1

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION – DO NOT CITE

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES IN MALAYSIAN

HIGHER EDUCATION

Hena Mukherjee, Jasbir S. Singh, R. M. Fernandez-Chung, T. Marimuthu

March 23, 2011

2

Table of contents Pages

Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………………...………………….......….. 4

Introduction …………………………………………………………………………………………………….... 7

Study Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………………..……. 9 Data Issues Sample Survey: Socioeconomic Status of Students Education and National Development …………………………………………………………..…..10 Growth and Expansion of Higher Education Access to Higher Education ……………………………………………………………………..………..16 Increased Provision Improved Access Increased Intake, Enrolment and Graduate Output Impact on Labor Force Impact on Quality Inadequately qualified academic staff Quality of research output Brain Drain Impact of National Policies on Equity …………………………………………………….………… 31 Participation in Higher Education Student Admissions and Ethnic Quotas Student Admissions based on Meritocracy Outcome of Affirmative Action Policy Registered Professionals by Ethnic Group Impact of National Policies on Gender …………………………………………….…..……..…… 51 Intake, Enrolment and Output Women with Higher Education in the Population Women’s Participation in the Labor Force

3

Impact of National Policies on Region ……………………………………………….……..……… 64 Regional Differences in Population and Labor Force Regional Differences by Gender Regional Differences by Ethnicity Regional Differences 2010 Impact of National Policies on Socioeconomic Status …………………………..………….. 72 Education and Social Mobility in Malaysia Role of HEIs in Promoting Social Mobility Sample Socioeconomic Status Survey 2010 Financing of Higher Education in Malaysia ………………………………………………………. 79 Financing of HEIs Student Financing The Scholarship Story The PTPN Story Variations in Financial Support between Public and Private HEIs Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….102 References ………………………………………………………………………………………………………109 Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 113

4

ABBREVIATIONS

ABE Association of Business Executives AIMST AIMST Asian Institute of Medicine, Science and Technology ATC Advanced Tutorial Centre CGPA Cumulative Grade Point Average

CIMA Chartered Institute of Management Accountants GLC Government-linked Company HEIs Higher Education Institutions HELP Higher Education Learning Philosophy University College ICSA Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators INTI INTI International University JPA Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam (Public Services Department) KDU Kolej University Damansara Utama (Damansara Utama University

College) KTAR Kolej Tunku Abdul Rahman (Tunku Abdul Rahman College) Kojadi Koperasi Jayadiri Sdn. Bhd. (Cooperative Limited) LAN Lembaga Akreditasi Negara (National Accreditation Board) MAPCU Malaysian Association of Private Colleges and Universities MIED Maju Institute of Educational Development MARA Majlis Amanah Rakyat (Council of Trust for Bumiputera)

5

MLVK Majlis Latihan Vokesional Kebangsaan (Council for National Vocational

Training) MMU Multimedia University MOE Ministry of Education MOHE Ministry of Higher Education MQA Malaysian Qualifications Agency NAPEI National Association of Private Education Institutions NEM New Economic Model NEP New Economic Policy NOC National Operations Council OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PHEIs Public Higher Education Institutions PolyMara Polytechnic Yayasan MARA (Kolej Poly-Tech Mara) PrHEIs Private Higher Education Institutions PTPTN Perbadanan Tabung Pendidikan Tinggi Nasional (National Higher

Education Fund Corporation) SES Socioeconomic Status STPM Sijil Tinggi Pelajaran Malaysia (Malaysian Higher School Certificate) TAFE Technical and Further Education College UCTI University College of Technology and Innovation (The Asia Pacific

University College of Technology & Innovation)

6

UKM Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (National University of Malaysia) UiTM Universiti Teknologi MARA (MARA University of Technology) UM Universiti Malaya (University of Malaya) UMT Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (University of Terengganu) UniKL Universiti Kuala Lumpur (University of Kuala Lumpur) UniSel Universiti Selangor (University of Selangor) UNiTEN Universiti Tenaga Malaysia (National Electricity Board University) UPM Universiti Putra Malaysia (Putra University of Malaysia) UTM Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (University of Technology Malaysia) UTP Universiti Teknologi Petronas (Petronas University of Technologyl) USM Universiti Sains Malaysia (Science University of Malaysia) UTAR Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman (Tunku Abdul Rahman University) WOU Universiti Terbuka Wawasan (Wawasan Open University)

7

ACCESS AND EQUITY ISSUES IN MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

Introduction

Malaysia is one of the smaller countries in the Asia Pacific region and consists of Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak with a population of about 28.2 million at the first quarter of 2008. It is a multi racial, multi cultural country consisting of Malays, Chinese, Indians and other indigenous groups such as the Orang Asli in Peninsular Malaysia, Kadazans in Sabah and the Ibans in Sarawak. Malaysia obtained her independence from the British in 1957 and thereupon established a constitutional monarchy with a political system based on the UK’s parliamentary democracy. Politically, Malaysia has enjoyed political stability since independence. The Malaysian constitution provided the basis for the social contract among the various races which gave special privileges for Malays, while preserving the languages and culture of the other races.

After devastating race riots in 1969 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian leadership determined that economic balance among Malaysia’s three major ethnic groups – Malays, Chinese and Indians –was the only road to communal peace. The result was the New Economic Policy (Box 1) which was designed to create national unity through the twin objectives of eradicating poverty and restructuring of Malaysian society by eliminating the identification of race with economic function.

Box 1 The New Economic Policy On May 13, 1969, responses to the results of national elections plunged the country into violent racial clashes in the capital city Kuala Lumpur, erupting into the bloodiest race riots the country had ever known. A state of emergency was declared, Parliament was suspended, and the country was governed by the National Operations Council (NOC) between May 15 1969 and February 1971 when Parliamentary democracy was restored. The NOC was under the leadership of the then Deputy Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak. The NOC promulgated the New Economic Policy (NEP) which became the basic tenets governing implementation of national policies in every sector since 1971. The two-pronged objectives of the NEP were, firstly, to reduce and eventually eradicate poverty by raising income levels and increasing employment opportunities for all Malaysians, irrespective of race; and secondly to restructure Malaysian society to correct the economic imbalance, through income distribution, employment, ownership of wealth between Malays and non-Malays. To achieve the second objective, the government encouraged greater Malay urbanization, privileged access to education and training, employment and economic ventures, so as to control 30 percent ownership of capital in commerce and industry by 1990. It is widely acknowledged that the NEP has had an important role in reducing poverty in the country which was at 50 percent in 1970 to less than 4 percent in 2010. In 1957, the incidence of poverty amongst the Bumiputera

1

community was the highest with 70.5 percent compared with 27.4 percent for the Chinese and 35.7 percent for the Indians. In the last five decades, the efforts by the Government, the poverty rates have declined dramatically for all

8

the communities. In 2004, the poverty rates had declined to 8.3 percent, 0.6 percent and 2.9 percent respectively for the Bumiputera

1, Chinese and Indian communities.

At higher education level, the NEP set quotas for students from the different ethnic groups to reflect their proportions in the population as a whole. The distribution of student enrolment in public higher education institutions were to be fixed at 55 percent for Malays and 45 percent for the Chinese and Indian ethnic groups. Although the NEP ended in 1990, the objectives of the NEP, particularly the preferential treatment for Malays in education, employment and economic ventures, continued in the subsequent national policies such as the National Development Policy (1991-2000), the National Vision Policy (2001-2010), and now the New Economic Model which is premised on high income, inclusiveness and sustainability.

Malaysian policy-makers recognized soon after independence that higher education was a critical instrument in bringing about national development and social change. Globally, higher education is increasingly valued as a major contributor to a country’s GDP with recognition of its catalytic role in growing the knowledge economy and society. Recent national policy documents in Malaysia reveal concern at top decision-making levels that the implementation of Malaysia’s education policies over the last four decades has not brought about desired development outcomes and need to be radically changed if the nation is to develop a competitive edge in the global and regional economy. The government has ploughed substantial investment into education relative to many other countries. ‘…But compared to other countries – both in the region and developed countries worldwide – the quality of students being produced…continues to be inadequate. Education policies have stymied the national objective of producing the best talent to meet the country’s needs (NEM 2010, 55)’.

Given the ‘substantial investment’ made, there is need to review the status of higher education1 in Malaysia, the utilization of public funds for its citizens, and the impact upon the country as a whole of ‘modern history’s greatest experiments in social engineering and possibly the world’s most extensive attempt at affirmative action (Michael Schuman 2010)’.

The Ministry of Education’s definition of higher education2 underpins the information and data in this paper: ‘Higher Education covers certificate, diploma, undergraduate as well as postgraduate levels.’ The providers of higher education in Malaysia are universities, university colleges, polytechnics and community colleges. This paper will review the issues of higher education access and equity in terms of the impact of the Malaysian Government’s affirmative action policy3 and its implementation on the country’s major ethnic groups, gender, geographical regions and the socioeconomically disadvantaged.

9

Study Methodology

The study draws heavily on Ministry of Education (MoE) and Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) data and information both published and from their respective websites, as well as government agencies and departments which have links with the Ministry of Higher Education. The study team also relied on the Department of Statistics, Malaysia particularly its Census Reports and Labor (sic) Force Surveys. Statements and announcements by MoE and MoHE officials and politicians in the national press also provided an important source of data and information. The study team consulted education officials, academic and administrative staff as well as students of public and private universities, and members of professional organizations to deepen understanding of access- and equity-related issues. A sample survey to ascertain data and information on student respondents’ socioeconomic background was conducted with the assistance of the Malaysian Qualifications Agency. Data Issues

Difficulties dogged the study process in accessing reliable data required for all the sections of the study. Slowing down the data collection process were issues relating to changing definitions, shifting of age cohort bands in different years, slow responses or none for information requests, and a general view that data could not be readily shared. The ten Malaysia Development Plans, extremely important official sources for data, do not always present similar types of data over the years rendering comparisons and analyses over time sometimes impossible. The inconsistencies identified in published data proved to be one of the more intractable of the data collection problems encountered during the study. Many of these inconsistencies in data result from the varying definitions of categories used by researchers, Ministry of Higher Education and agencies responsible for collecting data such as the Department of Statistics.

A case illustrating such difficulties refers to data on the percentage of persons in the population having attained higher education. The universal definition for higher education is taken to be those within the age group of 19-24 or 18-24, that is, students who have completed post secondary education and are proceeding to higher education. However a recent statement from the Ministry of Higher Education reports that about “40 percent of youth aged between 17 and 21 – are enrolled at higher education institutions” (Sunday Star 2011, p N5). Findings are quite different if other definitions are used to describe youth in higher education, as is the case in Table 6, of this report. Using the definition of persons with higher

10

education to be 19-24 it reports that 24.4 percent in 2007 had achieved higher education.

Considerable confusion also arises from the fact that while 17 – 19-year-olds enrolled for pre-university matriculation and foundation programs in universities are included in university enrolment figures, the parallel sixth form students enrolled for the pre-university national standardized examinations are excluded. The absence of a standard definition can impede analysis and the reaching of meaningful conclusions. Sample Survey: Socioeconomic Status of Students

A review of existing information revealed a lack of reliable and current data on the socioeconomic status of students in the higher education databases. In order to capture this, a modest sample survey was conducted.

The Survey was carried out in collaboration with the Malaysian Qualifications Agency to provide quantitative data of the target beneficiaries (students in higher education) that could be used to triangulate and supplement existing published and documented data. Survey questionnaires were administered mid/end semester, i.e. from March to April 2010, in different regions of the country. Using the stratified sampling approach to ensure that institutions were well represented in the survey, 15 universities were selected of which four were public universities, six private universities, two private university colleges, seven private colleges and one foreign branch campus. The final number of participating institutions was reduced to 13: 2 PHEI and 11 PrHEI of which one foreign branch campus, four private universities, two private university colleges and four private colleges with two public institutions dropping out (Table 53).

The Survey Report findings are based on the analysis of 2,667 questionnaires from the total of 3900 administered. There were a total of 988 completed forms from the public HEIs and the remaining 1679 are from the private HEIs. Education and National Development

The Malaysian education system inherited from the British had, since Independence in 1957, been used as an important strategy in the development process of the nation: it was expected to fulfill the manpower demands of the economy, provide equality of educational opportunity for all and promote national unity in the plural society of Malaysia. The nation embarked on the implementation

11

of various education and economic development plans in realization of the need to strengthen economic development. One such move was the democratization of the primary and secondary education which resulted in strong upward pressure on the higher education system. The cumulative effect of these actions is best reflected in the development and growth of the higher education sub-sector, particularly the private. In the implementation of NEP, education was used as one of the strategies to achieve its objectives by expanding access to all levels of education particularly for Bumiputera students, who were educationally disadvantaged, compared to other ethnic groups. The policy was aimed at creating more opportunities for Bumiputeras through ethnic quotas in university admission policy and providing scholarships and loans for them to study both at local and foreign universities. Malaysia’s pro-Bumiputera affirmative action and redistributive policies were widely seen as successful in creating a prosperous, harmonious, multiethnic society in the 1980s and 1990s and in reducing poverty among Bumiputeras.

In March 2010, a landmark announcement was made by the Prime Minister on presenting the New Economic Model (NEM) to the country, which pledged to revise and roll back affirmative action policies. After three decades of implementation, the government overtly linked Malaysia’s economic structural woes with affirmative action policies, providing grist for many an economist’s mill that such policies were inefficient, unjust and too entrenched in the system to be mended. The NEM also identified the lack of talented and qualified human resources (a reason for the burgeoning of HEIs in the country), citing the large numbers of tertiary-educated non-Bumiputera Malaysians who have sought more non-discriminatory, more financially and socially attractive environments in developed countries. It is indicative of the difficulties Malaysia is embroiled in as no policy initiatives to implement the Prime Minister’s intent have been initiated.

Intertwined with the growth and development of the nation and higher education are the issues of access and equity. In a pluralistic society like Malaysia, such issues often create an embarrassing silence, in particular when one ethnic group is seen to be disadvantaged in order to benefit or in comparison to another. Access and equity issues become even more pertinent when seen in the light of the national policy of making Malaysia a regional hub. It would be difficult for the country to be perceived as a regional hub for higher education when Malaysian citizens seek higher education elsewhere or where the higher education needs of her citizens are not met.

12

Growth and Expansion of Higher Education

The growth in higher education in Malaysia may be traced from the early days of independence with the establishment of the Universiti Malaya in 1962. It enrolled its first batch of 323 students in 1959, as the Kuala Lumpur Division of the Universiti Malaya located in Singapore. The Universiti Malaya was the only degree granting institution in the country until the establishment of UKM in 1970. The enrolment by ethnicity for that year was 60 percent Chinese, 20 percent Malay and 20 percent Indians and Others. The enrolment of Malay students was far below their proportion in the population. By 2007, the number of higher education institutions (HEIs) had grown to 606 HEIs of various categories (Table 1). Of these 20 are public universities, 33 private universities and colleges, four foreign branch campuses, while publicly-financed polytechnics and community colleges and a range of private colleges constitute the rest.

Correspondingly the number of students in higher education had risen drastically and in 2007 there were close to 880,000 students in local HEIs, about 50,000 of whom are foreign students. In the same year, the MoHE data show that there were close to 55,000 Malaysian students in foreign HEIs overseas. Given this data, it is estimated that about 25 percent (29 percent) of the total population aged 18-24 are in higher education. Table 1: Expansion of Public Higher Education Institutions in Malaysia 1967:2007

ITEM 1967 2007

Public Universities 1 20 Private Universities and University-Colleges

0 33a

Foreign Branch Campuses 0 4

Private Colleges and HE institutions 2 488b Polytechnics 0 24

Community Colleges 0 37 Students (postgraduates) 4,560 (398) 873,238 (45,888)

Malaysian Students studying abroad n/a 54,915

Population age 18-24 n/a 3,474,200 Note: a. excluding local branch campuses b. including local branch campuses

13

Source

1997 data: Interim Report to the Higher Education Advisory Council, 1974.

2007 data – Ministry of Higher Education, www.mohe.gov.my

In 1962 a high level planning committee known as the Higher Education

Planning Committee (HEPC) was established to develop and improve the higher education sector. The HEPC Report in 1967 recommended the establishment of new universities and upgrading of the existing colleges so as to meet the increasing social demand for higher education and to meet the manpower demands of the economy. Based on the Report three new universities were established in 1960s and early 1970s - Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) (1969), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) (1970), the Universiti Pertanian Malaysia (UPM) (1971) - and one degree-granting Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (1971). Non-degree awarding institutions offering professional diplomas and sub-professional courses established prior to NEP in 1971 and they were MARA Institut Teknologi Malaysia (1967), Tunku Abdul Rahman College (1969) and Ungku Omar Polytechnic (1969).

The seventies and eighties saw the effects of school-level education policies which resulted in lowering drop-outs, and universalization of primary and secondary education, resulting in rising numbers of school leavers eligible for university admissions. The expansion of higher educational facilities was unable to fulfil the demand for skilled and knowledgeable workers for an expanding economy as well as the increasing social demand for higher education. The existing universities were directed to double their intakes. Private HEIs were encouraged to offer home grown certificates and diplomas, and degrees through twinning arrangements with foreign HEIs. This development was further fuelled by the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-98.

It was during this period that five watershed pieces of legislation relating to the education sector were passed mainly to regulate the expanding and now almost bursting private higher education sector. These were:

i. The Private Higher Education Institutions Act (PHEI) 1996 – to establish degree

granting private universities and foreign branch campuses; ii. The National Accreditation Board Act (Lembaga Akreditasi Negara) 1996 – to

establish the National Accreditation Board (or its local acronym, LAN) to accredit programs in the private higher education sector;

iii. The National Council on Higher Education Act, 1996 to establish a council which formulates policy for the Malaysian higher education sector;

14

iv. The University and University Colleges Act 1971 (Amended 1996) – to enable corporatization of public universities and to modernize the management of the public universities to meet the needs of society and industry.

v. The National Higher Education Funding Board Act, 1997 – to establish a higher education funding board to provide loans for students in HEIs.

Those not placed in local HEIs sought higher education overseas. Cognizant of

the rising demand and the need to cap the outflow of currency, to foreign institutions, particularly after the Asian Financial crisis, government strategy was to loosen control over private education. This brought about a reversal in the trend of students studying abroad from 117,297 in 2000 to 54,915 in 2007 (Table 2). Table 3 shows the comparative costs between studying in Malaysian institutions and those abroad. The 1986/87 economic downturn etched a permanent mark in the Higher Education industry with many seeking local higher education alternatives as the rising costs of overseas education became unaffordable. Private HEIs offered undergraduate qualifications either as external programs or as twinning arrangements. The increasing numbers and the downturn also brought in new players/investors from the now slow and unstable manufacturing and construction industries into the thriving private education industry. The Asian Financial crisis of 1997/8 further augmented the role of private HEIs with the recognition of 3+0 (where a 3-year foreign degree may be completed in Malaysia, in collaboration with a private HEI) and branch campuses arrangements.

For the government, the liberalization of higher education not only increased the opportunities for higher education but also reduced public expenditure and saved on foreign exchange by reducing the number of students going overseas. By 1995, the enrolment in private educational institutions was 341,310 not far behind that of public institutions at 390,388.

During the Mid-Term Review of the Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006-2010) three more universities Universiti Darul Iman Malaysia, Universiti. Malaysia Kelantan and Universiti Pertahanan were completed. More branch campuses of Universiti Teknologi MARA would be constructed with student enrolment increased to 200,000 though UiTM franchise programmes. Enrolment in institutions of higher education in the country is expected to increase from 829,831 in 2007 to 1,349,978 in 2010. Issues related to expansion of HEIs, financing of higher education at institution and student levels, management of HEIs, and the scarcity of qualified and experienced academic and research staff continue to be debated. The Higher Education Strategic Plan 2020 (Ministry of Higher Education, 2010) is expected to provide the long term direction for greater accessibility and quality education.

15

Table 2: Number of Malaysian Students Overseas, 2000-2007

Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

United States 31,360 28,700 7,395 7,611 5,519 6,411 6,142 5,281 Saudi Arabia - - 127 125 125 132 138 125

Australia 16,491 15,121 15,700 15,448 15,434 15,909 14,918 13,010 Canada 1,194 1,130 231 231 196 230 238 312

Indonesia 1,720 1,616 1,337 1,225 1,607 2,444 3,630 4,565 Jordan 3,350 1,512 361 361 310 444 490 655

Egypt 7,369 7,068 4,664 4,330 5,768 6,256 5,780 6,896

New Zealand 1,407 1,214 995 918 1,011 1,338 1,297 1,574 United Kingdom and Ireland 54,406 47,365 11,970 11,860 11,041 15,189 12,569 11,490

Other countries - - - - 2,268 8,256 8,722 11,007 Total 117,297 103,726 42,780 42,109 43,279 56,609 53,924 54,915

Source: Ministry of Higher Education, www.mohe.gov.my, 2006 and 2008.

