真假績效制和固打制的疑問，讓我想起朋友告訴我的一段歷史。60年代中，新加坡還是馬來西亞的一部份，人民行動黨的李光耀和巫統的馬哈迪曾經在國會進行激辯。當時，馬哈迪還是國會新科議員。他發言要求政府提供更多大學學額給馬來學生，讓他們接受大學教育。
他認為，一旦更多馬來學生從大學畢業，將可以培養馬來社會的精英，從而改變土著的社經地位。李光耀聽後站起來反對；他說，提供更多的學額，讓更多成績未達水平的學生進入大學，並不會提高整體的教育水平，而只會降低水準。而且，一旦學生不須要具備一定的資格，就可以進入大學，這將會養成依賴的心態。他認為，如果這一年馬來亞大學醫學系招生，沒有一個馬來學生能夠考進去，那並不是大問題。
重要的是，一旦馬來學生知道他們必須靠成績才能進入馬大醫科，他們就會加倍努力，和其它族群學生競爭。第二年，可能就會有一兩個馬來學生憑成績進入馬大醫科，再過幾年，有更多馬來子弟考進馬大醫科。
幾年下去，馬來族群再也無須靠固打和優惠，而是靠努力和實力進入大學；與此同時，大學也可以維持高水平，培養國家的精英。朋友熟讀建國初期歷史，有關資料可在國會檔案和李光耀演說集找到。
這場辯論，其實反映了兩種思維；一是巫統的土著特權和保護主義，另一則是人民行動黨的馬來西亞人的馬來西亞，以及績效主義。
接下來，馬來西亞和新加坡分道揚鑣。李光耀帶領新加坡退出馬來西亞，然後在島國推行他的績效主義。馬哈迪則是一鳴驚人，被視為馬來民族主義代表；之後出任教育部長，全力推行他的保護和扶助政策，推行固打制。擔任首相後，更是貫徹始終。
國內大學的土著學生人數節節上升，從60年代的少數，到如今在公立大學佔了絕大多數。李光耀和馬哈迪都完成了他們的主張，雖然是在不同的國家。
今天，QS全球頂尖大學排行榜中，新加坡國立大學世界排名第25，在亞洲排名第2（QS排行榜）；馬來亞大學在全球排名156，亞洲排名33。而在泰晤士高等教育排行榜，新大全球第29，亞洲第2；馬來西亞沒有一所大學進入前500名（或許沒有加入評選）。
如果把這兩種思維，當作一場超級馬拉松，那麼，經過50年的比賽，李光耀的主張跑在世界的前端，馬哈迪的主張則像是在跑步機上，原地踏步。
儘管如此，馬哈迪還在為他的政策辯護；他日前聲稱，公立大學大部份是馬來學生，因為他們沒錢進入私立大學；而如果採取績效制，馬來人將淪為苦力。
換個角度，如果當年接納李光耀的主張，在大馬的大學實施績效制，今天會是怎麼樣的景況？馬大會和新大並駕齊驅嗎？
----------------
(English Translation)
Half-century Race
Queries surrounding the true or fake meritocracy and quota system have reminded me of what a friend of mine used to tell me. During the mid-1960s when Singapore was still part of the Federation, PAP's Lew Kuan Yew and Umno's Mahathir Mohamad were once having an intense debate in the Parliament.
Mahathir, who was then a fresh MP, voiced out for expanded university quota for Malay students. He said more Malay graduates would be able to groom elite members of the Malay society, hence improving the socioeconomic status of the Malays. Lee stood up to protest, saying that providing more places for Malay students and allowing students not meeting the requirements to get into universities would only bring down the overall academic standards.
He said once the students knew they did not need to meet the basic requirements for university admission, they would slowly develop an attitude of reliance on the government. He felt it wasn't that much a problem if no Malay students made it to the medical school of Universiti Malaya for that year. More importantly, if the students knew they had to perform well in examinations to get into the medical faculty, they would step up their effort and compete with students from other ethnic groups.
Perhaps a couple of Malay students could get into the medical faculty the following year, and more and more over the subsequent years. These Malay students would no longer need to rely on the quota system to get into local universities several years down the road. At the same time, the overall standards of local universities were also maintained.
My friend is well versed in the early history of the country's nationhood and the above information could be easily retrieved from the parliament files and Lee Kuan Yew's speech collection. The Lee-Mahathir debate reflected two polarised views: Umno's bumiputra-first and protectionism on one end, and the Malaysians' Malaysia and meritocracy of PAP on the other end. Later, after Lee Kuan Yew led Singapore out of Malaysia, he implemented his meritocracy in the tiny island republic.
Meanwhile, Mahathir grew in popularity over this side of the Causeway and was immediately seen as the personification of Malay nationalism. He was later appointed the education minister and put his protectionist and patronising policy as well as quota system into implementation, which he carried through until after he took over as the country's longest serving prime minister.
The number of Malay students in local universities are on the rise, from merely a minority in the 1960s to an overwhelming majority in public universities today. Both Lee Kuan Yew an Mahathir have accomplished their respective advocacy albeit in two different countries.
Today, the National University of Singapore is ranked 25th worldwide and second in Asia in the QS global university ranking while our UM is 156th worldwide and 33rd in Asia. As for the Times Higher Education ranking, NUS is 29th worldwide and second in Asia while none of Malaysia's universities make it to the top 500.
If these two polarised views were to be equated to half-century marathon, Lee's advocacy is now at the forefront of the global race while Mahathir's still struggling from far behind.
Despite all this, Mahathir still takes pride in his policy and has recently defended it by saying that majority of the students in public universities are Malays who are not wealthy enough to attend private universities, adding that meritocracy would only render these students labourers.
Looking at things from another angle, if the government back in those years adopted the views of Lee Kuan Yew and implemented meritocracy in Malaysia's universities, how would things measure up today? Would our UM be on the same par as the National University of Singapore now?
Tay Tian Yan, Sin Chew Daily
