no compromise on standards set by accredited bodies,' he said.
Zambry added that the open channel model reflects the growing maturity of the higher education system amid an evolving academic landscape.
'This requires universities to be agile and equipped with their own financial resources,' he said.
To this, Dr Wee said the reply was too general and did not address his question specifically.
'What is the actual number of seats allocated via the open channel for each academic session? Please also state the number of seats available through the UPU channel, as well as the total number of seats offered in critical programmes.
'How is the term 'do not affect' defined if there is no clear comparison between the two channels?' he said.
Dr Wee further urged the government to provide evidence if there is truly no compromise in admission standards.
'I have received complaints from excellent students who failed to gain admission through UPU, but were later accepted through the commercial or open channel – provided they were willing to pay significantly higher fees.
'This is a clear example of a lack of transparency in merit-based evaluation and must be explained immediately,' he said.
He added that raising commercial channel fees to boost university revenue, without transparency and fairness in student admissions, is a pro-elite policy.
'This is not a real solution. Public universities should instead focus on commercialising the outcomes of their research and development, rather than taking the easy way out by increasing fees through the open channel.
'The government should provide adequate allocations for the operating and development expenditures of public universities based on actual needs, while the Finance Ministry must grant the necessary approvals.
'As long as the Higher Education Ministry or the universities do not disclose detailed data, public concerns over the lack of transparency and fairness in the student intake system will persist,' he said.