TVET No Longer Second Choice: Good, Bad or Ugly?

 

The statement “TVET is no longer second choice” is good news for Malaysia. 
Well 'yes' and 'no', if you ask me.

More students and parents now recognise that Technical and Vocational Education and Training can lead to stable careers, practical skills, and real employment opportunities. Industries increasingly value technical competence, adaptability, and workplace readiness.

However, there is a deeper issue that Malaysia must confront honestly.

If TVET is viewed mainly through the employability lens, the country risks producing mostly execution-level workers while industries struggle to upgrade technologically and operationally. 

This will impede NIMP2030 vision for Malaysia.

Many TVET pathways still focus heavily on preparing graduates for immediate operational roles rather than developing long-term capability progression.

Modern industries may not only need workers who can execute tasks. They also need people who can manage systems, coordinate workflows, solve operational problems, integrate technologies, and drive innovation. 

These are the Tier-2 and Tier-3 capabilities that advanced economies deliberately cultivate. The real success of TVET should therefore not be measured only by job placement statistics. It should also be measured by how many system leaders, technical integrators, and future innovators the system produces.

a) If You See it as a GOOD View:

This means you recognise TVET as a valuable pathway for employment, practical skills, and socio-economic participation. You believe TVET can provide stable careers, workplace readiness, and opportunities for many learners. This view improves the image of TVET and helps society move beyond the old stigma that TVET is only for weak academic performers.

b) If You See it a BAD View:

This means TVET is still being viewed too narrowly through the lens of immediate employability. The system focuses mainly on producing execution-level workers for current industry needs, with limited attention to long-term capability growth. In this situation, industries may gain workers, but struggle to develop higher-level technical integrators, supervisors, and system improvers needed for industrial upgrading.

c) If You See it as an UGLY View:

This means TVET success is measured ONLY through job placement statistics and short-term labour supply, DESPITE knowing that TVET is much broader than employability alone. The deeper purpose of capability-building becomes lost. The system may produce workers for today, but fail to develop future technical leaders, innovators, advanced specialists, and industrial problem-solvers. Over time, industries risk technological stagnation, weak innovation capacity, shallow technology adaptation, and difficulty competing in a rapidly changing global economy.

The Bigger Message

The real goal is not simply making TVET “popular.”
The real goal is ensuring TVET becomes a national economic capability-building system that develops both industries and their workers  together.

What say you?


Disclaimer: The ideas, frameworks, and interpretations presented in this article are intended to encourage discussion and analytical thinking. Any comparative observations or classifications are illustrative in nature and should not be interpreted as definitive statistical measurements or official rankings.