PAS Youth is calling on the Education Ministry (KPM) to explain the rationale behind the removal of the 30% Bumiputera equity requirement for companies operating private educational institutions (IPS) under the ministry.
PAS Youth Education Sector chief Mohammad Kamal Mohamed also called for the ministry to present an alternative plan to safeguard Bumiputera interests following the policy change.
He said KPM’s earlier statement that the decision was reached after discussions with the Investment, Trade and Industry Ministry (MITI) had raised questions, particularly after MITI subsequently said it had no information about the matter.
Mohammad Kamal said the differing statements had raised concerns about the policy-making and coordination process.
“PAS Youth wants to stress that any decision involving Bumiputera interests must be handled through a comprehensive engagement process,” he said in a statement on Wednesday.
He said such decisions should not be implemented without proper consultation and consideration of the views of relevant stakeholders.
KPM announced on Monday that companies operating private educational institutions would no longer be required to maintain at least 30% Bumiputera equity ownership. KPM said the decision followed discussions with MITI.
However, MITI subsequently clarified that it had no information regarding the adjustment to the equity requirement and said Bumiputera equity ownership policy falls under the purview of the Economy Ministry.
Mohammad Kamal said KPM should provide a more comprehensive explanation of the reasons behind the decision, as well as clarify how Bumiputera participation in the private education sector would be supported moving forward.
“KPM should take responsibility for outlining the measures that will be taken to continue strengthening Bumiputera interests following the removal of the equity requirement,” he said.
He added that the ministry should not underestimate the implications of the policy change or treat the issue lightly.
The call comes amid wider questions from several groups over the removal of the 30% requirement, including calls for the government to clarify whether an alternative mechanism would be introduced.
