Malaysia’s Globalization, Educational Language Policy and Nation-Building 45
to ensure better coordination of the country’s higher educational system.
Third, the Private Higher Education Bill, which defined the government’s
regulatory control powers over all private institutions of higher learning
(Lee 1999). Fourth, the 1996 National Accreditation Board Bill, which
provided for the setting up of an accreditation board to formulate policies
on the standard and quality control of courses of study and certificates,
diplomas and degrees awarded by private institutions of higher learning
(Lembaga Penyelidikan Undang-Undang 2002).
Such widespread legislation to a system of education that had
otherwise virtually remained unchanged for more than thirty years has
since allowed private higher education to grow at a phenomenally rapid
pace and emerged as a parallel system of tertiary education to the public
institutions of higher learning (Santhiram and Tan 2009). Prior to this,
private higher education played a peripheral role in the tertiary education
sector in Malaysia. Its enrolment rates were 9.1 per cent in 1985, 15.4 per
cent in 1990 and 34.7 per cent in 1995. These enrolment rates were far
below that of the public institutions of higher learning, which were at
52.5 per cent, 53.0 per cent and 51.5 per cent for the corresponding years
(Lee 1999). But by 2005, the enrolment of private institutions of higher
learning had exceeded that of the public institutions of higher learning. They
managed to enrol 113,105 students as compared to 80,885 students enrolled
by the public institutions of higher learning (Kementerian Pengajian
Tinggi Malaysia 2006). Meanwhile, the number of private institutions of
higher learning (16 private universities, 11 private university colleges and
532 private colleges) had also exceeded the number of public institutions
of higher learning (11 public universities, six public university colleges,
20 polytechnics and 34 community colleges) (Malaysia 2006). Although the
establishment of private institutions of higher learning were underpinned
by several reasons, such as the lack of capacity of the public institutions
of higher learning to cope with the surging demand for higher education
and the aspirations of the government to make Malaysia the regional
educational hub, they had helped to strengthen the proficiency of English
among Malaysian students.
Efforts by the Malaysian government to strengthen the proficiency
of English among Malaysian students reached new heights with the
implementation of the policy of teaching science and mathematics in English
in 2003 at the school level. This policy was implemented in stages and was
expected to fully cover all levels of schooling by 2008. It began with three