JULY 7 — South-east Asian higher education is enjoying a moment of pride. The QS World University Rankings 2026 reflect notable institutional progress: Malaysia now leads the region with 10 universities in the Top 500, ahead of Indonesia (5) and Thailand (2) and Singapore (2). The National University of Singapore remains Asean’s highest-ranked institution (8th globally), but Malaysia’s Universiti Malaya (UM) has surged to 58th, overtaking regional peers like City University of Hong Kong (63), and even some UK Russell Group universities such as Sheffield.
These headline achievements are no accident. They reflect years of strategic investment and reform. Malaysia’s 2015-2025 Higher Education Blueprint explicitly aimed to increase the number of globally ranked institutions, and similar “world-class university” drives were launched in Indonesia to boost the local universities into global rankings.
Yet the QS leap, impressive as it is, reveals a double-edged reality. A sole focus on rankings can be counterproductive. The QS methodology places heavy weight on academic reputation and research output: 50 per cent of the score is linked to research and discovery, including 30 per cent from reputation surveys. This often skews institutional incentives toward chasing citations and brand recognition, often at the expense of broader educational missions. In some cases, universities have resorted to short-term tactics: hiring “star” researchers to boost publication metrics, pushing faculty to publish in low-tier open-access journals, or maximising publication volume over quality.
In short, success in QS rankings can mask deeper challenges, especially if institutions prioritize optics over substance.
File picture of Universiti Malaya in Kuala Lumpur January 22, 2024. Malaysia’s 2015-2025 Higher Education Blueprint explicitly aimed to increase the number of globally ranked institutions, and similar ‘world-class university’ drives were launched in Indonesia to boost the local universities into global rankings. — Picture by Firdaus Latif
These perverse incentives risk undermining long-term institutional capacity and regional development goals. Some Asean universities now focus disproportionately on internationally citable research, often involved or led by foreign collaborators, while underinvesting in teaching quality, local-language scholarship, or disciplines central to social-economic development. Others have launched for-profit “international programmes” (typically in English and targeting foreign students) to boost enrolment and appeal to rankings metrics, without parallel investment in pedagogy or curriculum quality.
Overemphasis on global citation counts can also distort research agendas, diverting attention from urgent local and regional issues, such as climate adaptation, public health, or social inclusion, that may not score highly in global rankings. This race to climb the QS ladder can easily become a race to the bottom in terms of relevance and equity, at least.
Indeed, in the drive for international prestige, some universities risk underinvesting in programs that address national development needs, such as teacher training, public health education. Such mismatches threaten the very human capital foundations that Asean economies depend on.
Encouragingly, policymakers across the region are beginning to acknowledge these tensions. The recent 2025 Asean Summit and ministerial meetings hosted in Malaysia reaffirmed a commitment to inclusive, future-ready education. Under Malaysia’s chairmanship, the Langkawi Higher Education Ministers’ Meeting adopted a regional cooperation framework and endorsed the Asean Global Exchange Mobility and Scholarship (Asean-GEMS) initiative, and an intra-Asean scheme to expand student mobility and academic collaboration. These are timely signals that rankings alone are not enough, and that regional cooperation must form the next frontier.
To translate these aspirations into meaningful change, Asean should pursue a set of concrete, region-wide mechanisms to foster academic quality, research collaboration, and institutional resilience.
One key step is the launch of a regional research grant fund. Asean could model a pooled funding mechanism after the EU’s Horizon Europe programme, creating a modest Asean Research Council that provides grants for collaborative, multi-country research on shared challenges such as climate change, agriculture, health systems, or regional integration. This would help Asean research networks grow beyond bilateral government-to-government agreements and elevate regional knowledge production.
Quality assurance and accreditation should also be a regional priority. Asean has made early progress through the Asean University Network (AUN)-QA framework and guidelines for harmonised accreditation. These tools should be expanded and institutionalised across member states to allow mutual recognition of degrees and alignment of quality benchmarks. Peer learning networks, such as AUN’s thematic working groups, can support this effort by promoting cross-border faculty evaluations, programme reviews, and shared curriculum development.
Student and faculty mobility must also be strengthened. Beyond individual scholarship programs, Asean could build a structured academic exchange initiative similar to the EU’s Erasmus program. Such a scheme would enable students to study at top regional institutions in exchange for service commitments in their home countries. Faculty sabbaticals, joint appointments, and research fellowships across Asean universities would further deepen inter-institutional relationships and foster a more integrated academic community. The recent Higher Education Declaration provides a broad umbrella for such initiatives, but their success will depend on sustained political commitment and funding.
Moreover, Asean must strengthen its partnerships beyond the region. The Asean+3 University Network already links institutions across Asean, China, Japan, and Korea. This platform could be further expanded to include other dialogue partners, broadening the pool of research resources and deepening collaborative opportunities for the benefit of Asean’s universities. It is also crucial to deepen collaboration between academia and industry. Governments should encourage industry actors to participate in curriculum co-development, and co-fund laboratory infrastructure. These public-private-university linkages would help ensure that education and research remain aligned with Asean’s evolving economic landscape.
South-east Asia’s QS rankings rise is real, and rightly deserves recognition. It signals renewed attention to higher education quality and growing investment in research capacity. But rankings are only one measure, and an incomplete one. To avoid the trap where metrics chase overrides mission, Asean governments must pivot toward long-term, collaborative solutions. By investing in shared research platforms, harmonised quality assurance, and intra-regional mobility, the region can turn its current momentum into lasting strength that supports not only economic integration, but also social development and regional resilience.
* Dr Phar Kim Beng, Professor of Asean Studies and Director of the Institute of Internationalization and Asean Studies (IINTAS), International Islamic University Malaysia; and Yu-wai Vic Li, lecturer in East Asian Studies, University of Sheffield.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
