Data on faculty and staff indicate promising albeit “natural” evolution. Faculty have increased from 2,397 in 2000 to 10,711 in 2010 and 16,676 in 2020. To serve projected increases in enrolment, 17,025 full-time faculty and a comparable number of support staff will be needed in 2040. With external support and expansion of local graduate programmes, improvement in the number of terminal degrees can be seen. Nevertheless, in absolute terms and relative to more prominent HEIs in Malaysia, Thailand and even Vietnam, the number of PhDs and competent professionals is very low. Besides, the faculty teaching loads are very heavy, and the faculty generally regard research and service as being of secondary importance. Against the background, career management is traditional and rudimentary, and there is little national investment in postgraduate qualifications, especially in priority fields and important professions.

Another development is the rapid increase in the number of academic programmes and HEIs. The latter has increased from 23 in 2000 to 97 in 2010 and 128 in 2020. Major concerns include much fewer STEM programmes and relatively low-quality programmes: few programmes accredited, poor internal quality assurance systems and graduate employability. HEIs are predominantly teaching enterprises, and there is little strategic national orientation and investment to promote research and development (R&D). The few leading HEIs have been struggling to promote research, mainly with external funding. While some HEIs are accredited by the national agency, only one private HEI is accredited by the ASEAN University Network. Results from employer surveys and tracer studies indicate concerns over skill gaps and low incomes from first jobs.

Against this backdrop of HE “underdevelopment” vis-à-vis the required graduates and innovation is the limited state capacity to steer the development, rather low collective will to achieve a common national agenda, absence of a committed champion for important initiatives and a pool of transformative leaders (those who perceive leadership as not merely holding positions, but as an obligation for institutional development and social transformation), and frank and sincere dialogue amongst the key leaders at multiple levels.

Potential scenarios in 2040
Given limited quality data availability and no comprehensive database, it is rather challenging to systematically assess higher education development, let alone to portray the scenarios. We simply attempt to project three broad scenarios based on data available and our experience and knowledge.

One scenario, which is very unlikely, is that higher education will be left to take a natural course. There would thus be little strategic national steering and investment. Higher education development, including graduate and programme quality, access, university governance and management, and university missions would not be much different from now. There would thus be little hope that higher education would produce adequate qualified talent and innovation to drive economic development and social progress, i.e., to achieve national visions. There would be little major orientation and counselling, and students would be left to choose what they could pay for available programmes. There would be little national investment to expand enrolment to produce a large pool of quality graduates, especially in strategic priority fields. There would be little proactive national steering and investment to increase and enhance priority academic programmes to make them internationally competitive and nationally relevant. There would be little attempt to systematise and strictly implement progressive careers for faculty and staff. Career development would be left to evolve naturally, and talented academics and professionals would be further sucked up by the growing, more promising private sector and regional economies. Those staying behind would be absorbed with teaching and continue to exhibit little commitment to research and services. The government would show little interest in strategic investment to promote R&D, and public and private HEIs would continue to be profit-oriented teaching enterprises, producing graduates mainly to serve the lower end of the market.

Another scenario, the most probable, is that the development will be “partially” steered by the government, within a fragmented higher education system and a “routine” national policy, which receives selective investments. This will result in “islandic development” or “pocket of higher education development” as the government and development partners will invest in selected priority areas, programmes and fields, and/or HEIs. The ability of the sector to produce adequate quality graduates and innovation to drive the desired economy and society will be impossible, and the extent of its impact on achieving the national visions will hinge on the scale of investment, extent of the collective steering from the government, commitment of key leaders, and individual purchasing power.
Strategic enrolment orientation to achieve the required number of qualified graduates in targeted priority fields may not be a national priority, and the government may continue its routine major orientation.

Strategic, targeted national investment to increase adequate enrolment in priority fields to achieve the visions will be unlikely, although the government and development partners may inject random, partial investment to promote certain fields and research areas. Academics will prioritise teaching; support staff will provide basic administrative services; and an academic career and university employment will continue to be less attractive to top talents and expatriates. Their career paths will probably be left to evolve by themselves and at a slow pace. There will be little strategic steering from and collaboration among the key institutions to create a progressive, professional career management system to promote transformative academic leadership and to attract talents from outside academia, the expatriate community, and from overseas. There will be inadequate steering and investment to promote academic programme orientation to enhance the priority programmes to produce sizeable professionally competent graduates to drive the national visions.

Depending on priority and budget availability, the government may conduct random investments to promote selective fields. Given the aspiration to see some centres of research excellence, there will be some national investment in R&D, although it will be ad hoc and can be “islandic” and will not be strategically planned or large enough to produce the required innovation to achieve the visions. Quality will evolve rather naturally, and the aspiration to have a higher education system comparable in quality to contemporary peers in the high middle-income countries in ASEAN can be far-fetched.