Table 3: University Education Cost Comparison (Annual Expenses in RM)

Malaysia Australia Singapore USA UK Tuition Fees 8,700 56,800 9,400 59,300 61,100

Living Expenses 10,000 49,100 24,800 23,200 45,100 Total 18,700 105,900 34,200 82,500 106,200

1. For science and engineering course multiply ‘overseas’ tuition fees by 1.3 times 2. For medical course multiply ‘overseas’ tuition fees by 2 times 3. For the USA Ivy League universities multiply ‘overseas’ tuition fees by 2 times Source: Yap Ming Hui, New Sunday Times, 13 June 2010 quoting LIMRA? as at 2008

16

Access to Higher Education Increased Provision

By imposing the ethnic quota system for student admissions in public HEIs, the NEP created its own inequities in the higher education system. Students who were otherwise eligible for higher education were not given places. Non-Bumiputera students who were not given placements in the public HEIs had to look for alternatives, which included going to overseas education destinations such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. The number of students studying overseas increased from about 73,000 in 1990 (Tan, 2002) to 117,297 in 2000. However, students who could not afford overseas qualifications looked for local alternatives, creating a demand for locally available higher education opportunities, and catalyzing the growth of the private higher education industry. Until the early 1970s, Private Higher Education Institutions (PrHEIs) had focused on providing correspondence courses for formal school certification for repeaters and those out of school such as the Higher School Certificate; professional qualifications such as Pitman’s Secretarial Courses; and coaching for external qualifications leading to Diplomas and Advanced Diplomas mainly from the UK professional bodies such as CIMA, ABE and ICSA. These programs could not meet the growing demand for higher education in an expanding economy with its needs for a qualified and skilled workforce.

The demand for more places was met by the formation of new PrHEIs. The 7th Malaysian Plan between 1996 and 2000, which promoted growth in capital intensive, high technology industries requiring an educated, highly skilled workforce and foreign investment, caused PrHEIs to boom to an unprecedented level. In 1992, there were a total of 156 PHEIs offering certificate, diploma and professional qualification in collaboration either with a university or a professional body (Lee, 2001). By 2002, there were a total of 706 PHEIs comprising private universities including those run by government-linked companies (GLCs) and political parties, university colleges, colleges and foreign university campuses catering for almost 300,000 students (Middlehurst and Woodfield, 2004).

With the objective of providing increased access at relatively lower cost, the number of public higher education institutions has also increased. Today the 14 federated states have at least one university each with a total of 20 public universities in the country. About 50 per cent of these HEIs are concentrated in the highly urbanized Klang Valley (Kuala Lumpur and Selangor), details of which are provided in Table 4. The public and private HEIs are supported by numerous technical and vocational training providers, such as polytechnics, community

17

colleges under the Ministry of Higher Education and skills training centers under the Ministry of Human Resources with a corresponding increase in the number of students. The growth in both the public and private higher education providers had indeed provided greater access to Malaysians to pursue higher education in the country. However, access to higher education cannot be taken out of the context of equity, especially in light of policies which legitimize selection. Improved Access

The period 1985 to 2008 saw great improvement in access to higher education in Malaysia. All levels of education, primary, secondary and tertiary, increased their enrolment during this period but higher education enrolment showed the most dramatic increase. While primary enrolment increased by 43.9 percent over this period and secondary school enrolment increased by 84.6 percent, tertiary education enrolment increased by 1,339.4 percent. This represented an annual increase of 1.9 percent for primary schools, 3.7 percent for secondary schools and 58.2 percent for tertiary education institutions (Table 5).

18

Table 4: Distribution of Public and Private Higher Education Institutions According to Location, 2007

State Public HEI Private HEI

Total Universities University colleges Colleges Branch Campus Total

1. Kuala Lumpur 2 7 6 96 0 109 111

2. Selangor 4* 8 10 86 2 106 110 3. Sarawak 1 0 0 32 2 34 35

4. Johore 2 0 0 30 1 31 33 5. Penang 1 1 0 29 0 30 31

6. Perak 1 2 0 24 0 26 27

7. Negeri Sembilan

1 0 2 19 0 21 22

8. Malacca 1 0 0 20 0 20 21 9. Sabah 1 0 0 19 0 19 20

10. Pahang 1 0 0 15 0 15 16 11. Terengganu 2 0 1 10 0 11 13

12. Kedah 1 2 1 7 0 10 11

13. Kelantan 1 0 1 9 0 10 11 14. Perlis 1 0 0 2 0 2 3

Total 20 20 21 398 5 444 464

Note: * UiTM, one of the public HEIs in this state which has three satellites, 15 branches and nine city campuses. Source: Ministry of Higher Education, www.mohe.gov.my, 2007 latest??

Table 5: Expansion in Enrolment by Educational Level, 1985-2008

19

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008

% increase in

enrolment 1985-2008

Annual rate

increase (%) 1985-

2008 Primary 2,191,676 2,447,206 2,827,627 2,907,123 3,137,280 3,154,090 43.9 1.9

Secondary 1,251,447 1,366,068 1,589,584 1,950,746 2,217,749 2,310,660 84.6 3.7

Tertiary 64,025 99,687 146,581 363,949 463,582 921,548 1,339.4 58.2 Total 3,507,148 3,912,961 4,563,792 5,221,818 5,818,611 6,386,298 82.1 3.6

20

Increased access to higher education is reflected in the percentage of the

population 19-24 enrolled in higher education. Table 6 shows that in 1970 only 0.6 percent of the age group 19-24 was enrolled in higher education. By 1990, 2.9 percent of this age group was enrolled in higher education and by 2000, 8.1 percent of the age group was enrolled in higher education. A huge leap in enrolments took place after 2000 so that by 2005 19.4 percent and by 2007, 24.4 percent of the 19 - 24 age group was placed in higher education institutions (Table 6). The government’s target is to enroll 40 percent of the relevant age group into tertiary education institutions by 2020. Table 6: Percentage Population Age 19-24 enrolled in Tertiary Education

Year Population Enrolment % 1970 1,420,687 8,633 0.6

1980 1,624,274 26,410 1.6 1990 2,028,100 58,286 2.9

2000 2,626,900 211,484 8.1 2005* 3,353,600 649,653 19.4

2007* 3,474,200 847485 24.4

Sources: For 1970-2000 data from Pembangunan Pendidikan 2001-2010, MOE Kuala Lumpur For 2005 and 2007 18-24 age group data from Dept of Statistics, Enrolment data from Educational Statistics/MOHE website Increased intake, enrolment and graduate output

Significant improvement in increasing opportunities for higher education took place during the 1980s, 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century (Appendix 1). This improvement is the result of two significant changes to the higher education sector; increased intake in public higher education institutions and the liberalization of private higher education.

Intake increased in the public universities from 48,004 in 1995 to 186,024 in 2008, an average annual increase of 22.1 percent. Increased intake is most marked in the diploma and degree courses; intake in diploma courses increased from 13,513 to 64,805 and in the degree courses from 23,901 to 75,577 marking an annual increase of 29.2 percent in diploma intake and 16.6 percent in degree intake. The

21

increase in students for masters and doctoral degrees is also significant; masters intake increased from 4,568 to 16,158 or 19.5 percent annual increase and doctoral students intake increased from 212 to 3,644 or 124.5 percent annual increase.

Enrolment also improved very significantly in the public higher education institutions from 109,918 in 1987 to 533,831in 2008, an annual increase of 18.4 percent. Enrolment in diploma courses increased from 54,318 in 1987 to 164,975 in 2008, an annual increase of 9.7 percent. Enrolment in degree courses took a sharp uptrend from 43,430 in 1987 to 271,405 in 2008, an annual increase of 25.0 percent. Masters and doctoral student enrolment also saw major increases; masters students increased from 3,252 to 36,094,an annual increase of 48.1 percent and number of doctoral students jumped from 381 to 12,243, an annual increase of 148.3 percent between 1987 and 2008.

Output of graduates from the public universities kept in step with improved intake and enrolment. In 1987 total output from these institutions was 18,529, in 2000, 69,598 and in 2008, 136,762, indicating an annual increase of 30.4 percent. Output of certificate graduates moved up from 2,469 in 1987 to 20,090 in 2008, an annual increase of 34.0 percent; diploma graduates increased from 6,227 in 1987 to 47,191 in 2008, an annual increase of 31.3 percent, of degree graduates from 8,420 to 60,040, an annual increase of 29.2 percent, of masters graduates from 1,338 to 8,656, an annual increase of 26.0 percent, and of doctoral graduates from 25 to 785, an annual increase of 144.8 percent.

With the realization that the public sector is unable to cater for the increasing demand for higher education and with the view to cap the outflow of currency, the policy makers liberalized private higher education by allowing the formation of private institutions. Since the mid 1980’s the private sector was also allowed to bring in foreign qualifications and awards through the numerous partnership arrangements. Proper data for enrolment in private higher education institutions is only available from 2002 to 2008 (Appendix 2).

The story in the private sector HEIS is once again of rapid increase in intake, enrolment and graduate output. In 2002 there were 294,600 students in private institutions but by 2008 the number had increased to 399,897 recording an increase of 35.7 percent or an annual increase of 6.0 percent. Intake increased from 165,763 in 2002 to 185,846 in 2008, an annual increase of 2.0 percent. However, graduate output decreased from 139,150 in 2002 to 78,561 in 2008. The drop in graduate output is probably due to large numbers of students enrolling in twinning courses and graduating overseas or under an overseas institution.

22

The trend in the private sector is for more students to enroll for diploma and

degree courses than certificate courses. In 2002, of the total enrolment in private institutions, 31.7 percent were enrolled in certificate courses, 44.1 percent in diploma courses, 22.2 percent in degree courses, 1.3 percent in masters courses and 0.1 percent in doctoral courses. However, in 2008, 15.2 percent were enrolled in certificate courses, 44.5 percent in diploma courses, 38.0 percent in degree courses, 2.1 percent in masters courses and 0.2 percent in doctoral courses.

Opportunities for higher education are also available in polytechnics and community colleges. Again reliable data is available for 2002- 8. In 2002, 52,898 students were enrolled in polytechnics and 3,207 were enrolled in community colleges. By 2008 polytechnics had an enrolment of 85,280 and community colleges an enrolment of 17,078.

The overall situation pertaining to enrolment in the higher education sector for 2008 is portrayed in Appendix 3. Intake for 2008 in public HEIs was 124,883, in private HEIs 185,864, in polytechnics 40,574 and in community colleges 9,649, a total intake of 360,970. The largest intake was for degree courses 77 356 in public HEIs and 43,279 in private HEIs. Enrolment included 408,862 in public universities, 399,852 in private institutions, 86,280 in polytechnics and 17,082 in community colleges, a total of 911 076. Largest numbers were enrolled in degree courses, 274,349 in public HEIs and 151,591 in private HEIs. Graduate output kept pace with intake and enrolment with 87,968 graduates from public HEIs, 78,561 graduates from private HEIs, 32,783 graduates from polytechnics and 5,566 graduates from community colleges. Degree graduates included 60,040 from public HEIs and 26,590 from private HEIs. Impact on labor force

In keeping with educational expansion, the educational profile of the labor force has changed reflecting a gradually increasing proportion of employed persons with tertiary education. In 1985, 2.7 percent of the employed persons had obtained diploma certificates and 2.1 percent had obtained degree qualifications. By the year 2000, 5.8 percent of the employed were diploma holders while 5.7 percent were degree holders. In 2008, 7.4 percent of employed persons were diploma holders and 8.2 percent were degree holders. Thus, by 2008, 15.6 percent (diploma 7.4 + degree 8.2) of all employed persons had some kind of tertiary education, an increase of 10.8 percent since 1985 (Table 7). As the report on the New Economic

23

Model (NEM) points out despite the rapid expansion in higher education, 80 percent of work force are secondary school leavers.

Table 7: Number of employed persons by highest certificate obtained, Malaysia,

1985, 1990, 2000, 2001, 2005 and 2008 (000)

Year Total Diploma Degree

N % N % 1985 5,653.4 150.8 2.7 120.2 2.1

1990 6,685.0 216.8 3.2 165.8 2.5

2000 9,269.2 535.1 5.8 471.3 5.1 2001 9,357.0 564.5 6.0 533.9 5.7

2005 10,045.4 840.7 8.4 733.5 7.3 2008 10,659.6 786.1 7.4 874.1 8.2

Source: Department of Statistics, Malaysia Impact on graduate output

While access to higher education has greatly improved over the last two decades, the rapid expansion of the system has come at a cost in terms of the quality of higher education available both in the public and private sectors. The media and employers frequently express dissatisfaction with the quality of graduate output. Unemployment of graduates remains a persistent problem, especially among graduates of the public universities.

The higher education system appears to have failed to produce the kind of graduates needed for development. The Report on the New Economic Model, Part 1 points out that the education system “despite high fiscal outlays through several reform efforts, is not effectively delivering the skills needed. The Government has ploughed substantial investment into education relative to many other countries (Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong). But compared to other countries – both in the region and developed countries world-wide the quality of student s being produced, according to the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), continues to be inadequate. Education policies saddled with socio-political goals have stymied the national objective of producing the best talent to meet the country’s needs.”(p.55)

24

Realizing the need to take drastic actions to rectify the current issues pertaining to graduates, the government had taken various steps such as introducing the Malaysian Qualifications Framework with the eight learning outcome domains significant to Malaysia and the introduction of the Higher Education Leadership Academy (AKePT). Despite these changes, the proportion of graduates in the technical and science streams continues to be lower than in the Arts. More disconcertingly the trend appears to have worsened in recent years with Arts students accounting for well over half of the graduates. In 2002, 58 percent of the graduates were Arts graduates and 30 percent science and 12 percent Technical graduates. In 2005 Arts graduates had decreased to 49 percent while Science graduates were 34 percent and Technical graduates were 17 percent. By 2007, Arts graduates had increased to 57 percent while Science graduates decreased to 25 percent and Technical graduates went up slightly to 18 percent (NEM 2010, 56, Figure 17).

At the same time technical and vocational schools are producing declining numbers of graduates (NEM 2010, Figure 18). In 2000, technical and vocational schools produced 58,586 graduates. The number peaked in 2005 with 72,557 graduates. Since 2005 the numbers of graduates from the technical and vocational schools has been steadily declining so that in 2009 these schools produced only 57,782 graduates.

Tables 8 and 9 show the 2008 data for intake, enrolment and graduate output by discipline from public and private higher education institutions respectively. Table 8: Intake, Enrolment and Graduates in Public HEIs by Discipline, 2008

Discipline Intake Enrolment Graduates

N % N % N %

Education 9,546 7.2 41,511 9.9 11,675 12.3 Arts & Social Sciences 62,666 47.1 187,320 44.7 39,844 42.1

Science 24,778 18.6 73,421 17.5 16,923 17.9 Technical 27,731 20.8 92,532 22.0 20,517 21.7

ICT 7464 5.6 23,788 5.7 5,663 6.0 Others 915 0.7 762 0.2 0 0.0

Total 133,100 100.0 419,334 100.0 94,622 100.0

Source: MOHE

25

To cater for the growing needs in the fields of science and technology the government had taken a few steps and this include the introduction of new institutes providing specifically for science and technology, providing more scholarships leading to qualifications in science and technology and giving tax exemption for investment in science and technology education. Despite these initiatives, Table 8 demonstrates that in 2008 in the public HEIs close to 55 percent of intake, enrolment and graduate output was in education, arts and social science disciplines, around 18 percent was in science disciplines and about 22 percent in technical fields.

While the private HEIs offer a wide range of science, technology and technical vocational subjects, they too enrolled around 55 percent of students in the arts disciplines (Table 9). However, they were clearly more market oriented with a large enrolment (62.9 percent) among arts students in administration and business studies, and small numbers in the humanities and social sciences. The private HEIs enrolled around 30 percent in science and technology fields and 15 percent in technical and vocational fields.

Postgraduate enrolment at masters level also was higher in arts than in the science or technical fields. Enrolment in arts increased from 5,948 in 1997 to 18,415 in 2004 but declined slightly during 2005 (12,988) and picked up again during 2006 (15,903) and 2007 (18,012). Output of students at the masters level for arts increased between 1997 (983) and 2002 (5,477) but declined between 2003 (4,442) and 2006 (3,777) but further increased in 2007 (4,791). In the science disciplines enrolment remained lower than in the arts but had increased gradually between 1997 from 2,911 to 11,223 in 2005 and dipped between 2006 (9,584) and 2007 (8,411). Output crept up slowly from 488 in 1997 to 2,622 in 2007. Technical fields also experienced a slight dip in enrolments in 2002 but on the whole enrolment moved up from 962 in 1997 to 3,960 in 2007, having peaked at 4,860 in 2006. Output moved up from 121 in 1997 to 1,157 in 2006 and then dipped to 888 in 2006 and rose to 1,086 in 2007 (National Higher Education Research Institute 2010, 25, Table 2.2). Inadequately qualified academic staff

Apart from shortfalls in the training of skilled and technical human resources, the higher education sector, on the whole, suffered from a lack of adequately qualified academic staff. Data on staff qualifications demonstrate the shortage of highly qualified staff for teaching and research to achieve the economic and social

26

development targets set by the government. Staff qualifications for 2008 are shown in Table 10. Table 9: Intake, Enrolment and Graduates in Private HEIs by Discipline, 2008

Discipline Intake Enrolment Graduates

N % N % N % Arts 55.9 54.6 53.8

Foundation course 9,250 8.9 11,287 5.2 4,735 11.2

Art, Design & Music 4,996 4.8 6,832 3.1 2,584 6.1 Admin & Business 64,196 61.7 137,511 62.9 24,641 58.3

Education 8,816 8.5 26,659 12.2 1,490 3.5 Humanities 1,843 1.8 3,573 1.6 623 1.5

Law 3,717 3.6 7,773 3.6 1,517 3.6 Services 2,722 2.6 4,838 2.2 1,167 2.8

Social Sciences 4,877 4.7 11,623 5.3 2,651 6.3

Language 3,559 3.4 8,381 3.8 2,878 6.8 Sub-Total 103,976 100.0 218,477 100.0 42,286 100.0

Science & Technology 30.8 30.4 31.1 Agriculture 635 1.1 607 0.5 136 0.6

Computer Technology 21,323 37.3 51,354 42.3 11,453 46.9

Health 21,389 37.4 34,502 28.4 5,302 21.7 Medical 8,830 15.4 20,367 16.8 2,818 11.6

Science & Maths 5,015 8.8 14,569 12.0 4,682 19.2 Sub-Total 57,192 100.0 121,399 100.0 24,391 100.0

Technical Vocational 13.3 15.0 15.1 Engineering& Technical Skills

20,506 83.1 52,671 87.8 10,570 88.9

Air & Maritime 935 3.8 2,587 4.3 220 1.9

Building/Architecture 2,583 10.5 4,156 6.9 984 8.3

Others 654 2.7 562 0.9 110 0.9 Sub-Total 24,678 100.0 59,976 100.0 11,884 100.0

TOTAL 185,846 100.0 399,852 100.0 78,561 100.0 Source: MOHE

27

Table 10: Academic Staff by Qualifications in Public and Private HEIs, 2008

Qualification Public HEIs Private HEIs Total

Number % Number % Number %

Doctoral 6,601 26.3 2,116 8.9 8,717 17.8

Masters 13,800 55.0 10,370 43.6 24,170 49.5 Degree 4,165 16.6 8,485 35.7 12,650 25.9

Others 518 2.1 2,825 11.8 3,343 6.8 Total 25,084 100.0 23,796 100.0 48,880 100.0

The rapid expansion of higher education in terms of the number of

institutions and of student enrolment has made recruitment of academic staff of a high caliber difficult. Many of the established universities have lost some of their best staff to newer universities which offer quick promotions. At the same time the supply of relevantly qualified staff fails to meet the demand. If it is assumed that at least 50 percent of a university’s academic staff should possess doctoral degrees and most of the remaining should be with masters degrees, the situation pertaining to staff in Malaysian HEIs is not very satisfactory. The number of academic staff with doctoral qualifications in the total higher education system is 8,717 which represent only 17.8 percent of the total academic staff. Nearly half of the staff is with masters degrees and the remainder with first degree or diplomas and certificates. The situation in the public HEIS is a little better than in the private HEIs with 26.3 percent staff with doctoral degrees, 55 percent with masters degrees and 16.6 percent with first degrees. The qualifications profile of the private HEIs is poor with only 8.9 percent with doctoral degrees, 43.6 masters, 35.7 percent first degrees and 11.8 percent with diplomas and certificates.

The range of qualifications among the different universities is quite remarkable (Appendix 4). The older established universities have between 40 to 55 percent staff with doctoral degrees while the newer universities have less than ten percent doctoral degree staff. Universiti Sains Malaysia reports 53.6 percent staff with doctoral degrees and Universiti Malaya 40.5 percent staff with doctoral degrees. At the other end Universiti Malaysia Kelantan reports only 14.9 percent, Universiti Malaya Pahang 11.1 percent and the Universiti Pertahanan Nasional only 0.7 percent academic staff with doctoral degrees. Many of these newer universities are former colleges upgraded to university status and still have a large proportion of staff with first degrees and diplomas. Training schemes to upgrade their staff qualifications will take a considerably long time to change the situation.

28

In the private sector institutions there are 2,116 academic staff with doctoral

qualifications, that is 8.9 percent. Of these 428 staff are foreign. Staff with Masters degrees are 10,371 (of which 839 are foreign staff) or 43.6 percent of the total staff. The rest, comprising 47.5 percent were staff with diplomas and certificates, since a large number of these institutions offer courses at these levels only.

The presence of a large number of senior academics in an institution is equally important to provide leadership in teaching and research. It appears that the rapid expansion has left most universities with a very large number of staff at the lecturer level. Data are only available for the public institutions (Table 11).

