UEC+2 pathway ‘political stopgap’, not real recognition, says Warisan rep

KOTA KINABALU (Feb 12): The so-called UEC+2 pathway that allows Unified Examination Certificate (UEC) holders to apply to local universities is not genuine institutional reform but a temporary measure to avoid addressing the core issue, said Likas assemblyman Tham Yun Fook.

The Parti Warisan lawmaker said by introducing the UEC+2, the federal government has made the essence of the issue even clearer.

“The National Unity Minister’s statement that the Ministry of Education still does not recognise the UEC despite the existence of UEC+2 clearly shows that this policy merely sidesteps the question of formal recognition,” he said in a statement.

“It also appears to provide a political ‘exit strategy’ for a certain party that had previously insisted it would leave the Unity Government if the UEC were not recognised.”

Tham said the so-called UEC+2 may appear open on the surface but in reality imposes multiple additional conditions, effectively downgrading a qualification that should be directly recognised into one that requires supplementary credentials.

“This approach does not resolve the fundamental question of recognition; instead, it repackages non-recognition as a form of ‘conditional recognition’ through technical manoeuvring.

“What is even more questionable is that the policy was announced prominently in a political context, yet it lacks a clear, stable, and institutionalised implementation framework,” he said.

He asserted there was no explicit legal status, no evidence of comprehensive access across the public university system, and no transparent, standardised execution guidelines.

“Rather than solving the problem, it seems designed to manage political tensions,” he added.

Tham said for decades, the Chinese independent school system has nurtured countless talents for the nation.

“The UEC system is mature and rigorous, and it enjoys broad international recognition. The issue has never been about academic standards, but about political will.

“If the authorities are sincere, they should directly, clearly, and comprehensively recognise the UEC, instead of offering a ‘half-open door’ with added conditions.

“Rejecting institutional recognition on one hand while promoting a ‘special pathway’ on the other only deepens public distrust.”

Stressing that education must not be used as a political bargaining chip or reduced to a cyclical campaign promise, Tham said true educational fairness should not be built upon additional conditions.

“Genuine institutional confidence does not require detours. Recognising the UEC is neither charity nor concession — it is about granting a long-standing education system its rightful institutional status.

“If this fundamental issue cannot be confronted directly, then UEC+2 will merely serve as a delaying tactic to postpone difficult decisions.

“What society needs is not symbolic compromise, but clear, decisive, and institutionalised recognition,” he said.

Tham also warned that education must not be handled ambiguously, and urged the Unity Government to “stop evasive compromises” and provide a clear and affirmative answer on the recognition of the UEC.