Malaysian universities "selling unaccredited UK certificates"?
The ‘value’ of the CMI award is based totally upon ‘reputation’
Following recent scandals of UK medical bodies offering unaccredited certificates to Malaysian doctors, new evidence has emerged of a UK management body selling 'unaccredited certificates' through local universities and an insolvent local shell company.
Students at a number of leading Malaysian universities are being given degrees packaged with 'unaccredited' certificates and credentials from the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) in the United Kingdom according to evidence uncovered from public domain sources.
These ‘value-added’ Dual Degree Awards claim to offer unique curriculum content, career development tools, internships, mentoring, student events and networking, along with job interview training, that carries a CMI certificate.
The certificates are issued by the CMI, which has charitable status in the United Kingdom and managed through a wholly-owned commercial subsidiary, CMI Management and Leadership Sdn Bhd in Malaysia.
The CMI certificates are widely available in packages, bundled with degrees awarded by Malaysian public and private universities including Asia e-University, Asia Metropolitan University (AMU), Asia Pacific University (APU), HELP University, Heriot Watt University Malaysia, International University of Malaya-Wales, IPK College, Kolej Universiti Poly-Tech MARA (KUPTM), Malaysia University of Science and Technology (MUST), Perdana University, Putra Business School, Saito University College, SIDMA College Sabah and Sarawak, Sunway University Business School, Taylor’s University, UNIRAZAK University, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Universiti Technology Mara (UiTM), Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN), Universiti Utara Malaysia, and Yes International College.
Our investigations have raised three main concerns regarding these certificates.
First the CMI certificates are not accredited in Malaysia or recognised by the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) as academic credits.
The 'value' of the certificate depends completely on the reputation of CMI in the United Kingdom and as an unaccredited certificate in Malaysia a CMI award would not be recognised by the Malaysian civil service, government agencies and major corporations, despite the extra fees charged to students to receive it.
Second, the certificates are packaged into Malaysian degrees without any additional curriculum content, extra-curriculum activities or assessments. This barely makes the CMI award a 'certificate of attendance' for students studying for the primary degree.
Third, the financial and legal status of CMI Management and Leadership Sdn Bhd does not appear to stand up to scrutiny.
According to the balance sheet disclosed to the Malaysian Companies Commission (SSM) last year, the company had accumulated RM4,143,537 in current liabilities, with only RM31,656 in assets, no income and a loss of more than RM1 million. With the paid-up capital equity standing at only RM1.00, the company is grossly insolvent.
However, controversies concerning CMI Management and Leadership Sdn Bhd do not stop there.
In addition to being an insolvent company, CMI Management and Leadership Sdn Bhd has no fixed place of business and is operated from a virtual office at a business centre in Brunsfield Oasis Tower outside of Kuala Lumpur.
Based on its financial status and lack of infrastructure and facilities it is difficult to see how the company can add value to the certificates it is selling as promised under its agreement with Malaysian universities.
It is also unclear who is running and making the day-to-day decisions of CMI Management and Leadership Sdn Bhd. The company records show only two directors, one of whom is not resident in Malaysia.
The legality of a foreign resident not domiciled in Malaysia and without a work permit also raises questions about the legitimacy of the company and makes its operations look even more dubious.
According to Malaysian investment laws any company involved directly or indirectly in education requires a minimum of 50 percent local Malaysian equity. CMI in the United Kingdom refused to respond to our inquiry as to how CMI Management and Leadership Sdn Bhd is exempt from this legal requirement.
Even if CMI obtained a special exemption, which would be highly unlikely, there are stringent minimum capital requirements for companies with foreign equity in Malaysia. CMI appears to have evaded investment guidelines with only RM1.00 paid up capital in its Malaysian subsidiary.
On face value Malaysian universities have signed up their students and paid fees to what appears to be a highly suspicious shell company, without receiving anything in return for the benefit of their students.
In addition, CMI is relying on the brand names of the local universities they have signed up to give their certificates credibility in Malaysia and to sell them on a commercial basis.
The writer also understands that CMI may soon be involved in litigation with Malaysian stakeholders based on claims of unethical conduct in their management of the Malaysian operations.
Against this background Malaysian universities must re-evaluate the value and reputational risk from their relationship with CMI and perhaps seek alternative arrangements to provide their students with the ‘value-added’ services that were promised.
The balance sheet of CMI Management and Training Sdn Bhd clearly indicates the company does not have the capacity to service its clientele
CMI was given the opportunity to write a formal reply to our investigation and CMI’s representative Mishcon de Reya in London was contacted in the absence of a contactable local representative in Malaysia.
A series of questions, led to the following reply, “Our client will not be responding to your litany of questions, which betray how misguided, inapplicable, and incorrect your position is. The CMI is confident that it has complied with all of its legal and regulatory duties.”
CMI was also offered a full right of reply.
Subscribe Below:
And why not I ask? Perhaps an afternoon on your computer generated Netflix which still runs the outrageous documentary (for its outrageous subject matter) titled "Operation Varsity Blues" - A College Admissions Scandal, you'll find that even the most highly rated of US universities as Harvard are not immune from the practise of self funding through means that are less than legitimate, lawful or moral.
It was widely rumoured (though Wharton at University of Pennsylvania would not confirm) that the infamous Jho Low "purchased" his Wharton MBA through a massive donation to the University from his wealthy developer father.
Many more wealthy Malaysians have "passed through" US universities through these alternative avenues.
When one considers their command of the English language after passing out from prestigious, Australian, US and UK universities the penny begins to drop. Thanks to the Netflix, A College Admission Scandal documentary, that suspicion is laid to rest very quickly.
JP Morgan 'let go' 4 Chinese Malaysians from their trading, analytical and deal making departments when in 2021 it was discovered, that they had falsified their grade point averages and were under federal investigation on suspicion of having substituted persons as candidates to sit for them at their entry (GRE) and final year exams at Universities. Similar investigations are underway at Yale, Wharton, Princeton and Johns Hopkins. There appears to be a link to a source in KL and each of these and other prestigious US universities, the link acting as a conduit for much needed funds from wealthy Chinese Malaysians to these US Universities.
The rate of Asian academic fraud (meaning mainly Chinese) is very high at Western Universities.
How could anyone leave the UK out of this scandal or forget Lord Patel of the UoL being forced to resign from the senate after it was discovered that Seif El Islam Gaddafi was given a doctorate in Engineering under dubious circumstances after he paid Euros 1.5 million to the University?
There was no proof that the two events were connected. But the lack of explanation by the University led to Lord Patel's resignation not wanting to be tainted by association with an institution which could not verify or authenticate a higher degree awarded to a candidate.
The list goes on. So why is it such a scandal that the University of Malaya and other such institutions modelled on western Universities engage in similar practices?
Reputations are about good reputations not failures. Not every graduate of Oxford or Cambridge is an Einstein or Isaac Newton. The vast majority are partially educated rich kids with a 'Hermes Handbag' quality little utility "education". Money doesn't talk. It screams obscenities at those without it.
The Malaysian legal profession and its judges stand testament to the difference between an academic orientation from an expensive university and an education from hard work at any university.