For a country hoping to turn its universities into hubs of research and knowledge creation, the profile of academic staff designations is quite disappointing. Professors comprise only 5.8 percent and associate professors 13.7 percent of staff in public universities. That is, less than 20 percent of academic staff is in positions of academic leadership to head research projects and to conduct lectures at the post-graduate level. The bulk of staff is at the lecturer level (65.6 percent) who must be engaged primarily in running undergraduate and diploma level courses, and possibly pursuing their own professional development. Table 11: Academic Staff by Academic Designation in Public HEIs, 2008

Academic Designation Public HEIs Number %

Professor 1493 5.8 Associate Professor 3,487 13.7

Lecturer 16,756 65.6

Assist.Lecturer/Tutor 2,720 10.6 Language Teacher 1,099 4.3

Total 25,555 100.0 Source: MOHE

Even in the more established universities the number of professors is small

(Appendix 5), with Universiti Malaya having 319 professors from 2,077 academic staff, that is, a percentage of 15.3 percent. Universiti Sains Malaysia and the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia fare even more poorly with 8.9 percent and 10.5 percent professors respectively. Among the newer universities there is truly a

29

scarcity of staff at this level: Universiti Malaysia Pahang with 3.3 percent, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan with 7.4 percent and the Universiti Pertahanan Nasional with 0.8 percent (one person from 129 staff) at professorial level.

Combining the number of professorial and associate professorial positions in these selected universities, gives us an insight into the extent to which these universities can claim to have a core of senior academics. Universiti Malaya has a combined total of 700 professors and associate professors comprising 33.7 percent of the total academic staff; USM has a total of 505 professors and associate professors representing 28.7 percent of the academic staff; and UKM has a total of 597 professors and associate professors representing 26.6 percent of the academic staff. On the other hand Universiti Malaysia Kelantan has 14 professors and associate professors representing 13.2 percent of the staff and the Defence Academy has only 6 professors and associate professors or 4.7 percent of the total staff.

In the early years of Bumiputeraization there was a tendency to recruit only local staff into the universities. However, there is now recognition that there is need to have a fair proportion of international staff in the universities to add an international flavor to the teaching and to generate more research activities. Thus, the major universities have moved towards recruitment of international staff. Among the leading universities, Universiti Malaya has190 overseas staff which represents 9.2 percent of staff; Universiti Sains Malaysia reports 187 international staff or 10.5 percent; and the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia has 55 foreign staff or 2.5 percent of the total staff (MOHE 2008 statistics).

Quality of research output The local universities also fare badly when the quality of their research output is compared with other universities in Asia. A comparative table of publications and citations (Appendix 6) reveals that average citations per paper for Universiti Sains Malaysia are 4.08, for Universiti Malaya, 4.16 and for the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 3.68. Other leading Asian universities have considerably higher citations per paper : University of Hong Kong 10.2, Peking University 6.2, and Tokyo University 13.0.

A similar picture emerges from data on Relative Citation Index, 1981-2005 (Appendix 7). Malaysia’s relative citation index is .0.41 compared with Thailand’s and Indonesia’s 0.63, Singapore’s 0.69, China’s .56 and Japan’s .85.

Brain drain A troubling trend is the loss of some of the country’s best graduates to other countries. This brain drain occurs primarily in the high demand

30

disciplines and among the best graduates from these disciplines, marking a serious loss to the creation of high level human resources in the country. Recently Vice-Chancellors of Universiti Sains Malaysia and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia have reported the departure of about 15 percent of their best 2010 graduates in medicine to Singapore which is attractive for its better salaries and working conditions. Table 12 shows the number of Malaysian migrants with tertiary education in OECD countries. Table 12: Number of Malaysian migrants with tertiary education in OECD countries

Tertiary educated Malaysians residing in

Year 1990 Year 2000 Increase

(%)

Australia 34,716 39,601 14.07 Canada 8,480 12,170 43.51

New Zealand 4,719 5,157 9.28 United Kingdom 9,812 16,190 65.00

United States 12,315 24,695 100.53

Others 2,607 4,508 72.92 Total 72,649 102,321 40.84

Source: Frederic Docquier & Abdesiam Marfouk, Brain Drain database, World Bank

2007,Quoted by Fong Chan Onn in the Sunday Star, 16 may 2010

Table 12 shows that in the year 2000 the largest number of Malaysians with

tertiary education residing in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries were in Australia (39,601), followed by the United States (24,695) and the United Kingdom (16,190). This marked an increase since 1990 of 14.07 percent in Australia, 100.53 percent in the United States and 65.0 percent in the United Kingdom. The total number of Malaysians with tertiary education residing in OECD countries went up by 40.84 percent between the years 1990 and 2000. The 102,321 Malaysian graduates that stayed in OECD countries in the year 2000 made up 72 percent of the total Malaysians domiciled in these countries.

The tertiary education graduates staying abroad are primarily from the medical, science and technology fields, graduates sorely needed in Malaysia. For instance, in 2000, while Malaysian hospitals experienced a shortage of doctors and nurses, Malaysia had 7,431 Malaysian nurses, 4,129 doctors, 652 dentists and 798

31

pharmacists in OECD countries. Similarly, data for 2003 show that while there were 10,419 S & T research workers in Malaysia there were 7,955 Malaysian S & T researchers working in the US (Fong Chan Onn).

In summary, it may be concluded that opportunities for higher education in Malaysia have improved very significantly over the last 25 years. This is the result of a greatly expanded public higher education system and an equally vibrant and expanding private higher education system. There would appear to be a place for all seeking higher education. However, while large numbers are accommodated in the public sector which is heavily subsidized, an almost equal number seek places at a cost in the private sector, or at an even greater cost in higher education institutions overseas (Appendix 8). The rapid expansion has failed to channel more students into the technical and vocational fields or the fields for knowledge generation. This expansion has also been at the expense of diluting the quality of academic staff and by implication of the quality of graduate output, as well as faculty research and publication. Impact of National Policies on Equity Participation in Higher Education

The democratization and universalization of primary and secondary education built up the social demand for tertiary education in Malaysia. The enrolment by ethnicity for the year 1959 at the Universiti Malaya was 60 percent Chinese, 20 percent Malay and 20 percent Indians and Others (Figure 1). The enrolment of Malay students was far below their proportion in the population of Peninsular Malaysia where the ethnic composition was 49.8 percent Malays, 37.2 percent Chinese, 11.3 percent Indians and 1.8 percent Others (1957). There was an urgent need to increase the participation rate of Malay students, in line with the proportion in the population. Student Admissions and Ethnic Quotas

Prior to 1971, enrolment figures both in the upper secondary classes and in the tertiary institutions show a rapid increase. The participation rate of Malay students in the year 1971, when the New Economic Policy was launched, was already equal to that of Chinese students at about 44 percent at the Universiti Malaya (Figure 1). The seeds of the affirmative action policy were embedded in the Federal Constitution of 1957, prepared when the Federation of Malaya obtained its independence from the British. The NEP broadened the initial statements and made

32

its coverage more comprehensive. After 1971 and on the wave of the watershed event of the 1969 race riots, a committee formed by the National Operations Council (NOC) to study student development at the Universiti Malaya, recommended an ethnic quota system in the proportion of 55:45 percent for Bumiputera and non-Bumiputera students as the basis for admission to universities. A constitutional amendment gave added force to affirmative action policies, making it a critical dimension in all aspects of higher education in the country.

‘An amendment of the constitution in 1971 empowered the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to give directions to any university, college or other educational institution providing education at post secondary level where the number of places for any course of study is less than the number of candidates qualified for such places, to reserve for Malays (and natives of the Borneo States) such proportion of such places as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong deems reasonable. The intention of the amendments is to reserve places in those selected areas of study … where the numbers of Malays and natives of the Borneo States are disproportionately small (Mohamed Suffian et.al 1978 pp 114-115).’

The NEP and its implementation in effect served to accelerate efforts of the Government to increase Malay enrolment in the university (only Universiti Malaya was in existence initially). The 1971 amendment and the declaration of the NEP accelerated the access and equity processes which resulted in increased participation of Malay and other Bumiputera students in higher education.

33

Source: Malaysia, Report of the Committee Appointed by the National Operations

Council to Study Campus Life of students in the Universiti Malaya, Kuala

Lumpur, Government Press, 1971 (Kee, 1976)

34

Note: According to the 1970 population data, Indians form 9.0 percent and

Others only 0.8 percent of the total population of Malaysia. Hence, the category

termed as Others in the figure is actually Indians. The term “Indians” is now

employed to refer to persons from the sub-continent of India such as Indians,

Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Sri Lankans.

The National Operations Council, which took over the administration following the dissolution of Parliament after the race riots of 1969, established a committee to study campus life at the Universiti Malaya. The Report known as the Majid Report (1971) after its Chairman found that admissions based solely on examination results could not reflect the ethnic composition of the country. Of the total student population in 1966/67, 56.5 percent were Chinese, 28.8 percent were Malays and 14.7 percent were Indians and Others (Table 13). Furthermore too many Malays were enrolled in the arts and humanities (42.5 percent), education (28.3 percent) and economics and administration (36.8 percent) while a significant number of Chinese were following courses in science and technology such as in science (81.5 percent), engineering (90.0 percent), agriculture (61.6 percent) and medicine (73.6 percent). The Majid Report recommended that student enrolment should reflect the ethnic composition in the country in the proportion of 55:45 percent for Bumiputera and non-Bumiputera students, not only in relation to the university as a whole but also on a faculty by faculty basis. The ethnic composition of the population of Malaysia in 1970 was as follows: 55.98 percent Malays, 34.14 percent Chinese, 9.03 percent Indians and 0.8 percent Others. In admitting students, higher weightage was to be given to those from the rural areas. In addition, authorities concerned were encouraged to provide more scholarships in the sciences to Bumiputera students. This ethnic quota system - 55 percent Bumiputeras : 45 percent non-Bumiputeras - which was implemented in the early 1970s was in place till the meritocracy system was introduced in 2002. This preferential ethnic quota policy was framed and implemented for the Universiti Malaya and extended to the Universiti Sains Malaysia and Universiti Putra Malaysia. As newer universities were established and the public higher education landscape changed, the proportional distribution of quotas was not maintained.

35

Table 13: Enrolment in the University of Malaya, 1966/67 session by Course of

Study and Race

Course of Study Race

Total Malay Chinese Indian & Others

Agriculture 56

(30.3)

114

(61.6)

15

(8.1)

185

(100.0)

Arts 780

(42.5)

729

(39.7)

327

(17.8)

1,836

(100.0)

Engineering 5

(1.6)

280

(90.0)

26

(8.4)

311

(100.0)

Science 50

(7.5)

546

(81.5)

74

(11.0)

670

(100.0)

Medicine 44

(15.9)

204

(73.6)

20

(10.5)

277

(100.0)

Education 54

(28.3)

89

(46.6)

48

(25.1)

191

(100.0)

Economics &

Administration

49

(36.8)

72

(54.2)

12

(9.0)

133

(100.0)

Total 1,038

(28.8)

2,034

(56.5)

531

(14.7)

3,603

(100.0)

Source: Malaysia, Report of the Committee Appointed by the National OperationsCouncil to Study Campus Life of students in the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Government Press, 1971(referred to as the Majid Report)

The NEP provided the impetus to recruit more Bumiputera students

especially for science and technology courses through the establishment of junior science colleges, residential secondary schools, matriculation programmes and provision of university scholarships exclusively for Bumiputera students. The universities themselves started pre-university science centres (Pusat Asasi Sains) exclusively for Bumiputera students to prepare them for the science and technology courses. All these programmes served to increase the number of Bumiputera students enrolled in the universities (Table 14).

36

The implementation of the Higher Education Planning Committee’s recommendations (1967), in terms of expansion of universities and conversion of existing colleges to university status, brought about positive results in terms of greater participation of Malay students in public tertiary institutions (Table 14).

The enrolment in the degree courses in the five universities by ethnic group for 1973/74 shows that 52.9 percent Malay, 38.8 percent Chinese, 7.65 percent Indians and 0.81 percent Others. The ethnic enrolment figures also show that UKM, UPM and UTM showed higher enrolment for Malay students as were the institutions offering Diploma and Certificate courses. These institutions did not follow strictly the admission policy in terms of an ethnic quota system. It is to be noted that MARA Institute of Technology only catered for Malay students by a special statute. It was upgraded to University Technology MARA (UiTM) in 1999 and has about 140,000 students (2009 figure). Table 14: Enrolments in Public Tertiary Institutions by Ethnic Group, 1973/74

Ethnicity Malays Chinese Indians Others Total

Institutions

Degree Courses

Universiti Malaya 4,000 3,592 755 34 8,381

Universiti Sains

Malaysia

511 836 128 28 1,483

Universiti Kebangsaan

Malaysia

1,415 34 9 31 1,489

Universiti Pertanian

Malaysia*

75 34 3 2 114

Universiti Teknologi

Malaysia

192 46 1 - 239

Sub-Total 6,193

(52.9%)

4,542

(38.8%)

896

(7.65%)

95

(0.81%)

11,705

Diploma & Certificate

Courses

Universiti Pertanian

Malaysia*

1,168 177 13 26 1,397

Universiti Teknologi 1,082 149 11 4 1,246

37

Malaysia

Universiti Teknologi

MARA

3,997 - - 24 4,021

Polytechnik Ungku

Omar

705 186 27 - 918

Kolej Tunku Abdul

Rahman

2 613 - - 615

Total Enrolment at all

levels

13,142 5,667 947 149 19,903

Percentage Distribution

by Ethnicity

66 28.4 4.8 0.8 100%

Note:

Since 1997 renamed as Universiti Putra Malaysia

Source: Compiled from data obtained from Mid-Term Review of Second Malaysia

Plan, 1971-75, and data obtained from institution sources. (Quoted in Kee,

1976)

Table 15 shows the enrolment in 1980 for all ethnic groups for the five

universities. Except for Universiti Malaya and Universiti Sains Malaysia, the enrolment for Bumiputera students shows a disproportionately higher percentage in the other three universities than the population distribution at the time. The total enrolment for the five universities in 1980 were as follows: Malays 70.6 percent, Chinese 23.1 percent, Indians 5.4 percent and Others 0.9 percent, whereas Malays constituted only 58.6 percent, Chinese 32.1 percent, Indians 8.6 percent and Others 0.7 percent in the population in 1980. Box 2 Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) Universiti Teknologi MARA has its origins in the Rural and Industrial Development Authority (RIDA) established in 1956 under the Ministry of Rural Development. The main purpose of RIDA was to rebuild rural society and improve the rural economy. In 1965 the training section of RIDA became Maktab MARA or MARA Training College, under the Training Division of MARA “Majlis Amanah Rakyat” (Council of Trust for Indigenous People). MARA College started to conduct several external professional courses offered by international professional bodies. In 1966, MARA College began to offer its own Diploma courses recognized by international organizations. In 1967, MARA College was renamed MARA Institute of Technology to fulfill the demand of skilled manpower of the nation especially among the Bumiputeras. The Institute also expanded its educational programmes affiliated with international higher educational institutes. In August 1999, the Institute was renamed Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) under an amendment to the Institut Teknologi MARA Act of 1976. It became a full-fledged public university

38

under the Ministry of Higher Education on par with all other universities in the country, endowed with all the powers of a functioning university. The main campus is located on a 300 acre site in Shah Alam, Selangor with 26 branch campuses and 22 affiliated colleges all over the country. UiTM is the only university in Malaysia that has a campus in every state of the country. With a total work-force of over 15,000 staff, UiTM offers more than 300 academic courses. The university, which had 139,192 students in 2009, is exclusively for Bumiputera students. Its chief objective is to train them in professionally recognized courses of study in science, technology, industry, business, arts and humanities. UiTM’s vision is to become one of the leading innovative and entrepreneurial universities in the country in preparing Bumiputera students for the professional, scientific and technological fields of study. Source: www.uitm.edu.my retrieved March 2, 2011 and http://www.mohe.gov.my/web_statistik/statistik_pdf_2009/04_BAB_2_IPTA.pdf retrieved March 7, 2011

Table 15: Enrolment in Public Universities by Ethnic Group – 1980

Race Institution

Malay Chinese Indian Others Total

Universiti Malaya 4,045 (50.3)

3,162 (39.3)

676 (8.4)

162 (2.0)

8,045 (100.0)

Universiti Sains Malaysia 1,956 (54.4)

1,354 (37.6)

270 (7.5)

17 (0.5)

3,597 (100.0)

Universiti Kebangsaan

Malaysia

4,997 (86.1)

621 (10.7)

180 (3.1)

9 (0.1)

5,807 (100.0)

Universiti Putra Malaysia 3,025 (87.3)

294 (8.5)

130 (3.8)

14 (0.4)

3,463 (100.0)

Universiti Teknologi

Malaysia

3,669 (88.2)

348 (8.4)

108 (2.6)

34 (0.8)

4,159 (100.0)

Total Number Percentage 17,692 (70.6)

5,779 (23.1)

1,364 (5.4)

236 (0.9)

25,071 (100.0)

Source: Fourth Malaysia Plan, 1981-1985. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers, pp 351-352 Note: The figures in the table include students taking both degree level as well as diploma level courses. The students taking diploma courses at the Universiti Pertanian Malaysia and at the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia were 49 per cent and 80 per cent of the total enrolled for the respective universities.

39

Table 16: Intake into Public Universities by Ethnic Group 2002 – 2009

Race Bumiputera Chinese Indian Total

Year No. of

Students %

No. of Students

% No. of

Students %

2002 22,557 68.9 8,665 26.4 1,530 4.7 32,752 2003 23,182 62.6 11,921 32.2 1,931 5.2 37,034

2004 24,837 63.8 11,778 30.3 2,277 5.9 38,892 2005 24,941 62.4 12,802 32 2,233 5.6 39,976

2006 24,957 62.4 12,616 31.5 2,443 6.11 40,016 2007 24,924 62.1 12,745 31.8 2,447 6.1 40,116

2008 24,989 62.2 12,445 31 2,750 6.8 40,184

2009 27,829 68.8 10,166 25.2 2,421 6.0 40,416

Source: Data compiled from press releases from Ministry of Higher Education from

various years.The data provided do not include UiTM.

Student Admissions based on Meritocracy

In 2002, the student admission policy changed from the ethnic quota system to meritocracy where the minimum entry requirement is a Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) based on STPM or Matriculation examinations of 2.0 with the four research universities of USM, UM, UPM and UKM requiring a higher CGPA for entry. Under the meritocracy policy the intake of ethnic groups into universities seems to have more or less normalized with the Bumiputera intake maintained at an average of 64.3 percent, the Chinese at 30.1 percent and Indians about 6.5 percent over the eight year period (Table 16). The composition of the population in 2009 was 66.1 percent Bumiputera, 25.2 percent Chinese, 7.5 percent Indians and 1.2 percent Others. The intake in 2009 seems to reflect the proportion in the population except for the Indians. Table 17: Intake in UiTM (2007-2009) according to level of study

40

Year Doctoral Masters PG

Diploma Bachelors Diploma Others Total

2007 138 1,198 151 18,983 21,661 2,743 44,874

2008 189 1,768 117 20,023 22,640 3,309 48,046

2009 307 2,699 233 26,590 29,822 4,558 64,209

Source : MOE, 2010

Table 17 shows the student intake for 2007, 2008 and 2009 into UiTM which caters only for Bumiputera students. The intake figures for undergraduate degree courses for every year between 2007-2009 show an almost equal number of Bumiputera students compared with the total intake of Bumiputera students into 19 public universities particularly for the years 2007 and 2008. However, data for 2009 shows that the total intake into UiTM is about 50 percent more than the total intake to all 19 public HEIs (Tables 16 and 17). The creation and expansion of UiTM is another important strategy used by the Government to increase the Bumiputera share in higher education.

41

Table 18: Enrolment in Public Higher Education Institutions by Ethnicity, 2005 – 08

Year & Race Universities Polytechnics Community Colleges Total

N % N % N % N %

2005

Bumiputera 20,7021 81.8 72.8

68,264 92.5 24.0

9,205 92.7 3.2

284,490 84.4 100.0

Chinese 33,484 13.2 92.2

2,656 3.6 7.3

172 1.7 0.5

36,312 10.8 100.0

Indian 7,838 3.1 75.5

2,169 2.9 20.9

373 3.8 3.6

10,380 3.1 100.0

Other 4,675 1.9 83.5

745 1.0 13.3

179 1.8 3.2

5,599 1.7 100.0

Total 253,018 100.0 75.1

73,834 100.0 21.9

9,929 100.0 3.0

336,781 100.0 100.0

2006

Bumiputera 237,886 80.8 73.4

75,901 92.1 23.4

10,363 91.9 3.2

324,150 83.5 100.0

Chinese 38,430 13.0 91.6

3,307 4.0 7.9

231 2.0 0.5

41,968 10.8 100.0

Indian 9073 3.1 76.0

2,405 2.9 20.2

457 4.1 3.8

11,935 3.1 100.0

Other 9132 3.1 90.0

799 1.0 7.8

222 2.0 2.2

10,153 2.6 100.0

Total 294,521 100.0 75.9

82,412 100.0 21.2

11,273 100.0 2.9

388,206 100.0 100.0

2007

Bumiputera 304719 82.9 77.1

77,542 92.0 19.6

12,860 91.8 4.3

395,121 84.8 100.0

Chinese 41,863 11.5 91.5

3,591 4.3 7.9

287 2.0 0.6

45,741 9.8 100.0

Indian 10,422 2.8 78.1

2,357 2.8 17.7

557 4.0 4.2

13,336 2.9 100.0

Other 10,448 2.8 90.7

760 0.9 6.6

307 2.2 2.7

11,515 2.5 100.0

Total 367,452 100.0 78.9

84,250 100.0 18.1

14,011 100.0 3.0

465,713 100.0 100.0

2008

Bumiputera 333,235 83.1 78.0

78,123 91.6 18.3

15,706 91.9 3.7

427,064 84.8 100.0

Chinese 45,062 11.2 91.9

3,645 4.3 7.4

323 1.9 0.7

49,030 9.7 100.0

Indian 10,901 2.7 76.5

2,678 3.1 18.8

675 4.0 4.7

14,254 2.8 100.0

Other 11,975 3.0 90.8

834 1.0 6.3

378 2.2 2.9

13,187 2.6 100.0

Total 401,173 100.0 79.7

85,280 100.0 16.9

17,082 100.0 3.4

503,535 100.0 100.0

Source: Ministry of Higher Education – information provided in November 2009

42

Table 18 shows the full cumulative impact of the implementation of affirmative action policies of NEP on higher educational institutions in Malaysia. The average Bumiputera enrolment for the four year period between 2005-2008 in public universities which includes UiTM has been over 80 percent, for the Chinese about 12 percent, Indians 3 percent and Others 2.7 percent. In 2008 the enrolment for Others was higher at 3.0 percent than the Indians at 2.7 percent. The same enrolment pattern is evident for Polytechnics and Community Colleges. At these institutions, Bumiputera enrolment has been maintained above 90 percent, whereas the Chinese enrolment has varied between 2 percent - 4 percent, the Indians between 3 percent - 4 percent and Others between 1 percent - 2 percent.

As for the total enrolment in public institutions of higher education which includes community colleges and polytechnics between 2005 – 2008, the Bumiputera enrolment has been maintained consistently around 84 percent; the Chinese at 10 percent; Indians at 3 percent; and Others at 2.4 percent. These enrolment figures do not reflect the ethnic composition in the population, where in 2008 66.0 percent were Bumiputera, 25.2 percent Chinese, 7.6 percent Indians and 1.2 percent Others.

In the period of the NEP and its subsequent policies under various names, and based on the data collected from government sources, higher education affirmative action policies of the government have benefitted the Bumiputera students more than other ethnic groups. The affirmative action policy approach of NEP will continue as Malaysia moves forward to implement the 10th Malaysia Plan (2011 – 2015). Outcome of Affirmative Action Policy

The success of the affirmative action policy of the NEP in higher education may be evaluated by employment in eight critical professional areas. Tables 19 and 20 provide data indicating the highly positive outcomes of the affirmative action policy for Bumiputera students.

Table 19 shows the number of employed persons with higher education qualifications by ethnic group for the years 1985-2008. The highest increase in the number of employed persons with Diploma and Degree qualifications for the period (1985-2008) is for the Bumiputeras. Those with Diploma qualifications the increase for the Bumiputeras is from 62.5 percent in 1985 to 65.9 percent in 2008. This is a modest increase (while noting that numbers have increased about five-fold). For the

43

Chinese there is a slight decline in the percentage from 29.70 percent to 27.21 percent and for the Indians there is a slight increase from 5.98 percent to 6.65 percent during this period. But for those with degree qualifications, the increase for the Bumiputera group is significant, rising from 44.5 percent in 1985 to 57.02 percent in 2008. In terms of numbers this translates into 49,500 in 1985 to 483,500 in 2008 almost a ten-fold increase. For the Chinese the data shows a significant decrease from 45.2 percent to 34.6 percent for the period, whereas for the Indians there is a slight decrease from 8.98 percent to 7.71 percent. Although the percentages show a decrease for the Chinese and Indians, the absolute numbers employed with degree qualifications show an increase. For the Chinese the increase in numbers is six-fold, from 50,300 to 293,300 and for the Indians the increase is just more than six-fold from 10,000 to 65,400 for the period 1985 – 2008.

44

Table 19: Number of Employed Persons by Highest Certificate and Race, 1985 – 2008 Race Bumiputera Chinese Indian Others Total

Year No.

Employed

(‘000)

% No.

Employed

(‘000)

% No.

Employed

(‘000)

% No.

Employed

(‘000)

% No.

Employed

(‘000)

%

Diploma

1985 93 62.50 44.2 29.70 8.9 5.98 2.7 1.81 148.8 100.00

1990 142.1 66.19 57.5 26.78 12.4 5.78 2.7 1.26 214.7 100.00

2000 335.9 63.99 157.2 29.95 29.8 5.68 2 0.38 524.9 100.00

2005 524.9 63.30 240.7 29.03 59.2 7.14 4.4 0.53 829.2 100.00

2008 512.7 65.93 211.6 27.21 51.7 6.65 1.7 0.22 777.7 100.00

Degree

1985 49.5 44.47 50.3 45.19 10 8.98 1.5 1.35 111.3 100.00

1990 76.5 48.54 67.3 42.70 12.8 8.12 1 0.63 157.6 100.00

2000 241.1 54.52 162.9 36.84 36.3 8.21 1.9 0.43 442.2 100.00

2005 400.8 57.07 239.7 34.13 58.3 8.30 3.5 0.50 702.3 100.00

2008 483.5 57.02 293.3 34.59 65.4 7.71 5.7 0.67 847.9 100.00

Source: Labour Force Survey, Department of Statistics Malaysia, various years, 1985-2008

45

The data in Table 18 also show an interesting trend, that from 1990 the

number of persons employed with Diploma and Degree qualifications shows a significant increase for all ethnic groups. This is the result of expansion of enrolment in the public universities and the establishment of new public university colleges beginning 1980’s. Between 1980 and 2000, ten new public universities and university colleges were added to the five prior to 1980. The increase also reflects the fact that in the mid 1990’s private education was liberalized and the private sector established colleges which offered Diploma and Degree programmes in conjunction with foreign universities, providing new destinations for all, particularly for non-Bumiputera groups.

The Vision 2020 set the target for the country to be a developed nation by that year. The Asian Financial crisis of the mid 1990’s, the high cost of supporting overseas students, the demand for a highly skilled force for the knowledge economy were the factors that led to the expansion of the public higher educational sector and the liberalization of the private higher education sub-sector. The New Economic Model (NEM) Part 1 (2010) sets out the high income target for Malaysia as US$15, - 20,000 per capita by 2020 (p.35), reiterating that a pre-requisite being the availability of a highly-skilled, technologically-developed work force. Economic and social demand and the further expansion of higher education are premised on these goals.

The question to be asked is whether the Malaysian Higher Education system can meet these objectives. The enrolment in tertiary educational institutions in 2010 is expected to be 545,817 for public and 558,146 for private institutions with a total of 1,103,963 students, taking into account Certificate to PhD levels of study. The highest percentage of enrolment is for Diploma and for first Degree levels of study. The enrolment in these two categories represents 80.7 percent of the total enrolment (Tenth Malaysia Plan, 2010), giving a total of 46.7 percent (and growing) for first degree and post-graduate outputs. The impact on the work force and subsequently on national economic growth and globalization efforts will depend much on the quality of graduates and social development. Registered Professionals by Ethnic Group

Participation of professional graduates in the growing economy, keeping pace with societal development, provides an important dimension of the impact of affirmative action policies on national development as well as the benefits which accrue to ethnic groups. Table 20 lists eight professions from accountants to

46

lawyers, showing the registered professionals by ethnic group for the years 1990, 2000 and 2005. One could conclude that NEP-based policies succeeded in increasing the number of Bumiputera professionals in the eight professions for the period data were accessed.

47

Table 20: Registered Professionals by Ethnic Group 1990, 2000, 2005 & 2008 No. Profession 1990 2000 2005

Bumi Chi Ind Oth Total Bumi Chi Ind Oth Total Bumi Chi Ind Oth Total

1 Accountants

(%) 627 4,524 346 77 5,574 2,673 11,944 883 178 15,678 4,498 15,892 941 258 21,589

11.2 81.2 6.2 1.4 100 17.1 76.2 5.6 1.1 100 20.8 73.6 4.4 1.2 100

2 Architects

(%)

231 728 12 8 979 1,152 1,539 41 6 2,738 1,358 1,594 43 6 3,001

23.6 74.4 1.2 0.8 100 42.1 56.2 1.5 0.2 100 45.3 53.1 1.4 0.2 100

3 Doctors

(%) 1,951 2,430 2,410 216 7,007 4,570 3,855 3,697 306 12,428 5,720 4,657 4,142 1,055 15,574

27.8 34.7 34.4 3.1 100 36.8 31 29.7 2.5 100 36.7 29.9 26.6 6.8 100

4 Dentists

(%) 406 847 396 21 1,670 790 952 460 43 2,245 1,159 920 480 49 2,608

24.3 50.7 23.7 1.3 100 35.2 42.4 20.5 1.9 100 44.4 35.3 18.4 1.9 100

5 Veterinary Surgeons

(%)

242 160 250 23 675 428 284 281 33 1,026 522 431 332 54 1,339

35.9 23.7 37 3.4 100 41.7 27.7 27.4 3.2 100 39 32.2 24.8 4 100

6 Engineers

(%) 7,018 11,741 1,065 342 20,166 15,334 18,416 1,864 405 36,019 22,623 23,432 2,648 498 49,201

34.8 58.2 5.3 1.7 100 42.6 51.1 5.2 1.1 100 46 47.6 5.4 1 100

7 Surveyors

(%)

573 636 48 26 1,283 1,298 1,426 97 56 2,877 2,069 2,017 136 68 4,290

44.7 49.6 3.7 2 100 45.1 49.6 3.4 1.9 100 48.2 47 3.2 1.6 100

8 Lawyers

(%)

705 1,575 836 37 3,153 3,111 3,860 2,586 76 9,633 4,465 4,354 2,834 97 11,750

22.4 50 26.5 1.2 100 32.3 40.1 26.8 0.8 100 38 37.1 24.1 0.8 100

Total 11,753 22,641 5,363 750 40,507 29,356 42,276 9,909 1,103 82,644 42,414 53,297 11,556 2,085 109,352

29 55.9 13.2 1.9 100 35.5 51.2 12 1.3 100 38.8 48.7 10.6 1.9 100

48

The percentage of Bumiputera professionals shows a significant increase for all the eight professions while the percentage for the Chinese and Indians shows a decrease for all the professions except for an increase of 8.5 percent for veterinary surgeons for the Chinese and a slight increase of 0.1 for engineers and 0.2 for architects for Indians. All ethnic groups have benefited from higher education policies relating to increased university places in the critical areas in the universities. As the table shows Bumiputera students have benefited the most.

In 1990, the total number of professionals for the eight critical areas numbered 40,507 and in 2005, this number had increased to 109,352. In the more than double increment in the total professional graduates in this fifteen year period, the Bumiputera professionals increased their percentage from 29 percent to 38.8 percent while the Chinese percentage decreased from 55.9 percent to 48.7 percent and the Indians from 13.2 percent to 10.6 percent. The percentage for the Others remained the same at 1.9 percent. The on-going process of restructuring Malaysian society through educational strategy is showing results. The expansion of higher education since the NEP has also benefited the Non-Bumiputera students as shown by the studies conducted by J.S. Singh (1973) and T. Marimuthu, (1984). Both studies found that the NEP has succeeded in promoting social mobility through education to the low socio-economic status groups in general but the Bumiputera group in particular.

The studies indicate that the educational strategies and programs undertaken under the objectives of the NEP have benefitted all communities but the Bumiputera community has benefitted the most.

The affirmative action policy and its implementation strategies, introduced by the Government for Bumiputeras, have been successful. However, the issue of equity in higher education for the non-Bumiputeras remains problematic. The admissions into public institutions of higher education, matriculation colleges, and the award of scholarships are all continuing contested issues amongst the Malaysian public. Survey Data

Although the survey sample is limited, the pattern of enrolment in institutions of higher education by ethnic group emerging from the data (Table 21) is broadly reflective of national data. The overwhelming majority of Bumiputera students (94.2 percent) are enrolled in PHEIs, while 67 percent of non-Bumiputra students attended PrHEIs (10.6 percent of the total sample in the PrHEI were foreign

49

students). The distribution mirrors Table 18 where Bumiputera enrolment for the 4 year period (2005-2008) in PHEI has been above 84 percent, with Chinese enrolment at 10 percent, Indians at 3 percent and Others at 2.4 percent. Within the ethnic groups, only 28.6 percent of Bumiputera students attended PrHEI while 95.1 percent of Chinese and 96.3 percent of Indians and 98.3 percent of foreigners attended PrHEIs. Table 21: Type of Institution Attended by Ethnic Group Ethnic * IPT Type

IPT Type Total

Public IPT Private IPT Ethnic No Response Count 0 2 2

% within Ethnic .0% 100.0% 100.0%

% within IPT Type .0% .1% .1%

Bumiputera Count 919 369 1,288 % within Ethnic 71.4% 28.6% 100.0%

% within IPT Type 94.2% 22.1% 48.6%

Chinese Count 44 863 907

% within Ethnic 4.9% 95.1% 100.0% % within IPT Type 4.5% 51.6% 34.3%

Indian Count 10 260 270

% within Ethnic 3.7% 96.3% 100.0%

% within IPT Type 1.0% 15.6% 10.2%

Others (Foreigners)

Count 3 178 181

% within Ethnic 1.7% 98.3% 100.0% % within IPT Type .3% 10.6% 6.8%

Total Count 976 1,672 2,648 % within Ethnic 36.9% 63.1% 100.0%

% within IPT Type

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Other survey data revealed information on the level at which students are

enrolled by ethnic group. It transpired that almost 70 percent are enrolled at degree

50

level with the rest in Certificate and Diploma programs. Very few are in Post graduate programs. Within ethnic groups, the majority of Bumiputras (76.6 percent) and Chinese (76.9 percent) were in first degree programs while for Indians this was at 43.3 percent with 55.9 percent in the Certificate and Diploma programs. This pattern of enrolment by level of study is similar to the official data (Appendix 3) where the majority of students in both public and private institutions are enrolled at the undergraduate level rather than the Certificate and Diploma levels.

The pattern of student financing emerging from the survey, Table 22 shows that the majority of students (52 percent) at public and private HEIs is financed through loans from public and private sources. The bulk of public loans would have been from PTPTN with foundations, NGOs and banks providing private loans. Funding from private sources provided financing for 34.1 percent of students while 11 percent obtained scholarships. Of those who received scholarships the majority (66.1 percent) were Bumiputera students, 24.7 percent Chinese, 6.2 percent Indians and 2.7 percent Others. The data in Table 22 also show that within the ethnic groups, there were differences in the source of financing. The majority of Bumiputera (62.6 percent) and Indian (53.3 percent) students obtained loans for their studies, while the majority of Chinese (46.3 percent) were financed through private or personal sources. Table 22: Ethnic vs. Finance

Student Level

Total No Response

Bumiputera Chinese Indian Others

(Foreigners)

Ethnic No Response Count 0 22 16 2 2 2

% within Ethnic

.0% 52.4% 38.1% 4.8% 4.8% 100.0%

% within IPT Type

.0% .1% .0% .7% 1.1% 1.6%

Scholarship Count 1 193 72 18 8 292

% within Ethnic

.3% 66.1% 24.7% 6.2% 2.7% 100.0%

% within IPT Type

50.0% 15.0% 7.9% 6.7% 4.4% 11.0%

Loan Count 0 806 387 144 41 1,378

% within

.0% 58.5% 28.1% 10.4% 3.0% 100.0%

51

Ethnic

% within IPT Type

.0% 62.6% 42.7% 53.3% 22.7% 52.0%

Personal Count 1 254 420 102 125 902

% within Ethnic

.1% 28.2% 46.6% 11.3% 13.9% 100.0%

% within IPT Type

50.0% 19.7% 46.3% 37.8% 69.1% 34.1%

Others Count 0 13 12 4 5 34

% within Ethnic

.0% 38.2% 35.3% 11.8% 14.7% 100.0%

% within IPT Type

.0% 1.0% 1.3% 1.5% 2.8% 1.3%

Total Count 2 1,288 907 270 181 2,648

% within Ethnic

.1% 48.6% 34.3% 10.2% 6.8% 100.0%

% within IPT Type

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

The pattern of financing noted in the survey also captures the socioeconomic

status of the different ethnics groups in the country where the Chinese as a group obtain a higher average income than the Bumiputeras and the Indians. Impact of National Policies on Gender

This section demonstrates advances women have made in obtaining access to higher education since the 1980s and the extent to which different groups of women have achieved equitable access. While the development of higher education policies were not gender specific, policies directed to increasing access to higher education benefitted all women but benefitted unequally women from different social and ethnic groups. Intake, Enrolment and Output

52

Intake, Enrolment and Output of women students in local higher education institutions have increased significantly during the period 1985 to 2008. Comprising 49 percent of the population, enrollment has shifted steadily in favor of women. For instance, at the Universiti Malaya, in 1970, there were 5,512 or 70.8 percent male students and 2,263 or 29.1 percent female students. This picture had changed dramatically by 1995 when there were 7,047, or 42.9 percent male students to 9,374, or 57.1 percent female students. By 2008, the balance had further shifted in favor of women with 16,567 women or 59.0 percent women enrolled at Universiti Malaya. The reasons for the increase are varied but the principal factors are the increased educational and work opportunities for women in the country’s diversified economy. Women have increasingly enjoyed training and learning opportunities since the commencement of the NEP in 1970.

Intake figures for the period 1995 to 2008 (Table 23a) demonstrate that women gradually outnumber men in entering the universities and colleges. In 1995 women comprised 48 percent of all intakes into public institutions of higher learning and by 2008 women’s intake in all tertiary institutions had increased to 55.2 percent. By 2008 women’s intake was greater than their male counterparts in diploma, degree and masters courses, increasing from 44.9 percent for diploma courses in 1995 to 52.3 percent in 2008, from 53.6 percent to 63 percent in degree courses and from 53.5 percent to 54.6 percent in masters courses. In certificate courses and in doctoral courses women lagged behind men with only 40.3 percent women’s intake in certificate courses and 40.8 percent in doctoral courses by 2008.

Overall, women’s enrolment at all levels of higher education increased significantly between 1987 and 2008. Women have overtaken men at all levels of higher education except at the certificate and doctoral level. Table 23b shows that in the public sector universities, polytechnics, community colleges, teachers colleges and Tunku Abdul Rahman College, women’s enrolment increased from 44.4 percent in 1987 to 56.6 percent in 2008. At the certificate level women’s enrolment increased from 22 percent in 1987 to 39.8 percent in 2008, at the diploma level women increased their share from 50.1 percent in 1987 to 53.8 percent in 2008, at the degree level women’s enrolment moved up from 44.6 percent in 1987 to 62.4 percent in 2008; at masters level from 43.5 percent in 1987 to 52.7 percent in 2008, and at doctoral level from 29.9 percent in 1987 to 38.5 percent in 2008.

Figures for the output of graduates (Table 23c) tell a similar story that women were graduating from the higher education sector in considerably larger numbers than men. Output of women graduates from all institutions of higher education increased from 40.9 percent in 1987 to 57.2 percent in 2008. From the public sector

53

higher education institutions 62.7 percent of graduates were women while from private sector institutions 56.5 percent, were women. From polytechnics 46.2 percent and from community colleges 43.4 percent of graduates were women.

Data for 2008 from the Ministry of Higher Education for all public and private universities (Table 24), polytechnics and community colleges provide an even more positive picture of the attainment levels of women in higher education.

By 2008 (Table 24) women’s intake, enrolment and graduate out put in all HEIs, both public and private HEIs, exceeded that of men ranging between 62.7 percent and 55.4 percent. However, in polytechnics and community colleges women’s intake, enrolment and graduate output was less than men’s, averaging around 43 percent.

54

Table 23a: Intake in Public HEIs by Gender, 1995-2008

Table 23b: Enrolment in Public HEIs by Gender, 1987-2008

Year Gender Certificate Diploma Degree Master's Doctoral Grand Total

Intake % Total Intake % Total Intake % Total Intake % Total Intake % Total Intake

1995 M 4,143 71.3 5,810

7,449 55.1 13,513

11,085 46.4 23,901

2,124 46.5 4,568

157 74.1 212

24,958

F 1,667 28.7 6,064 44.9 12,816 53.6 2,444 53.5 55 25.9 23,046

2000 M 8,772 65.3 13,440

15,620 46.8 33,403

24,187 40.1 60,285

6,668 43 15,512

515 66 780

55,762

F 4,668 34.7 17,783 53.2 36,098 59.9 8,844 57 265 34 67,658

2005 M 8,656 62 13,952

19,620 44.8 43,807

20,157 34.8 57,863

7,182 48.1 14,930

1,753 64.4 2,722

57,368

F 5,296 38 24,187 55.2 37,706 65.2 7,748 51.9 969 35.6 75,906

2008 M 15,329 59.7 25,670

24,945 47.7 52,278

28,657 37 77,356

7,341 45.4 16,158

2,158 59.2 3,644

78,430

F 10,341 40.3 27,333 52.3 48,699 63 8,817 54.6 1,486 40.8 96,676

Source: Ministry of Education. Educational Planning and Research Division. Varied Years. Educational Statistics Malaysia.

Year Gender Certificate Diploma Degree Master's Doctoral Grand Total

Enrol % Total Enrol % Total Enrol % Total Enrol % Total Enrol % Total Enrol % Total

1987 M 6,651 78 8,537

27,079 49.9 54,318

24,070 55.4 43,430

1,838 56.5 3,252

267 70.1 381

75,550 55.6 109,918

F 1,886 22 27,239 50.1 19,360 44.6 1,414 43.5 114 29.9 60,435 44.4

1990 M 7,366 74.4 9,907

19,174 58.8 32,588

27,940 52.2 53,557

2,494 55.4 4,499

385 71.4 539

57,359 56.7 101,090

F 2,541 25.6 13,414 41.2 25,617 47.8 2,005 44.6 154 28.6 43,731 43.3

1995 M 11,252 73.9 15,226

41,105 44 93,506

38,805 49 79,227

4,045 53.1 7,622

782 62.3 1255

122,140 50 196,836

F 3,974 26.1 52,401 56 40,422 51 3,577 46.9 473 37.7 122,183 50

2000 M 18,083 65 27,830

57,861 44.8 129,177

57,090 41.5 137,538

10,289 54 19,045

1868 66.4 2813

193,847 46 316,403

F 9,747 35 71,316 55.2 80,448 58.5 8,756 46 945 33.6 227,993 54

2005 M 21,480 60.7 35,360

59,432 42.6 139,562

75,713 35.9 210,973

17,851 51 34,969

4192 62.3 6733

229,521 42.6 427,617

F 13,880 39.3 80,130 57.4 135,260 64.1 17,118 49 2541 37.7 308,883 57.4

2008 M 29,219 60.2 48,499

64,656 46.2 140,039

103,183 37.6 274,349

17,063 47.3 36,094

7526 61.5 12243

221,647 43.4 511,224

F 19280 39.8 75,383 53.8 171,166 62.4 19,031 52.7 4717 38.5 289,577 56.6

Source: Ministry of Education. Educational Planning and Research Division. Varied Years. Educational Statistics Malaysia.

55

Table 23c: Graduates From Public HEIs by Gender, 1987-2008

Year Gender Certificate Diploma Degree Master's Doctoral Grand Total

Grads % Total Grads % Total Grads % Total Grads % Total Grads % Total Grads % Total

1987 M 1,838 74.4 2,469

3,673 59 6,227

4,842 57.5 8,420

574 41.4 1,388

15 60 25

10,942 59.1 18,529

F 631 25.6 2,554 41 3,578 42.5 814 58.6 10 40 7,587 40.9

1990 M 2,338 74.1 3,154

4,759 58.7 8,101

5,677 51.9 10,932

774 45.3 1,710

22 81.5 27

13,570 56.7 23,924

F 816 25.9 3,342 41.3 5,255 48.1 936 54.7 5 18.5 10,354 43.3

1995 M 3,574 71.2 5,017

6,100 52.2 11,678

7,853 47.8 16,432

1,246 40.4 3,084

43 58.9 73

18,816 51.9 36,284

F 1,443 28.8 5,578 47.8 8,579 52.2 1,838 59.6 30 41.1 17,468 48.1

2000 M 5,359 61 8,792

10,830 46.4 23,364

13,759 41.6 33,095

2,063 49.1 4,199

104 70.3 148

32,115 46.1 69,598

F 3,433 39 12,534 53.6 19,336 58.4 2,136 50.9 44 29.7 37,483 53.9

2005 M 4,601 58.6 7,848

21,154 37.8 56,010

16,789 36.8 45,618

3,167 50.2 6,309

504 58.8 857

46,215 39.6 116,642

F 3,247 41.4 34,856 62.2 28,829 63.2 3,142 49.8 353 41.2 70,427 60.4

2008 M 10,580 55.2 19,176

17,413 46.2 37,660

21,103 35.1 60,040

4,060 46.9 8,656

467 59.5 785

53,623 42.5 126,317

F 8,596 44.8 20,247 53.8 38,937 64.9 4,596 53.1 318 40.5 72,694 57.5

Source: Ministry of Education. Educational Planning and Research Division. Varied Years. Educational Statistics Malaysia.

56

Table 24: Intake, Enrolment and Output of Graduates by Gender, 2008

SUBJECT MALE FEMALE TOTAL % FEMALE

PUBLIC

Intake 49,581 75,302 124,883 60.3 Enrolment 163,283 245,579 408,862 60.1

Output 32,822 55,146 87,968 62.7 PRIVATE

Intake 80,792 105,072 185,864 56.5 Enrolment 178,363 221,489 399,852 55.4

Output 34,154 44,407 78,561 56.5

POLYTECHNIC Intake 23,355 17,219 40,574 42.4

Enrolment 48,565 36,715 85,280 43.1 Output 17,648 15,135 32,783 46.2

COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Intake 5,494 4,155 9,649 43.1 Enrolment 9,799 7,283 17,082 42.6

Output 3,153 2,413 5,566 43.4 TOTAL

Intake 159,222 201,748 360,970 55.9 Enrolment 400,010 511,066 911,076 56.1

Output 87,777 117,101 204,878 57.2

Source: Ministry of Higher Education Website, www.mohe.gov.my

Detailed information provided in the MOHE statistical handbook (MOHE

2008, Perangkaan Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia) reveals that in public universities women have overtaken men at all levels of higher education, ranging between 63.0 percent (degree courses) and 54.6 percent (masters courses) except at the doctoral level (40.8 percent). However, in polytechnics and community colleges women are under-represented, ranging between 36.7 percent and 43.2 percent in their certificate and diploma courses (Table 25).

Reliable data for private higher education institutions are only available for the period 2002-2008. Enrolments in the private sector follow a similar pattern as the public sector with women overtaking their male colleagues by 2008. The data for 2008 show that in 2008 intake of women into private institutions was 56.5

57

percent, enrolment was 55.4 percent and women graduates made up 56.5 percent of all graduates from private higher education institutions. Women also overtook men at all levels of higher education for intake, enrolment and output except at masters and doctoral levels (Table 26).

58

Table 25: Intake, Enrolment and Output in Public HEIs by Level and Gender, 2008

Universities

Intake Enrolment Output

Total Female %

Female

Total Female %

Female

Total Female %

Female

Certificate 1,470 861 58.6 1,349 778 57.7 166 91 54.8

Diploma 26,255 15,439 57.7 83,833 49,887 59.5 18,321 11,204 61.2

Degree 75,127 47,324 63.0 270,156 168,441 62.3 59,844 36,791 61.5

Masters 16,158 8,817 54.6 36,094 19,031 52.7 8,655 4,595 53.1

Doctoral 3,644 1,486 40.8 12,243 4,717 38.5 785 318 40.5

Polytechnics

Certificate 15,019 5,513 36.7 30,861 11,546 37.4 13,723 6,211 45.3

Diploma 25,555 11,708 45.8 54,419 25,169 46.3 19,060 8,924 46.8

Community

Colleges

Certificate 9,181 3,967 43.2 16,289 6,956 42.7 5,287 2,294 43.3

Diploma 468 188 40.2 793 327 41.2 279 119 42.6

Source: MOHE: Perangkaan Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia, 2008

Women are beginning to represent a significant proportion in universities and higher education institutions offering professional and technical courses such as UTM, UPM, ITM and KTAR. Women’s enrollment at the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) increased from 382 (20.5 percent) in 1975 to 4,186 (28 percent) in 1995, while at the Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) female enrollment increased from 90 (15.4 percent) in 1970 to 53.4 percent (7,163) in 1995 (Marimuthu et.al. 1999). In 2008 UTM enrolled 17,188 women out of a total enrolment of 38,842, that is, 44.2 percent women while UPM enrolled 18,580 women out of a total enrolment of 29,063, that is, 63.9 percent women. In 2008, 35,375 women were enrolled in technical fields out of a total of 83,326, that is, women constituted 42.5

59

percent of enrolments in non-traditional technical fields. In information technology and communication studies more women (13,361 of 20,936 or 63.8 percent) than men were enrolled in public institutions. Similarly, in science disciplines women outnumbered men with 47,729 women of 69,786 or 68.4 percent women enrolled in science disciplines (Malaysia 2008, 12).

Nevertheless, women still dominate education, arts and social sciences. For instance in public institutions in 2008, 28,828 of 38,690 (74.5 percent) women enrolled for education and 126,350 of 171,912 (73.5 percent) women for arts and social science disciplines. However, as enrolments in the science and technological fields reveal, a considerable shift has taken place with women taking their place in the scientific and technological fields. This augers well for the participation of women in the economy generally and in technology related occupations specifically.

60

Table 26: Intake, Enrolment and Output in Private HEIs by Level and Gender, 2008

Universities/

Colleges

Intake Enrolment Output

Total Female %

Female

Total Female %

Female

Total Female %

Female

Certificate 47,875 24,107 50.4 56,177 35,739 63.6 18,269 9,533 52.2

Diploma 93,483 56,356 60.3 177,773 104,661 58.9 32,687 19,745 60.4

Degree 43,260 23,120 53.4 151,591 80,855 53.3 26,590 14,674 55.2

Masters 2,924 1,347 46.1 8, 540 4,142 48.5 962 433 45.0

Doctoral 303 123 40.6 1,331 532 40.0 55 22 40.0

Source: MOHE: Perangkaan Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia, 2008

With their focus on market oriented courses, private sector institutions have

opened up greater opportunities for Malaysian women to enter varied technical and vocational courses not offered by the public institutions. In 2008, 19,408 of 38,331 (50.6 percent) students enrolled in first degree science and technological disciplines were women. In technical and vocational courses 6,415 of 23,728 (27.0 percent) students enrolled were women (ibid. 58-59). At the diploma level 49,729 of 71,159 (69.9 percent) women enrolled in science and technological courses while 5,217 of 26,226 (19.9 percent) enrolled in technical and vocational courses (ibid. 56-57). Women with Higher Education in the Population

Increasing educational and work opportunities that women have enjoyed have brought about significant changes in the position of women in the population. Women constitute about 49 percent of the population in Malaysia. Between 1980 and 2000 women gradually increased their share of persons with higher education in the total population to a figure close to their presence in the population. Census reports of 1980, 1991 and 2000 clearly reveal the trend of women’s share of persons with higher education consistently increasing. In 1980 women comprised 31.7 percent of persons with higher education. This increased to 47.5 percent in 2000 (Table 27).

61

Table 27: Persons with Higher Education in the Population by Gender, 1980, 1991 and 2000

Year Male Female

Total N % N %

1980 101,634 68.3 47,255 31.7 148,889

1990/91 316,753 59.4 216,266 40.6 533,019 2000 725,461 52.5 655,702 47.5 1,381,163

Source: Malaysia: Census Reports. 1980, 1991 and 2000

Census data show that among all ethnic groups women significantly increased their share of higher education, but not equally (Table 28). The largest increase in the proportion of women with higher education relative to men is seen among Bumiputera women, increasing from 32.2 percent in 1980 to 49.1 percent in 2000, an increase of 16.9 percent. Chinese women increased their presence in the Chinese population with higher education from 30.5 percent in 1980 to 45.4 percent in 2000, an increase of 14.9 percent while Indian women’s proportion in the Indian population increased from 33.2 percent in 1980 to 43.7 percent in 2000, marking an increase of only 10.5 percent. Table 28: Persons with Higher Education in the Population by Race and Gender, 1980, 1991 and 2000

Year Gender Bumiputera Chinese Indian

Total N % N % N %

1980 Male 49,702 678 38,007 69.5 8,566 66.8 96,275

Female 23,613 32.2 16,657 30.5 4,253 33.2 44,523

1990/91 Male 185,687 58.4 103,572 60.5 21,179 63.4 310,438

Female 132,250 41.6 67,692 39.5 12,231 36.6 212,173

2000 Male 421,469 50.9 245,395 54.6 52,887 56.3 719,751 Female 406,124 49.1 203,708 45.4 41,086 43.7 650,918

Source: Malaysia: Census Reports. 1980, 1991 and 2000 Women’s Participation in the Labor Force

Women’s participation in the country’s economy has been on an upward trend, from 27 percent in 1957 to 45.9 percent in 1985. Since 1985 women’s

62

participation rate has ranged narrowly between 44.7 percent and 47.2 percent. Presently women’s participation rate in the labor force is 45.7 percent (Table 29). Table 29: Labor Force Participation Rates by Gender, 1985 to 2008

Year Total Male Female

1985 65.7 85.6 45.9 1990 66.5 85.3 47.8

1995 64.7 84.3 44.7

2000 65.4 83.0 47.2 2005 63.3 80.0 45.9

2008 62.6 79.0 45.7 Source: Department of Statistics. 2008. Labor Force Survey

There is very little difference among the races in terms of their women’s

participation in the labor force. In 2008, Bumiputera men had a participation rate of 76.8 percent and Bumiputera women 44.0 percent; 78.9 percent of Chinese men and 47.1 percent Chinese women participated in the labor force while 78.2 percent Indian men and 43.6 percent Indian women were in the labor force. However the contrast between urban and rural women’s participation rates is significant. In urban areas women enjoyed a participation rate of 48.3 percent while in rural areas women had a participation rate of only 40.7 percent (Malaysia 2008, Labor Force Survey, 77- 89).

Tertiary education improved chances of participation in the labor force for all women. However, chances for women from different ethnic and geographical backgrounds were unequal. In 2008, women with tertiary education in urban areas had a participation rate of 62.0 percent but those in rural areas had a rate of 51.9 percent. In the rural areas Bumiputera women had the lowest participation rate (57.7 percent) compared with Chinese women (64.2 percent) and Indian women (62.3 percent) (Malaysia 2008, Labor Force Survey, 77-89).

Women with tertiary education have greatly increased their participation in the work force. Table 30 demonstrates that of those employed with diplomas the percentage of women had increased from 40.5 percent in 1985 to 49.9 percent in 2008 while among those employed with degrees the percentage of women in the labor force had dramatically doubled from 23.8 percent in 1985 to 46.2 percent in

63

2008. In comparison men’s share of the employed for the same levels of education had decreased. Table 30: Number of Employed Persons by highest Certificate obtained by Gender (000)

Diploma Degree N % N %

1985 Male 89.7 59.5 91.7 76.2 Female 61.1 40.5 28.5 23.8

Total 150.8 100.0 120.2 100.0

1990 Male 120.6 55.6 114.8 69.2 Female 96.2 44.4 51.0 30.8

Total 216.8 100.0 165.8 100.0 2000 Male 288.3 53.9 300.9 63.8

Female 246.8 46.1 170.4 36.2 Total 535.1 100.0 471.3 100.0

2005 Male 460.2 54.7 421.1 57.4

Female 380.5 45.3 312.4 42,6 Total 840.7 100.0 733.5 100.0

2008 Male 394.5 50.1 470.9 53.8 Female 391.6 49.9 403.2 46.2

Total 786.1 100.0 874.1 100.0

Source: Department of Statistics, Putra Jaya

Data on percentage distribution of persons in the labor market by ethnicity

show that between 1990 and 2008 women (Table 31) of all ethnic groups with tertiary education reveal a significant increase of their share in the workforce. However, Bumiputera women with tertiary education showed the greatest increase of their share in the labor force and Indian women the least. Among Bumiputera women in the labor market, 30.9 percent in 2008 possessed tertiary education compared with 6.30 percent in 1990, marking an increase of 24.6 percent over the period 1990 to 2008. Chinese women with tertiary education increased from 5.9 percent in 1990 to 28.3 percent in 2008, an increase of 22.4 percent. Over the same period Indian women with tertiary education increased from 4.1 percent in 1990 to 22.4 percent in 2008, an improvement of 18.3 percent.

64

Table 31: Percentage Distribution of Persons with Tertiary Education in the Labor Force by Gender and Ethnic Group, 1990 to 2004

Bumiputera Chinese Indian Others

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

1990 5.1 6.3 5.4 5.9 4.6 4.1 23.4 13.8 1995 10.3 13.6 11.0 13.6 9.3 9.7 6.7 8.1

2000 13.0 18.1 15.0 19.7 11.2 13.8 4.3 8.9 2004 15.8 24.2 18.0 26.7 15.0 20.4 8.0 12.7

2008 19.4 30.9 19.8 28.3 17.2 22.4 10.6 9.2 Source: Malaysia. Department of Statistics. Labor Force Survey Reports 1990-2008

Despite the progress made by women, it should be noted that in 2008 more

than 70 percent of the population outside the labor force were women. Women with tertiary education also lagged behind their male counterparts in the labor force. Of those with the highest qualification, that is degree, in 2008, men had 92.8 percent participation rate while women had a lower participation rate at 84.5 percent. Among diploma holders men had a participation rate of 88.7 percent and women a participation rate of 79.3 percent (Labor Force Survey 2008, 61).

Thus, data on women’s presence in the population and in the labor force clearly show that while women may still lag behind men in terms of their participation rates in the labor force, women, with their improved educational achievements, have made significant leaps in entering the labor force. Furthermore, the groups targeted by the NEP, that is the Bumiputera and those in the less developed areas, benefited greatly through obtaining higher education. However, in the rural areas Bumiputera and Indian women have still failed to match their counterparts in the urban areas.

Impact of National Policies on Regions

Findings on the impact of the NEP on the different geographical regions are based on data from the population census, 1980, 1991 and 2000, and data on employed persons in the labor force, with tertiary education, 1985-2008. A comprehensive picture of the current situation is obtained from the sample survey of students in public and private HEIs undertaken by the research team during January to April 2010. Data are presented according to three regional categories or by rural-urban strata. Category 1 comprised the states of Perak, Selangor, Negeri

65

Sembilan, Malacca, Johor and the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur with 56.5 percent of the population; Category 2 comprised the states of Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, Trengganu and Pahang with 22.9 percent of the population, while Sabah, Sarawak and Labuan constituted category 3 with 20.6 percent of the population (based on 2008 projected population data by the Department of Statistics from their website). Regional differences in the population and the labor force

Very few changes are seen between 1980 and 2000 in the proportion of persons with higher education in the population of the three regions. In all three census periods the majority (72-76 percent) of those with higher education resided in category 1states, that is, in the states of western peninsular Malaysia, while 15 to 17 percent of persons with higher education resided in category 2 states, that is the states of eastern peninsular Malaysia and 9 to 11 percent were in Sabah and Sarawak (Table 32). That the percentage of persons with higher education in regions 2 and 3 is well below their proportion in the population and has not increased significantly is probably due to persons with higher education from these states moving to region 1 in search of better educational and job opportunities. Table 32: Persons with Higher Education by Region, 1980, 1991 and 2000

Year Category 1 Category 2 Category 3

Total N % N % N %

1980 113,844 76.5 21,703 14.6 13,342 9.0 148,889

1990/91 381,861 71.8 89,686 16.9 60,530 11.4 532,077

2000 1,027,883 74.6 219,326 16.0 131,266 9.5 1,378,475 Note: Category 1 States of Western Peninsular Malaysia Category 2 States of Eastern Peninsular Malaysia Category 3 Sabah and Sarawak Source: Malaysia, Census Reports, 1980, 1991 and 2000

There are significant differences among the three regions identified in terms of persons with diploma and degree qualifications employed in the labor force (Table 33). Looking at those with diploma qualifications as their highest qualification, in 1985, Category 1 states (western peninsular states) had 61.7 percent of all such persons, Category 2 states (eastern peninsular states) 27.6

66

persons and Category 3 (Sabah and Sarawak) states 10.7 persons. By 2008, Category 1 states had 69.0 percent, Category 2 states had 18.1 percent and Category 3 states had only 12.9 percent of all persons employed with diploma qualifications. Table 33: Number and Percentage of Employed Persons by Highest Certificate Obtained and Region, 1985-2008 (000)

Year Category Diploma Degree

N % N %

1985

Category 1 92.9 61.7% 88.1 73.6%

Category 2 41.5 27.5% 15.9 13.3% Category 3 16.1 10.7% 15.7 13.1%

Total 150.5 100.00% 119.7 100.00%

1990

Category 1 141.5 65.4% 123.3 74.6% Category 2 51.4 23.8% 24.7 15.0%

Category 3 23.4 10.8% 17.1 10.4% Total 216.3 100.00% 165.1 100.00%

2000

Category 1 368.7 69.0% 361.3 76.7% Category 2 92.2 17.3% 63.8 13.5%

Category 3 73.2 13.7% 45.9 9.8%

Total 534.1 100.00% 471 100.00%

2005

Category 1 597.7 71.2% 555.6 75.9%

Category 2 138 16.4% 94 12.8% Category 3 103.7 12.3% 82.3 11.2%

Total 839.4 100.00% 731.9 100.00%

2008

Category 1 541.5 69.0% 628.9 72.1% Category 2 141.7 18.1% 136.7 15.7%

Category 3 101.2 12.9% 106.7 12.2% Total 784.4 100.00% 872.3 100.00%

Source: Department of Statistics, Putra Jaya, Data supplied by Department of Statistics

Among those with degree qualifications the highest number was also in

Category 1 states. In 1985, 73.6 percent of degree holders were in Category 1, 13.3 percent in Category 2 and 13.1 percent in Category 3. In 2008, the situation was fairly similar with 72.1 percent of those holding degrees in Category 1, 15.7 percent in Category 2 and 12.3 percent in Category 3. The situation has not changed much between 1985 and 2008. The large proportion of degree holders in Category 1 is

67

probably due to the better educational and job opportunities in these states for graduates. There is also possibly migration of graduates from the other two categories into Category 1 states.

Viewing the employed persons in the labor force along the urban/rural axis, a considerable difference is noted between the two regions. In 1995 there were 15.0 percent persons with tertiary education in urban areas compared with 6.3 percent persons in the labor force with tertiary education in rural areas (Labor Force Survey Report, 1995). By 2008 (Table 34), urban areas had 26.1 percent and rural areas 13.2 percent persons with tertiary education in the labor force.

Between 1995 and 2008, urban areas increased their proportion of persons with tertiary education by 11.1 percent while rural areas increased by 6.9 percent over the same period. However, over the short period of 2002 to 2008, rural areas have shown a more rapid increase in the proportion of persons in the labor force than the urban areas, marking an increase of 5.1 percent compared to 3.4 percent in the urban areas. This may suggest that increased educational opportunities for rural based students are beginning to change the character of the labor force in rural areas. Table 34: Employed persons in labor force with tertiary education by stratum, 2000, 2005 and 2008

2002 2005 2008 N % N % N %

Urban Total 5,692.3 100.0 6,200.1 100.0 6,722.4 100.0

Tertiary 1,291.7 22.7 1,538.1 24.8 1,752.0 26.1

Rural

Total 2,855.2 100.0 2,935.1 100.0 3,069.5 100.0 Tertiary 232.6 8.1 291.6 9.9 404.2 13.2

Source: Department of Statistics, Putra Jaya. Data supplied by Department of Statistics.

68

Regional differences by gender

In terms of regional differences (Table 35), of those with higher education, women in Sabah and Sarawak (category 3) had the lowest percentage of the population with higher education, ranging from 25.8 percent in 1980 to 44.6 in 2000, compared with women in the east coast peninsular states (category 2) where, compared with men, women comprised 28.1 percent in 1980, and 50.1 percent in 2000. In the more developed peninsular west coast states, of those with higher education women made up 33.1 percent, in 1980, and 47.3 percent in 2000. It should be noted that women in category 3 and category 2, the less developed parts of Malaysia, showed the greatest improvement in increasing their share of higher education. In Sabah and Sarawak percentage of women of those with higher education increased by18.8 percent between 1980 and 2000, in east coast peninsular states by 22 percent, and in west coast peninsular states by only 14.2 percent. Table 35: Persons with Higher Education in the population by Region and gender, 1980, 1991 and 2000

Year Gender Category 1 Category 2 Category 3

Total N % N % N %

1980 Male 76,139 66.9 15,600 71.89 9,895 74.2 101,634

Female 37,705 33.1 6,103 28.1 3,447 25.8 47,255

1990/91 Male 224,665 58.8 54,265 60.5 37,158 61.4 316,088

Female 157,196 41.2 35,421 39.5 23,372 38.6 215,989

2000 Male 541,917 52.7 109,354 49.9 72,696 55.4 723,967 Female 485,966 47.3 109,972 50.1 58,570 44.6 654,508

Source: Malaysia: Census Reports.1980, 1991 and 2000

Data on employed persons in the labor force by stratum and gender (urban/rural) demonstrate the strides women have made in achieving higher education (Table 36). Of females in urban areas, percentage of women with higher education increased from 16.7 percent in 1995 to 30.3 percent in 2008, an increase of 13.6 percent. Over the same period, of women in rural areas, the proportion with higher education increased from 7.4 percent to 18.9 percent in 2008, an increase of 11.5 percent. However, the gap in achieving higher education between rural and urban areas remains considerable. In 1995, a gap of 8.5 percent existed between urban and rural women; in 2008, a gap of 11.7 existed between the percentage of

69

women with higher education in urban and rural areas. Thus, it would seem that while women in both urban and rural areas have increased access to tertiary education, the gap in accessing tertiary education between urban and rural women has in fact increased over the period 1995 to 2008. Table 36: Percentage Distribution of Employed Persons with Tertiary Education in the Labor Force by Stratum and Gender, 1995-2008

Year Gender Male Female

Total % %

1995 Urban 14.3 16.7 15.0

Rural 5.8 7.4 6.3

2000 Urban 17.0 20.5 18.3 Rural 7.8 11.4 8.9

2004 Urban 20.3 27.4 22.9

Rural 8.0 13.2 9.7

2008 Urban 21. 30.3 25.0

Rural 10.1 18.9 12.9 Source: Malaysia. Department of Statistics. Labor Force Survey Reports. 1995-2008

Regional Differences by Ethnicity

Among the ethnic groups (Table 37), in urban areas the Bumiputeras have increased the largest share of persons in the labor force with tertiary education between 1995 and 2008. In 1995, 17.2 percent Bumiputeras in urban areas had attained tertiary education; by 2004 and by 2008 29.3 percent Bumiputeras in urban areas had attained tertiary education, representing a gain of 12.1 percent over the period 1995 to 2008. The Chinese percentage with tertiary education in urban areas between 1995 (13.6 percent) and 2008 (24.3 percent) increased by 10.1 percent. Similarly, the Indian share of persons with tertiary education increased merely from 12.4 percent in 1995 to 20.8 in 2008, an increase of 8.4 percent. In the rural areas, Bumiputera percentage of persons with tertiary education increased from 7.1 percent in 1995 to 15.6 percent in 2008, marking an increase of 8.5 percent. The Chinese in rural areas increased their percentage from 5.8 percent in 1995 to 10.8 percent in 2008, an increase of 5.0 percent while the Indians increased their percentage from 3.4 percent in 1995 to 8.6 percent in 2008, an increase of 5.2 percent. Overall, both in rural and especially in urban areas Bumiputeras were able

70

to achieve higher proportions of persons with tertiary education than either the Chinese or the Indians.

Among all ethnic groups the gap between urban and rural areas in terms of the percentage of persons with tertiary education has increased during the period 1995 and 2008 (Table 31). In 1995, the Bumiputera gap between urban and rural areas was 10.1 percent (17.2 percent urban and 7.1 percent rural) but by 2008 this gap had increased to 13.7 percent (29.3 percent urban and 15.6 percent rural). For the Chinese community the gap increased from 7.8 percent in 1995 (13.6 percent in urban and 5.8 percent in rural) to 13.5 percent in 2008 (24.3 percent urban and 10.8 percent rural), while in the Indian community the gap increased from 9.0 percent in 1995 (12.4 percent urban and 3.4 percent rural) to 12.2 percent in 2008 (20.8 percent urban and 8.6 percent rural). Clearly while all ethnic groups increased the percentage of their persons in both urban and rural areas, the difference between the two groups increased between 1995 and 2008. Table 37: Percentage Distribution of Employed Persons in Labor Force with Tertiary Education by Stratum and Ethnic Group, 1995-2008

Year Gender Bumiputera

Chinese Indian Others Total

1995 Urban 17.2 13.6 12.4 12.1 15.1

Rural 7.1 5.8 3.4 4 6.5 2000 Urban 21.5 17.9 14.6 8.5 19

Rural 9.9 11.6 7.5 3.4 9.7 2004 Urban 25.1 23.4 19.2 15.5 23.8

Rural 11.3 6.7 6.3 3.7 10.5

2008 Urban 29.3 24.3 20.8 10.5 25 Rural 15.6 10.8 8.6 9.4 13.3

Source: Malaysia. Department of Statistics. Labor Force Survey Reports. 1995-2008 Regional Differences 2010 The extent to which tertiary education opportunities are currently available to students from different regions is further revealed by findings of the social survey conducted by the research team. The survey looked at the origins as well as the regional origins of students in the total sample as well as by public and private HEIs. The findings are summarized in Table 38.

71

Table 38: Distribution of Students in Public, Private and all HEIs by Region in Sample Survey 2010

Region Public Private Total

N % N % N %

Penang, Perak, Selangor, Negri Sembilan, Malacca, Johore, Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur

437 46.7 1070 63.9 1507 57.8

Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, Pahang, Terengganu

455 48.7 263 15.7 718 27.5

Sabah, Sarawak, Labuan 40 4.2 142 8.5 182 6.9

Others 3 0.3 100 11.9 202 7.8

Total 935 100.0 1674 100.0 2609 100.0

The findings are in keeping with the normal perception that educational opportunities are largely availed of by students from the more developed states. The majority of students (57.8 percent) are from the more developed Peninsular states – Penang, Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Malacca, Johore and the Federal Territory. This is followed (27.5 percent) by students from the less developed northern and eastern Malay states – Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu and Pahang. Students from Sabah and Sarawak constitute only 6.9 percent of the students surveyed. A small proportion of students (7.8 percent) under the category of other are probably foreign students, the majority of whom (199 of 202) are studying in the private HEIs.

In the public sector HEIs the highest proportion of students are from the less developed states of Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, Trengganu and Pahang (48.7 percent), indicating the opportunities available to students from the less developed regions. The second largest group (46.7 percent) of students are from the western peninsular states of Penang, Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Malacca, Johore and the Federal Territory. Only 4.3 percent, far below their proportion in the population, are from the states of Sabah and Sarawak.

In contrast the highest proportion of students (63.9 percent) in the private HEIs are from the developed western peninsular states of Penang, Perak, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Malacca, Johore and the Federal Territory. Students from the eastern peninsular states of Perlis, Kedah, Kelantan, Terengganu and Pahang comprise only 15.7 percent of the student population in these institutions. Sabah and Sarawak students make up 8.5 percent of the student population while 11.9

72

percent are foreign students. Excluding foreign students there were 1,475 students surveyed in private HEIs. Of these, 72.5 percent were from the first category of states, 17.8 percent from the second category and 9.6 percent from the third category of states.

There appears to be a clear divide in terms of the regions from which students enroll in the public and private HEIs. Students in private HEIs where fees are high originate from the more developed states while students in public HEIs where fees are much lower are almost in equal numbers from the developed and less developed states. Students from the poorer states seek out the public universities as they are more affordable and may also under the NEP enjoy preferential access. Impact of National Policies on Socioeconomic Status

This section portrays the impact of affirmative-action policies on Malaysian social structure. A number of research studies in the 1970’s and 80’s are reviewed to assess the effectiveness of NEP policies in eradicating social disadvantages in the two decades immediately after the implementation of these policies. To assess the impact of policies on students currently enrolled in higher education, data is presented from a sample socio-economic survey of students conducted by the research team, between April and July 2010. Education and Social Mobility in Malaysia

Research on education and social mobility in Malaysia has justified the identification of educational attainment as the primary channel of mobility in Malaysia. A study carried out in the early 1970’s (Singh, 1973) confirmed the central role of education in promoting upward social mobility in Malaysia. The findings highlighted high correlation between the educational, occupational and income structures- ensuring that those who obtained high educational qualifications obtained high status and high income jobs.

The study further established that higher education had the highest returns socially for the Malays. Mean occupational status for the Malays with higher education was 1.72 compared to 2.22 for the Chinese and 1.94 for the Indians (on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 stands for very high and 7 for very low prestige occupations).

The findings clearly confirmed the link between educational attainment and occupational status, demonstrating that under the NEP a group, such as the Malays,

73

that received greater educational opportunities was able to translate these opportunities into an enhanced occupational or social status. However, one has to bear in mind that while education has been the primary channel of mobility for the Malays, those Malays who do not make it educationally are greatly disadvantaged in their chances to be mobile. Alternative channels of mobility tend to be fewer for the Malays and success and failure in school is of greater consequence to them than to the other ethnic groups. . Lower correlation between education and social status among the Chinese suggests the presence of alternative channels of mobility and a lesser dependence on education.

This situation probably no longer prevails. A range of support structures not available to the less advantaged Bumiputeras in the early days of the NEP have since been put in place These consist of easy access to loans for businesses, permits to apply for special projects or contracts, licenses, for instance, to operate taxis and other public transport, quotas for civil service and the army and requirement of private sector to employ Bumiputeras. Greater awareness has been raised among Bumiputeras of the different channels they can use to alleviate their income and social position. In other words, many alternative channels for upward mobility are now available to Bumiputeras which is likely to reduce their heavy dependence on education as a primary channel of mobility.

Some evidence in the study points to the fact that while inter-ethnic gaps were being reduced, the intra-ethnic gaps were increasing. This seemed to be particularly so among the Bumiputera group. The high status Bumiputera, well entrenched in the political and economic sphere, were much more able than those from low social origins to take advantage of the numerous special programmes. study initiatives and business opportunities offered by the government under the NEP. Hence the children of these Bumiputeras were able to obtain the best educational credentials and move into the best jobs in the country.

The study concludes that the increased educational opportunities created for them by the government enabled large numbers of students from rural and low social status groups to be upwardly mobile into upper echelons of employment. The majority of these students were Bumiputera, while a small number of low SES Chinese and Indians also benefited from the NEP.

Another review of the effects of the NEP on Malaysian social structure (Singh and Mukherjee, 1993) provides “evidence of the rich-poor divide among the Malays and a greater consciousness of it which finds expression in the political arena. Despite a generally higher income and occupational levels, the poorer Malays

74

relatively see themselves at a great disadvantage compared to the traditional Malay elite and aristocracy who have been well placed socially to corner much of the wealth and power flowing to the Malay community. While the NEP has brought some considerable social restructuring it has also extended the dimensions of discord. Unexpectedly, class divisions appear to be sharper.” Role of HEIs in Promoting Social Mobility

Five studies conducted on the social origins of university students at different times during the 1970s and 1980s have illuminated the increasing presence of students from low social origins into Malaysian HEIs thus enabling them to improve their occupational opportunities as well as enhance their social status.

(i) Social Class of Students at the Universiti Malaya pre-NEP

A study by Takei Yoshimitsu (1973) portrays the social origins of students at

the Universiti Malaya in 1968/1969 at the commencement of the NEP. The data revealed “preponderance of students from the higher social class backgrounds in the case of the Chinese and Indians, although the situation was somewhat reversed with the Malays.” Taking male and female students together, about 84 percent of the Chinese and 83 percent of the Indian students at the university at the time were from high and high medium social class origins. In contrast, 40 percent of the male Malay students in the same sample came from the lowest social class. This is due to the “positive discrimination” practiced by the government even before the full implementation of the NEP in favor of Malay youths from the low and often rural backgrounds (Takei et al., 17). (ii) Social Class of Universiti Malaya Students, 1976

To assess the social class of final year students of the Universiti Malaya in

1976, a representative sample of final-year students was selected from the existing faculties of Arts and Social Science, Science, Economics, Education, Engineering, Dentistry, Law and Medicine. The data established conclusively that the Universiti Malaya very effectively promotes youths from low status social origins to high professional occupations, a movement that certainly ensures them a place in the highest social stratum. A significantly high proportion of students (58.9 percent) in the final year at the Universiti Malaya had parents who worked in skilled, semi-skilled and manual occupations. Many of them were in fact from the lowest social category, that is, their parents were among the poor farmers, rubber tappers, laborers and manual workers. Only a small proportion of the students (12.4

75

percent) had parents in the high status group, that is, the professional, managerial and executive groups, while 28.7 percent had parents in the middle-level clerical, sales and supervisory groups. However, these findings should not be taken to mean that, among Malaysians generally, the children of manual workers are getting better opportunities to obtain higher education. It should be borne in mind that there were during that period as many students overseas in universities and colleges as there were in Malaysian institutions of higher learning and among these overseas students children of the upper social groups predominate (Singh, 1981). (iii) Occupational Status and Educational Level of Parents of Malaysian

University Students, 1978

A study carried out in 1978 on student development in Malaysian universities assessed the socio-economic status of final year students in five Malaysian universities. Using fathers’ occupational status as the main criterion to determine the social class background of the student the study shows that only 2.7 percent of the students come from higher socio-economic status homes, and their fathers hold professional, managerial or executive positions. About 20 percent of students come from homes which can be considered as lower middle class homes where their fathers have a white collar job in a supervisory, lower professional, technical, clerical or sales capacity. Another 29 percent who can be considered as upper working class have had skilled jobs such as foreman, wireman, machine-operator, welder, fitter, store-keeper, carpenter, electrician, technician, laboratory assistant, etc. This leaves 48 percent of the fathers in the “semi-skilled”, “unskilled”, “pensioners” and “no information” categories. The findings clearly show that the majority of students in the sample come from low socioeconomic status homes. This is the result of democratization of higher education in the country in the last decade. The changing social class character of the university population in Malaysia represents a shift from an elite to a more egalitarian tradition, where students from low socioeconomic status homes are given greater access to higher education. This is a consequence of providing greater equality of educational opportunity at the lower levels of the educational structure, and the restructuring of the Malaysian society through the regulation of the admission policy to the universities (Marimuthu, 1984). (iv) Trends in Educational and Occupational mobility, 1987

In the mid 1980s a study was carried out at the Universiti Malaya on

“University Education and Employment in Malaysia” in conjunction with the International Institute of Educational Planning, Paris (Ungku et.al. 1987). The study

76

surveyed sixth form students, undergraduates and graduates, providing some evidence of the changes that have occurred over time in student recruitment. The survey data show that the educational opportunities of the lower SES groups have been enhanced since the implementation of the NEP. Using educational attainment of the fathers of the respondents as an indicator of SES, it is observed that larger proportions of sixth form students and undergraduates than past graduates had fathers who had no formal education or only primary education. Among sixth form students 73.3 percent and among undergraduates 72.0 percent of parents had primary education or less compared with 54.3 percent of fathers of graduates. At the other end 4.6 percent of fathers of sixth form students and 6.5 percent of fathers of undergraduates had college or university education compared with 10.0 percent of fathers of graduates. Thus, more of the younger group of respondents had fathers with low levels of education. Of sixth form students 45.1 percent and of undergraduates 49.9 percent had fathers in manual occupations compared with 25.9 percent of fathers of graduates who were from the manual workers category. It would appear that the NEP has been fairly successful in enhancing the educational and occupational opportunities of the previously disadvantaged ethnic and socio-economic groups. (v) Student Enrolment in Penang and Kedah, 2005

Three groups of students were surveyed in Penang and Kedah - Form 5, first

year and final year university students. Fathers’ education and fathers’ occupation were among the indicators used to assess SES. Distribution of students by father’s occupation and education shows that the largest percentage of students have their origins in unskilled, skilled and semi professional group of parents with primary or secondary education. Among the form five students, 25.4 per cent of students’ fathers are involved in unskilled and semi-skilled occupations, while 56.2 per cent are involved in skilled and semi-professional occupations. Another 18.4 per cent of students’ fathers are professionals. For first year students, the percentages of students’ fathers working in the three categories are 26.8 per cent, 33.9 per cent and 39.2 percent, respectively. For final year students, the percentages of students’ fathers involved in the three categories of occupations are 25.9 per cent, 58.3 per cent and 15.8 per cent, respectively. Based on Father’s Education, 28.1 per cent of form five students’ fathers have primary education, while 42.2 per cent have secondary education and 29.6 per cent have tertiary education. For first year students, 24.9 per cent, 49.6 per cent, 25.5 per cent of students’ fathers have primary, secondary and tertiary education, respectively. The proportions of final year students’ fathers who have primary, secondary and tertiary education are 17.1, 24.0 and 58.9, respectively.

77

Collectively, the five studies of the 1970s and 1980s show that increasingly

over time better educational and occupational opportunities have been available to students from low socioeconomic status, fulfilling one of the objectives of the NEP to restructure society. Sample Socioeconomic Status Survey, 2010

The social status of students currently in HEIS was assessed through a sample survey of students in the public and private HEIs. Three indicators to assess social status were used: guardian’s highest education qualification, family monthly income and guardian’s occupational status.

Taking educational qualifications as a more reliable indicator of social class (Table 39), the survey finds that 24.2 percent of students have parents with university education, which must assure them of a reasonably high social status. There is hardly any difference between the students in public and private institutions. Only 22.6 percent of the total sample have guardians with less than lower secondary education which may place them in the lower social categories. The majority of students’ guardians (52.9 percent) have an educational qualification between upper secondary and a certificate or diploma.

The results from the occupational classification probably provide the best picture of the social status of students’ families (Table 40). A significantly high proportion of students (35.7 percent) are from professional, managerial and administrative families. About a quarter (27.3 percent) of families is in clerical and sales jobs and 19.1 percent in service and other semi skilled and manual jobs. If we add the category of ‘others’ to service and manual workers we get a group of 34.4 percent. The difference between guardians of public and private HEIs is insignificant. It can, therefore be safely assumed that about 36 percent of families are of high status, 26 percent of middle status and between 17-34 percent from lower status families. Table 39: Guardian’s Highest Education Qualification

Level of Education Public Private Total

N % N % N %

No formal, primary and lower secondary

175 19.8 347 22.6 522 21.6

Upper, post secondary, 499 56.5 806 52.5 1305 53.9

78

cert/diploma

Bachelors, masters, doctoral 203 23.0 372 24.2 575 23.8 Others 6 0.7 11 0.7 17 0.7

Total 883 100.0 1536 100.0 2419 100.0 Table 40: Guardian’s Occupational Status

Guardian’s Occupational Status Public Private Total

N % N % N %

Professional, managerial and administrative

339 36.3 566 35.4 905 35.7

Clerical, sales and related workers 248 26.5 444 27.8 692 27.3

Service and production workers 104 11.1 234 14.6 338 13.3 Agricultural workers 73 7.8 74 4.6 147 5.8

Others 171 18.3 281 17.6 452 17.9 Total 935 100.0 1599 100.0 2534 100.0

The findings from the 2010 survey depict a different pattern from that

reported in the studies of the 1970’s and 1980’s. The earlier studies showed that, in keeping with the NEP policies to assist the advancement of the rural and poorer groups in society, students from the lower social groups were given priority for admission to higher education in the local public universities. Private higher education was more accessible to students from the upper social classes. The 2010 survey data show a parallel pattern of students SES in public and private institutions. While this is contrary to expectations, the survey data implies that as a result of the great expansion of higher education both in public and private sectors and the availability of student financing, both systems of education are currently open to students from different social groups, albeit private education is at great private cost either through loans or personal savings.

79

Financing of Higher Education in Malaysia Financing of HEIs

Higher Education in Malaysia is constitutionally a Federal and not a State-level responsibility: all public higher education institutions (PHEIs) are financed by the Government. This includes the 20 public universities, 34 polytechnics and 37 community colleges. The financing of public higher education in Malaysia follows the trend that is observable in almost all developing countries – educational expenditure is primarily from the federal government budget. This is mainly through the Ministry of Higher Education for universities, polytechnics and community colleges. The Ministry of Human Resources contributes to post secondary education leading to skills qualifications, financing the Council for National Vocational Training or in the national language Majlis Latihan Vokasional Kebangsaan, commonly known as MLVK. Other ministries that contribute indirectly to higher education are the Ministries under whose jurisdiction universities are established such as the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Rural Development. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation plays a major role in providing funds for research. Funding also comes from other agencies, such as state foundations, local communities, families and individuals, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private enterprises and corporations as well as foreign aid.

Private higher education institutions are financed by a range of providers which could include mixed participation from federal through government linked companies such as utility giants, and state agency funds, private corporations, family and individual trusts and foundations, and foreign university funds. Figure 2 below sets out broadly, with some examples, the sources of funding for Malaysian public and private tertiary education. It also demonstrates the ways in which higher education institutions are pooling funds in various combinations and this is particularly true of the private sector. Figure 2: Financing Sources for HEIs in Malaysia

80

Financing source

Total number

Examples of HEIs Other information

1 Federal Government

20 Universiti Malaya (UM); Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)

Under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Higher Education which finances the HEIs up to 90% plus. Some universities come under the administrative jurisdiction of the founding Ministry or Agency - e.g. the military university under MINDEF – Universiti Petahanan Nasional Malaysia (UPNM)

2 Federal Government

24 Polytechnics 100% funding for all polytechnics

3 Federal Government

37 Community colleges

100% funding for all community colleges

4 State government

1 The Universiti Industri Selangor (UNISEL)

Wholly owned and managed by the Selangor State government through its corporatized investment arm. There is only 1 such HEI in Malaysia.

81

Financing source

Total number

Examples of HEIs Other information

5 Ethnic/political groups Community funds with/without government support

3 AIMST Kolej Tunku Abdul Rahman (KTAR) UTAR

Gov-financing at establishment; AIMST(Indian community) Fed Govt.about 60%; Kedah State Govt – land; KTAR (Chinese community) 50%; Recurrent financing: KTAR receives 50% annual; others take loans, raise funds from community UTAR – 100% community funds

6 Federal Government-Linked Companies (GLCs)

3 Universiti Teknologi Petronas (UTP) Universiti Tenaga Nasional (UNITEN) Multimedia University (MMU)

Govt funds channeled through private investment arm UTP financed by funds from national oil and gas company Petronas ; UNITEN by the National Electricity Board; MMU.- Telekom Malaysia; [universities previously government-owned but now corporatized with funds directly to universities from government linked corporations]

7 Charitable body or Trust Foundation

3 Sunway University College Wawasan Open University (WOU)

Trust administered by Sunway Group WOU financed by Wawasan Education Foundation (WEF) based on a family trust fund

82

National Institute of Ophthalmogy

Tun Hussein Onn National Eye Hospital Ltd, a public charitable company; set up with government and private funds; recurrent funds from private sources, self-generated funds, and government funds on request

8 Private individuals or corporations

521 HELP University College, INTI University College Nilai Universiti College Taylors College Advanced Tutorial Centre (ATC) (all medium to large HEIs)

Initiated and owned initially by individuals, evolving into private companies Owned by public or private companies e.g. Kemayan, Berjaya, SEGI International, Sapura Holdings

9 Public-Private Partnership

1 Universiti Kuala Lumpur (UniKL)

UniKL is managed by Universiti Teknikal MARA Sdn. Bhd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Majlis Amanah Rakyat (MARA) - a government agency under the Ministry of Entrepreneur and Co-operative Development.

83

Financing source

Total number

Examples of HEIs Other information

10 Foreign branch campuses with local private or government equity

6 Australia - Curtin, Monash, Swinburne College of Technology; UK - Nottingham Univ.; Newcastle ( medical school) & Southampton ( engineering school) to be established soon

Monash- Sunway Group Curtin - Sarawak State government Swinburne – Sarawak State government Nottingham – Boustead Group Newcastle and Southampton - Johore State Government under Iskandar Corridor project’s Educity’s multi-university complex

Sources: various, prepared by authors – data as at 2010.

Both government and non-government funding sources are critical to

broadening provision and increasing access. In 2008, government-financed institutions enrolled 419,334 students (Table 8) while private institutions enrollment in the same year was 399,852 (Table 9). Public HEIs are responsible for the large proportion of students enrolled in higher education but the issue which needs to be addressed regarding both public and private institutions is the sustainability of funding over time. The state of the national economy is therefore of paramount significance.

The GDP allocation for education in Malaysia, a middle income country, is about 2.5 percent, a proportion which compares well with most countries including high-income Singapore’s 3 percent. Malaysia’s population is just about 28 million with 20 public universities and 59 polytechnics and community colleges. In order to sustain access and maintain quality for expanding student populations, levels of financing need not only to be sustained but to increase to ensure that support for students from all groups match increased provision in the public and private sectors. Increased levels of financing for both public and private sector institutions pre-suppose strong economic growth. ‘One of the great things about economic growth is that it generates resources for the government to spend according to its priorities (Sen 2011).’

84

Malaysia’s economy has tried to be in step with the expansion of economies

in the region. The 1987 recession, the global slowdown in 1997 and the worldwide financial downturn have taken a severe toll on many countries, including Malaysia. In Malaysia, economic growth is projected to moderate to 5.2 percent year on year in 2011, before rising to 5.5 percent in 2012. Malaysia is expected to average 4.2 per cent growth during the Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006-2010), a period when growth was supposed to be 7 per cent on average. Several countries in the region have grown their economies at accelerated paces and are currently in more favorable positions in terms of financing tertiary education.

Table 41 shows increase in GDP per capita income in current terms for Malaysia, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore between the years 1970 and 2005, where Korea, behind Malaysia in 1970, has more than tripled Malaysia’s per capita income by 2005. Singapore’s GDP per capita income was more than double that of Malaysia’s in 1970 and had stormed ahead to more than five times by 2005. These figures translate into the level of financial resources available for all sectors. Decreasing allocations translate into a lower level of financial support for institutional development and student support. However, current trends in Malaysian real GDP growth are a cause for optimism. From -1.7 percent in 2009, the country weathered the global financial downturn turning in a dramatic 7.2 percent GDP in 2010 (The Star, 2011), while anticipating a growth rate of 5.2 percent in 2011 (Malaysian Institute of Educational Research, January 2011). Table 41: GDP per capita income for Malaysia, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore - 1970 and 2005

Country GDP per capita current US$

GDP per capita current US$

1970 2005

Malaysia 394.1 5,141.6

S. Korea 278.8 16,308.9 Singapore 913.8 26,892.9

Hong Kong 959.2 25,592.8 Source: International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, 2009

The recently-announced Tenth Malaysia Development Plan (2011-2015) plans

to create an environment to ensure the economic growth rate of Malaysia at 6

85

percent per annum over the next five years. The challenge is to move from an economy that competes on cost and natural resources to one driven by productivity and innovation, and nurtures, attracts, and retains talent, companies and capital. At the higher education level, the challenges are widening the pool of talent required to implement the country’s economic goals, seeking and supporting talent from every group of Malaysians, while coping with increasing numbers amid costly and rapidly changing technology while striving for quality. Whether higher education sectors can rise to the challenge is often the determining question. The linkages among funding agencies, particularly in the private sector, provide evidence of the growing maturity of providers. They are proving themselves to be nimble and responsive to change in a way which is not feasible in the centralized planning of public institution financing, despite the latter’s high level of contribution to public higher education. Current modalities used in the distribution of funds in Malaysian public institutions are by comparison rigid, based primarily on a historical/negotiated incremental-cost approach, linked with inputs. Agreed line items such as salary levels and fees leave institutions little flexibility with submission of monthly balance sheets to the Ministry of Finance to demonstrate expenditure carried out as agreed. This practice is in force despite the fact that the Modified Budgeting System, which operates as an output-oriented budget allocation, was introduced in 1997. An approach with a time lag built into the process has the disadvantage of impairing both efficiency and institutional agility to respond swiftly to change. Thus the challenge in providing access to higher education hinges on the ability of the government to optimize the current resources to provide sufficient access to all qualified students. It also hinges on private HEIs to remain profitable so as to continue to meet the demands for higher education in the country albeit at substantial cost to students. While government support will remain a major contributor in financing the higher education system, the expectation of continually higher levels of support are not realistic. Mechanisms will need to be identified which provide a system of support with reduced reliance on national coffers. In particular, the reliance on levels of support for students through extremely high subsidy levels needs to be reviewed. Experience and initiatives from other countries provide useful alternatives such as the ‘free at the time of use’ (Barr, 2009) approach which allows students to obtain loans to pursue higher education which are payable upon graduation but this system will only work if there are efficient implementation mechanisms in place.

86

The financing of universities in many countries is regressive, since the money comes from general taxation but the major beneficiaries are from better-off backgrounds or specific groups. Public allocation for higher education is politically sensitive as it competes with funding for other sectors. Higher education is not only a key factor in national economic performance: it also determines an individual’s life chances. The ‘study now, pay later’ concept will help alleviate the current demand on taxpayers to provide for higher education. This system perhaps is best supported by scholarships based on merit. The following paragraphs discuss scholarships and loans in Malaysia focusing on the main loan and scholarship provider in the country – the Federal Government. Student Financing

Financial support for students faces problems throughout the world. Student support may be inadequate and the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds small. Attainment of a college degree is desirable given its high positive correlation with lifetime earnings (Van Horn and Schaffner, 2003). Most parents consider the funding of their children’s higher education as one of their most important family financial goals, particularly in Asian communities. Paying for a college education had traditionally been seen as primarily a family obligation, being met through combinations of current earnings, savings and borrowing. In most developing nations, there is still high dependency on parents to finance higher education chiefly because of insufficient government funding. Nevertheless, there is growing understanding that student financing requires close professional and technical attention to improve access in a way that supports diversity and attracts much-needed talent in the student population. At the same time, awareness has grown that public funding has to work together with private financial sources, without disadvantaging the poorest groups.

For many decades, the Malaysian government, via its agencies such as the Public Services Department (PSD) and MARA, has provided scholarships to high achieving students to help finance their college education. In addition, due to limited public funding and the issue of private social benefits of higher education, the government has established alternative methods of financing higher education. The most important of these is the development of the National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN).

Family socioeconomic status is now the major criterion in awarding the financial aid, coupled with students’ academic achievement. As the number of students obtaining good grades in their Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) examination

87

increases, entry to public universities becomes more competitive and the chances of obtaining full education financing become smaller. Many students resort to loans provided by PTPTN as most do not have savings to finance their higher education, leading to the issue of students graduating with debts.

In a system where public higher education is heavily subsided by the government (Table 42), financial support for students in both public and private institutions becomes a critical area for ensuring equity for all. Given that average private sector fees are about five times greater than local publicly-funded institutions, the impact of policies on access for private sector students, and government support to approximately 50 percent of the total number of students in the tertiary subsector, warrants in-depth study. Study findings indicate that while access to higher education may be abundant, insufficient attention has been paid to the equality of access mechanisms. Table 42: Tuition fees and total government subsidies for Five fields of studies in the Public and Private Sectors

Type of Study Public Sector Private Sector

Tuition Fee Government

Subsidy Approx Tuition

Fee 1. Business & Social Science 1,865 13,915 9,091-25,455

2. Engineering 2,851 24,382

13,939 – 30,909

3. ICT 2,065 18,645 9,697-25,455 4. Medicine

4,018 47,788 75,758-100,909

5. Hospitality & Tourism 2,065 18,645 9,394-16,667

Note:

Private sector fee include the range for home grown, 3+0 and branch campus

Tuition fees for the complete program

Fees are given in USD at the exchange rate of USD1.00 to RM3.30

Source: MQA. Report to MoHE on Private Sector Higher Education Fees: 2008 & Universiti Putra Malaysia - information downloaded 15th July 2010

Higher education funding for students in this discussion incorporates all forms of

funding, scholarships/sponsorship and loans. As in many emerging economies, a substantial proportion of expenditure for higher education is from the central government budget through the Ministry of Higher Education. In 2006, for instance,

88

expenditure for higher education was 36.03 percent of current education expenditure for the year. A range of organizations provide financial assistance to students by various means such as scholarship, sponsorship and loans. These include foreign agencies, local communities, families and individuals, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private enterprises and corporations as well as foreign aid. Some examples are:

i. Federal Government – the Public Sector Department (JPA) scholarship for study at foreign and local higher education institutions. This is elaborated below.

ii. State or Local authorities – state scholarships and loans provided through state foundations such Sabah Foundation and Terengganu Foundation; State loan schemes directed to specific institutions such as the Selangor State Secretary Loan Scheme offering study loans to high-scoring students to further studies in Universiti Industri Selangor and Kolej Islam Selangor.

iii. Foreign aid - mainly in the form of scholarships for example ASEAN Scholarship award, The Chevening Award (UK), Commonwealth (Commonwealth Secretariat, UK) and Fulbright Scholarships (US).

iv. Families, individual and communities - usually in the form of family sponsorship, grants, donation and contributions.

v. Enterprises, corporations, and estates – in the form of scholarships, donations and loans, for example The Star Education Fund, The Kuok Foundation, Sime Darby Foundation.

vi. Political Parties – Maju Institute for Educational Development (MIED) established under the auspices of the Malaysian Indian Congress and Koperasi Jayadiri Sdn Bhd (Kojadi) established by the Malaysian Chinese Association, both parties being part of the ruling political coalition.

vii. Non-governmental organizations and religious bodies – largely providing loans, scholarships e.g. The Malaysian Association of Private Colleges and Universities (MAPCU) and The National Association of Private Education Institutions (NAPEI)

Scholarships awarded by government agencies and other bodies have established

eligibility criteria, summarized in Table 43, and these show ‘merit’ as a common element for all.

Two major government agencies, the biggest players in the awards of scholarships and loans nationally, are reviewed here to illustrate the existing scenario in the allocation of public funds. The Public Services Department (or its Malaysian acronym JPA) provides scholarships, tenable in local and foreign universities; and the National Higher Education Fund Corporation (or its Malaysian

89

acronym PTPTN) provides loans to students in public and private institutions. The data from the SES survey, discussed below, showed that of the 2,667 student respondents, 11.2 percent are on scholarships, 53.7 percent on loans and 35.2 percent use personal sources of finance. The JPA Scholarship Story: The government of Malaysia, through the Public Services Department (JPA), provides scholarships to students based on academic merit. These scholarships are given to students pursuing a course of study in foreign and local institutions. In 2008, the Ministry of Higher Education a total of 59,107 students were studying overseas and of these, 21,517 are sponsored. Less than 10 percent of these are under JPA scholarship, largely due to the higher cost in sending student overseas (Table 45). A large proportion of awards under the JPA Overseas Scholarship Program is allocated for disciplines deemed critical such as medicine and pharmacy. Under this program, students excelling in secondary school leaving examinations undergo a course in local preparatory colleges for about one to two years prior to placement in overseas universities of good repute, generally in Australia, UK and USA. Placements are subject to their passing the preparatory program with distinction; being offered a place by the universities listed by JPA; and being certified medically fit. Given the demand for internationally recognized certification, the demand for overseas scholarships far outstrips their availability.

90

Table 43: Scholarships and Distinguishing Features of Malaysian Awards

No Category of Scholarship

Distinguishing Features

1. Government/State i. On merit ii. Citizenship iii. Ethnicity/minority iv. To local or foreign HEIs v. Unlimited field of study – though slanted according

to national needs

2. Banks i. On merit ii. Limited field of study iii. To local institutions only iv. First degree v. Coverage RM. 6-10k per annum

3. Corporate i. On merit ii. Limited field of study iii. To local institutions only iv. First degree v. May include some form of bond

4. Universities/HEIs i. Limited to the field of study at the institutions

ii. Partial scholarship/merit based scholarship iii. May include bond

5. Others

(foundations, clubs, associations)

i. On merit ii. To local or foreign HEIs iii. Unlimited field of and level of study

There has been gradual growth in the number of scholarships provided

overall and the increase is significant particularly for study in the local HEIs. In 2000, a total of 3763 (Table 44) grants were awarded, increasing by 165.8 percent to 10 000 in 2008. Increases on a smaller scale, can be seen in the total number of scholarships to pursue higher education overseas : from 748 in the year 2000, to 2000 in 2008, an increase of 167.4 percent (Table 44). The smaller increase in foreign scholarships may be attributed to the higher cost of overseas study and the increase in the local provision of foreign programs through twinning and 3+0 and branch campuses.

91

A closer look at the data in Table 44 shows an evidence of inequitable

distribution of scholarships to study locally. Between the year 2000 and 2008, a total of 51,072 Bumiputera students were awarded scholarship to study locally which represents (87.3 percent), while in the same period only 7,434 not Bumiputera students were awarded such scholarships. However, data also shows a more equitable award of scholarship, for example in the year 2000, 91.5 percent or 3,444 scholarships were awarded to Bumiputera students and only 319 or 8.5 percent to non Bumiputera students, in the year 2008, the percentage of non Bumiputera students rose to 21.5 or 2,174 as oppose to 7,826 Bumiputera students.

The distribution by ethnic group suggests that the JPA scholarship awards for overseas study have come a considerable way in the attainment of equitable measures in apportioning public money (Table 43). For the years 2000 and 2008, a total of 58,506 scholarships were awarded under this scheme, of which 73.4 percent or 9160 were awarded to Bumiputera students and the remainder 26.6 percent or 3,325 to non Bumiputera students. This is certainly more equitable than the distribution in scholarships to study locally. Furthermore data also show an improving equitability in the distribution of scholarship for overseas studies. In 2000, out of the 748 scholarship for a program of study in foreign universities overseas, 598 (or 79.9 percent) were awarded to Bumiputera students whilst the remaining 150 (or 20.1 percent) were awarded to non Bumiputera students. In 2008, however, non-Bumiputera students obtained 45 percent of the share while Bumiputera students were awarded the balance of 1,100 or 55 percent. The limitation of this conclusion however is the lack of data to show whether the provision of scholarships are strictly based on merit or along ethnic lines.

92

Table 44: Public Sector Department Scholarships for studies at domestic HEIs according to bumiputera and non-bumiputera - 2000-2008 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

Ethnic Cluster

Bumiputera 3,444 8,723 6,643 4,340 3,994 4,693 4,727 6,682 7,826 51,072

(91.5) (90.0) (91.4) (91.4) (90.3) (88.8) (82.2) (88.2) (78.3) (87.3)

Non-Bumiputera 319 969 623 407 430 593 1,026 893 2,174 7,434

(8.5) (10.0) (8.6) (8.6) (9.7) (11.2) (17.8) (11.8) (21.7) (12.7)

Total 3,763 9,692 7,266 4,747 4,424 5,286 5,753 7,575 10,000 58,506

Source: Public Service Department November 2009 Table 45: Public Sector Department Scholarships for studies at foreign HEIs according to Bumiputera and non-Bumiputera 2000-2008 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

Ethnic Group

1 Bumiputera 598 609 999 1,314 1,187 1,040 1,143 1,170 1,100 9,160

(79.9) (80.0 (80.0) (80.0) (80.0) (80.0) (76.2) (65.0) (55.0) (73.4)

2 Non-Bumiputera 150 152 250 329 297 260 357 630 900 3,325

(20.1) (20.0) (20.0) (20.0) (20.0) (20.0) (23.8) (35.0) (45.0) (26.6)

Total 748 761 1,249 1,643 1,484 1,300 1,500 1,800 2,000 12,485

Source: Public Service Department November 2009

The JPA scholarship is not the only public funded scholarship given to students either to study locally or abroad. Other scholarships schemes, such as the individual state scholarships and the Yayasan Mara scholarships, to name a few, sponsor significant numbers of students. Unfortunately, data for these are not available. However, the general understanding is that the vast majority of students under state scholarships and certainly a 100 percent under the latter are Malays and other Bumiputera students.

When student scholarships were compared with student enrolment at local HEIs, inter-ethnic disparity was evident in the number of students from the non Bumiputera group obtaining scholarships as shown in Table 46. As enrolment figures for both the public and the private sectors according to ethnic lines are only available for the Year 2000, the figure is put against the JPA scholarship data for the

93

year. The total enrollment was about 1.4 million in 2000, of which about 59.9 percent were Bumiputera and the remainder non Bumiputera. The scholarship data to local institutions however show that 91.5 percent of scholarships were awarded to Bumiputerea students and only 8.5 were given to non Bumiputera students. This shows an imbalance in the proportion of awards between Bumiputera and non Bumiputera. Table 46: Bumiputera and Non Bumiputera comparison in scholarship and enrolment for the year 2000

Ethnic Group Enrolment* Scholarship

No % No % Bumiputera 827,593 59.9 3,444 91.5

Non-Bumiputera 553,570 40.1 319 8.5

Total 1,381,163 100.0 3,763 100.0 Source: JPA and Ministry of Higher Education, www.mohe.gov.my

The SES survey provided some data on the provision of scholarships according

to ethnic groups, gender and family income. Table 51 shows that of the total respondents, 15.4 percent Bumiputera were on scholarship, of whom almost 98 percent indicated that their scholarship providers were publicly-funded awards from either JPA or MARA. Chinese and Indian students won 8.2 percent and 6.8 percent scholarships respectively. With the exception of two students from a public university, all Chinese and Indian students’ sources of scholarship were private, largely institutions or industries. The data obtained from JPA for the year 2000 (Table 46) triangulates this by showing that 92 percent of students in the local universities with JPA scholarships are Bumiputera students. These 2000 data support the conclusion that Bumiputera students were more likely to obtain scholarships from public funds than non-Bumiputera students.

Data from the SES survey indicates that generally students from high income families are less likely to be eligible for scholarship. Table 47 shows that 8.8 percent of students from families with income below 5,000 per month are on scholarship whilst only 0.6 percent of those in families with income exceeding 10,000 receive scholarships. Data available could not confirm that that these were also based on merit. It confirms however that allocations have been awarded to the needy in the low-income brackets.

94

Table 47: Types of Financing by Family Income Category

Type Of Finance Family Income Categories

Total <5000 <10000 >10001

Scholarship 8.8 2.0 0.6 11.4

Loan 46.3 6.5 2.0 54.8 Personal 21.8 7.1 5.0 33.8

Total 76.8 15.6 7.5 100.0 Source: SES Survey, 2010

The PTPTN Story

Perbadanan Tabung Pendidikan Tinggi (PTPTN) was established under the National Higher Education Fund Act 1997 (Act 566) and began operations on 1st November 1997. The objective of PTPTN is to ensure efficient loan financing using public funds, for students who are eligible to pursue studies at institutions of higher learning. This is in line with the government aspiration that no Malaysian with the required admissions qualifications should be denied access to higher education. The body was set up to manage the disbursement of public funds for the purpose of higher education through low interest student loans. The most recent development (Budget 2010) saw an extension of this function where loan holders with a first class honors degree will now be able to convert their loan retroactively into a scholarship, without any repayment obligations.

PTPTN loans were initially available only to students from the public sector higher education institutions with eligibility based on family income per month. Since 1999, it became available to students from both public and private sector HEIs, with loans provided in three categories as summarized in Table 48:

i. full loan is given to students from families with incomes below RM3,000 a month (or less than approximately USD 900 per month);

ii. partial loan 1 is given to students from families with incomes between RM3,001 and RM 5,000 a month (or USD 1,001 and 1,380 per annum) to cover tuition fees and a portion for subsistence; and

iii. partial loan 2 is given to students from families with monthly incomes of above RM 5,001 (or USD 1,381 and above) only for loans up to the maximum of their tuition fees.

Table 48: Categories of PTPTN Loans

95

Status Pre March 2007 Post March 2007 Full ≤ RM2,000 ≤ RM3,000

Partial 1 RM2,001 to RM4,000 RM3,001 to RM5,000 Partial 2 RM4,001and above RM5,001 and above

Source: PTPTN, 2009

In the last 10 years PTPTN has provided higher educational loans to the

amount of RM 26.2 billion (US$8 billion) benefitting about 1.3 million students. In 1997, PTPTN had approved 12,000 applications and in 2008 the number of approvals increased to 97,000, an eight-fold increase. This is a remarkable achievement by the government of Malaysia, resulting in substantial increase in access for different categories of student. The availability of study loans had increased enrolment in the private higher education sector, now totaling almost 50 percent of the student enrolment in the country.

As the main higher education loan provider in the country, PTPTN’s main concern is the low loan recovery rate. As of 2009, it had recovered only 48 percent out of RM 36.8 million (US$11 million) given out to students since its inception in 1997. The slow recovery of debt has prompted recommendations of amendments to the National Higher Education Fund Corporation Act 1997 to be tabled in Parliament in March 2011. The recommended amendments, if passed, will give power to the Inland Revenue Board to act as an agent for collection of loan repayments through salary deduction.

Another pressing concern is the issue of leakage of funds. The Auditor General’s report 2009 stated that a total of RM 23.78 million (USD7.2 million) were disbursed in loans to persons who had not applied and this involved 16,013 students. An audit analysis of 3,852 recipients from this category shows that payment could not be collected from 3,793 (98.4 percent). Planned actions to be taken by PTPTN are not known.

Women have done well in accessing PTPTN loans. Table 49 shows loan distribution according to gender where the number of loans to female applicants consistently exceeds that of male applicants. In 2008, there were about 60,000 male applicants who had obtained loans whilst in the same year, the number of approvals for female students were close to 100,000. A comparison of gender in relation to student intake for Certificate, Diploma and Degree to total number of students who

96

had obtained loans showed no significant variance in terms of gender in accessing loans (Table 49). For example in 2008, the percentage of female student enrolled in higher education was 55.6 percent and 62.1 percent of them were loan recipients. Table 49: Comparison of loan and intake according to Gender

2000 2005 2008

Gender Intake Loan Intake Loan Intake Loan

N % N % N % N % N % N %

Male 48,579 45.3 35,362 40.0 48,433 41.9 59,300 41.1 68,931 44.4 59,292 37.9

Female 58,549 54.7 53,010 60.0 67,189 58.1 85,018 58.9 86,373 55.6 97,288 62.1

Total 107,128 100 88,372 100 115,622 100 144,318 100 155,304 100 156,580 100

Source: PTPTN and Ministry of Higher Education, www.mohe.gov.my However, there are some variations in relation to the ethnic composition of students who had obtained loans from PTPTN. The data can only be tabulated for the year 2000 as enrolment data for other years are not available by ethnic group. Table 50 shows the variation that whilst there were 60 percent Bumiputera students in HE for the year 2000, 75.4 percent had obtained loans from PTPTN. Non-Bumiputera students constituted 40 percent of total enrollment but only 24.6 percent obtained loans.even though the total enrolment was at 40 percent. This information supports the findings of the study team’s socioeconomic status (SES) survey which indicates that 64.3 per cent of the surveyed Bumiputera students have access to higher education through educational loans (Table 51).

The same table also shows that 44 percent of Chinese students and 54.5 percent of Indian students received educational loans. As the loan process utilizes a means-based test, one could conclude that Bumiputera students are in the lower income band and therefore are more eligible than non-Bumiputera students. This is illustrated in Table 52, which shows that the highest percentage of students with a family income of below 5, 000 per month are the Bumiputera students with 41.6 percent, while Chinese students were at 27 percent and Indian students 9.5 percent.

97

Table 50: Bumiputera and Non Bumiputera comparison of loan and enrolment for the year 2000 2000

Ethnic Cluster Enrolment Loan

No % No % Bumiputera 827,593 59.9 66,613 75.4

Non-Bumiputera 553,570 40.1 21,759 24.6 Total 1,381,163 100.0 88,372 100.0

Source: PTPTN and Ministry of Higher Education, www.mohe.gov.my Table 51: Student financing source by ethnic group

Ethnic Group Scholarship Loan Personal Total Bumiputera 15.4 64.3 20.3 100.0

Chinese 8.2 44.0 47.8 100.0 Indian 6.8 54.5 38.6 100.0

Source: SES Survey, 2010 Table 52: Percentage according to ethnicity and family income

<5000 <10000 >10001 Total Bumiputera 41.6 6.9 2.8 51.3

Chinese 27.0 7.0 3.4 37.4

Indian 9.5 1.3 0.5 11.3 Total 78.1 15.3 6.7 100.0

Source: SES Survey, 2010

The data available from both PTPTN and the SES survey show that there seem to be no gender inequality relative to loan issuance. On the whole however, PTPTN is successful in ensuring that students have access to higher education using a means-based test. The SES survey confirms that Bumiputera and non-Bumiputera students from the private sector higher education institutions have access to PTPTN loans with Bumiputera students having an edge over the others.

98

Variations in financial support between public and private HEIs

The SES data also provided some surprise findings in relation to the variation in financing higher education between the public and the private sectors institutions in the country. Table 53 shows the breakdown of scholarships, loans and personal source of finance of the 13 respondent institutions. The average percentage of scholarships (20.8 percent) for public HEI students is clearly above that of the total of respondents (11.2 percent). The students from private colleges with public affiliations and wholly private institutions have a lower chance of obtaining a scholarship with the average of 5.0 and 9.7 respectively compared to students from the public HEIs. While the data show that students from the private HEIs have a higher chance of obtaining scholarships, a more detailed analysis show that these students obtain scholarship from non public source such as the respective institutions and private organisations and individuals. However, students in the public and private institutions with public affiliations, are more likely to obtain these scholarships from public sources such as the Public Services Department (JPA), State Foundations and from the Yayasan Mara.

The overall average of students on loans is 52.2 percent (Table 53). However when further analysed, it shows that 66.9 percent students from the private institutions with public affiliations are on study loans. This is followed by students from the public institutions at 56.6 and private institutions at 33.2 percent. In relation to personal sources of finance, the study average is 35.9 percent with more than half (57.1) of the students from the private institutions being self financed. Students from the private institutions with public affiliations followed at 28.1 percent and public institutions at 22.5 percent. Table 53: Breakdown of Scholarships, Loans and Personal Source of Finance for individual respondent institution.

Type of Institution Scholarship Loan Personal Total

Public 1 34.6 57.9 7.5 100.0 Public 2 13.7 56.0 30.3 100.0

Average 20.8 56.6 22.5 100.0 Private with Public affiliations Private 1 2.9 89.6 7.5 100.0

Private 2 3.1 91.8 5.1 100.0

Private 3 12.9 8.6 78.4 100.0

99

Private 4 1.1 72.7 26.2 100.0

Private 5 1.1 68.3 30.6 100.0 Private 6 12.1 47.7 40.2 100.0

Average 5.0 66.9 28.1 100.0 Private 7 1.6 33.2 65.2 100.0

Private 8 3.1 53.5 43.4 100.0

Private 9 7.0 39.7 53.3 100.0 Private 10 26.7 19.0 54.4 100.0

Private 11 2.9 17.4 79.7 100.0 Average 9.7 33.2 57.1 100.0

11.8 52.2 35.9 100.0

Source: SES Survey, 2010

Data were further cross analyzed within the given categories as shown in

Table 54 which provides information on the proportion of students who receive loans and scholarships and those who are on personal finance according to the type of institutions. Data show that students from the public sector are most likely to obtain scholarships (56.3 percent) followed by private institutions (26.0 percent) and private institutions with public affiliation (17.7 percent). This supports the earlier conclusion that students in the public sector HEIs are more likely to obtain scholarships from public funds compared to students in the private sector.

The pattern changes a little in relation to loans as data show that 49.5 percent of students from private institutions with public affiliation are on study loans, followed by 31.8 percent of students from public institutions and 18.7 percent of private institution students are on some form of loan. The vast majority of students are on PTPTN loans and a sizeable number in the public sector, obtains MARA loans, both of which are sourced by public funds. The SES survey data (Table 54) show that 88.1 percent of students in the public sector are either on scholarship or loan. It was shown earlier (Table 18) that approximately 84.0 percent of students in the public sector HEIs are Bumiputera. Hence we may conclude that the largest proportion of students receiving support from public funds is Bumiputera.

The reverse is also seen in relation to personal source of finance where close to half (48.9 percent) of students in the private institutions are on some form of self financing mode. This is followed by a third of (31.8 percent) students in the private institutions with public affiliations (31.8) and just about one fifth (19.3 percent) of students in the public sector are self financed. However, in Private institutions with

100

Public Affiliations, the percentage of students with loans is 53.5 percent. Many are on PTPTN loans as are students from Private institutions. Table 54: Scholarships, Loans and Personal Source of Finance according to the Type of Institutions within the given category

Type of Institution Types of Financing Scholarship Loan Personal

Public 56.3 31.8 19.3 Private with Public Affiliations 17.7 49.5 31.8 Private 26.0 18.7 48.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: SES Survey, 2010

The data available from JPA and PTPTN support the findings of the SES survey

which indicates that the Bumiputera students are the largest beneficiary group of scholarships and loans at about 77 percent. This is followed by Indians at 59.5 per cent and Chinese at 50.5 per cent. While there is the argument that the Bumiputera students may be disadvantaged economically and hence more eligible for loans and scholarships, the survey findings indicated that ethnic Indian students were also among the more economically disadvantaged. The findings also show that students in public institutions are more likely to obtain access to higher education through scholarships from public funds and that students from private institutions are more likely to be self financed. The Survey indicated that students with scholarships in the private sector obtain these from private sources and these are based on merit and not usually means-tested. It can also be concluded from the data that students from public HEIs and private institutions with public affiliations are more likely to obtain loans than those from the private sector. It could be assumed that more affluent parents would send their child to good quality private HEIs, and, as loans are means-based, the presumption is that these parents may not be within the loan bracket.

However, while there are opportunities for improvement relative to equitable access in the provision of loans and scholarships especially in relation to ethnicity, the data from both the government authorities and the SES show clear government and societal commitment to provide greater access to higher education. The SES shows that 64 percent of students in higher education have access to some form of financial support either from public funds or private organizations. This is a good

101

story to tell, but one that can be further improved. If education is perceived to be a critical factor for economic growth and social stability in Malaysia, mechanisms need to be identified which provide greater access to higher education through more equitable use of public funds while encouraging an increase of private participation in developing effective financing mechanisms.

102

Conclusion

The higher education sector in Malaysia has grown remarkably since the first university campus was established in 1959. By 2008 the nation’s higher education landscape may be described as a multi-level, diversified system which includes public universities, , community colleges, and polytechnics in juxtaposition to a vibrant private higher education sector with universities, university colleges, colleges, international branch campuses, and a whole array of skills training institutions. The period 1985 to 2008 saw tremendous expansion of public and private higher education with improvement in access to higher education in Malaysia. All levels of education - primary, secondary and tertiary - increased their enrolment during this period but higher education enrolment showed the most dramatic increase. Contributing factors for the increase have been high secondary enrollment and completion; the liberalization of higher education leading to a burgeoning private sector; diversified institutional structure (public and private universities, colleges, polytechnics, community colleges) providing destinations for varied groups; the establishment of the Higher Education Loan Fund; and a creative mix of private, public and foreign funds in the financing of HEIs. The increased participation has been in step with growing demand for a qualified and skilled workforce as the economy grew. Every group included in the study enjoyed better access over the last three decades: all the ethnic groups, women, and those from more inaccessible and less developed regions in the country.

Increased access however has not come with equitable patterns of participation. Data from the study show that the public university admissions quota system overwhelmingly supported one ethnic group – the Bumiputeras. It worked better for the Chinese than Indian students but overall Chinese and Indian representations were lower than their proportion in the population. The implementation of an admissions policy based on meritocracy has not changed the picture much – in fact, the proportion of Bumiputeras has continued to increase. Government scholarships have financed a small segment of Chinese and Indian students but again not in proportion to their population. Over the last decade, loans have been of assistance to these two groups, helping to support their studies in private HEIs. Distribution of overseas student figures shows a large proportion as self-sponsored from the Chinese and Indian communities, showing acceptance of the fact that the existing inequitable pattern of financial support is hard to change. The liberalization of the higher education system in private higher education for qualified entrants has provided important avenues to qualified non-Bumiputra

103

entrants for pursuing programs which were not accessible through the public higher education system, albeit at high cost to families.

The story of women and higher education is a positive one. Women from every ethnic and geographical category showed increased participation in education and training over the last four decades, overtaking men at every level except the doctoral. Bumiputera women participation has increased the most with women from the less developed regions showing the lowest rate of increase. However, while higher education improved chances for all women of being in the labor force opportunities for women from different ethnic and geographical backgrounds were unequal. All ethnic groups in urban areas enjoyed increased work force participation rates compared with those in rural areas where Bumiputera women had the lowest rate compared with Chinese and Indian women. In general, women in more developed regions such as the west coast of Peninsular Malaysia were ahead at a 50 percent participation rate while women in Sabah and Sarawak had the lowest percentage share.

Reliable socioeconomic data on students proved to be hard to obtain but earlier social mobility research in Malaysia indicated that the higher education system implemented under the New Economic Policy had provided greater access to the disadvantaged low status and rural students, particularly Bumiputeras, resulting in visible upward economic and social mobility. Researchers found that educational opportunities had brought about a shift from the traditional elite student population coming from strong secondary school backgrounds to a more diverse and egalitarian one. Apart from admitting low-performing students, the upshot of expanded access and provision includes the heavy negative impact they have had on academic staff and academic quality with universities struggling to recruit and retain qualified personnel from a small talent pool. Institutions have not met with much success in recruiting foreign academics of international repute being unable to offer sufficiently attractive salary packages. Recent national policy documents, particularly the New Economic Model, Parts 1 and 2 (2010), have emphasized the lack of talent in Malaysia to support the fast-changing technological base of the global economy. With access increasing over the decades, a large proportion of Malaysian student bodies may be described, as elsewhere in the world, as those ‘who have neither academic background nor the ability that was once the norm (Altbach 2010, 4).’

The issue of equity arises when well-qualified non-Bumiputera students, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds, cannot access public higher education and may never participate in higher education because private higher education is beyond their means. The equity objective is not free higher education, but a system

104

in which ‘no bright person is denied a place because he or she comes from a disadvantaged background (Barr, 2004).’ This is not to say that free education is an entitlement for any group. The provision of scholarships can ameliorate the situation if they are distributed to all groups based on socio-economic disadvantages and performance in university entrance qualifying exams. Study findings show that while government overseas scholarships have moved towards proportional ethnic representation after four decades of implementation, the overall sources and numbers of overseas and locally-held scholarships at federal, state and GLC-levels remain a closed book with no documented information readily available in the public domain. The existence of Bumiputera-only or Bumiputera predominant higher education institutions in the public sector bears testimony to the fact that equitable provision of student financing for all groups is still a goal to seek in the higher education landscape.

The establishment of PTPTN and the opening up of education loans to students enrolled in the private HEIs had progressively offered greater access to loans for non-Bumiputeras, albeit at much higher fee levels than in public HEIs. The high rate of defaulting loans unfortunately may put such loans at jeopardy, as could system leakage. The highly-subsidized fees for public institutions becomes a relevant area of review in terms of equitable use of public funds given that 2008 figures show that Bumiputera students constitute 84 percent of all students in public higher education institutions. In 2008 therefore only 16 percent of all public HEI students came from non-Bumiputera groups, showing that affirmative action policies in higher education have disadvantaged non-Bumiputera communities to the extent that their 16 percent participation rate has fallen far below the 45 percent mark established when the policy of quotas existed between 1971 and 2002. Besides, the 16 percent level is far below the proportion of non-Bumiputras in the population, a measure that has been the yardstick for evaluating fair treatment since the commencement of the NEP. As demands on government coffers rise steadily, there is a case for policy and decision makers to implement better targeting processes for awarding subsidies, scholarships and loans.

A far more deep-seated set of issues relate to admissions criteria and selection of students to public higher educations. The study has reiterated the issue raised in various external reviews of the Malaysian higher education system – that the two major tracks of entry are not comparable in standards and quality. As pointed out earlier in this study report, the STPM is a national-level standardized pre-university examination taken in the thirteenth year on completion of the eleventh-year public secondary school-leaving examinations. The other mode of entry is through the one or two-year matriculation program organized by universities and colleges, private and public, with teacher-made tests and

105

marked/scored by the staff of the school/institution. The matriculation programs conducted by universities come under the jurisdiction of MoHE while others come under MoE and the individual institutions offering the programs. There is no external mechanism which moderates the programs on a national basis. Of all students admitted to matriculation programs, 90 percent are bumiputeras, with the 10 percent share for non-Bumiputeras initiated in 2002. Requiring a 2.0 GPA of students from both modes, which are not comparable, for university entrance, calls for careful review of the existing system, with the aim of bringing them qualitatively closer while creating a more level playing field.

The issue of equitable treatment for all groups is not just one of numbers although that is important as those who receive higher education can look forward to better opportunities for upward mobility and therefore improved life chances for themselves and their families. A major goal of the country is integration among its various ethnic groups. Affirmative action policy implementation has served to compartmentalize Bumiputeras in education, training and employment. This has led to (i) social and cultural silos confounding efforts to bring about unity and integration, and (ii) a loss of healthy competition which is the hallmark of a vibrant, modern system of higher education teaching, learning and research. It is time that higher education institutions reviewed their mission priorities and moved back to their primary functions of teaching, learning and research.

The economic goals of Malaysia include that of becoming a high income country by 2020. The journey towards achieving that goal is thwarted by the scarcity of experienced and technically-qualified personnel required by a modern, knowledge-based economy. The lack of inclusiveness, the need for greater competition right through the school and university system, the preponderance of subsidies, allocations and economic advantages to one group, have raised Hydra-headed issues which now lie squarely on the table of policy-makers, strategists, and institutional decision-makers. These issues and their possible solutions have been laid out and discussed with great optimism over the last year (NEM 2010) but sustained political will and action have yet to materialize.

As the Malaysian Government’s New Economic Model Concluding Part (2010 p. 4) puts it: ‘In order to advance to a high income, inclusive and sustainable economy by 2020, Malaysia needs to confront two fundamental but inter-related issues.

Malaysia cannot be an advanced country without social cohesion and stability.

106

Malaysia cannot compete globally if the education system produces graduates and workers that are technically ill-equipped for a competitive global market.

Social cohesion and stability means that the benefits of growth and prosperity must be shared by all…’

107

NOTES

1The terms Bumiputera and Non-Bumiputra were introduced in the pan-Malaysia Census in 1970 to accommodate the large variety of indigenous groups from Sabah and Sarawak (after the formation of Malaysia in 1963). The Bumiputera group now includes Malays and other Bumiputera communities such as the Kadazans, the Portugese descendants from Malacca. Presentation of statistics on ethnic groups in the latest censuses of 1991 and 2000 is given in terms of Malaysian citizens rather than the combined total for citizens and non-citizens as in earlier censuses. 2Higher Education covers certificate, diploma, undergraduate as well as postgraduate levels. The providers of higher education are colleges, polytechnics and universities. Undergraduate studies consist of Bachelor's Degree levels and professional studies while postgraduate studies consist of Master's Degree and PhD levels. Higher education at certificate and diploma levels are for students from the age of 17 with SPM qualifications (which is equivalent to GCE 'O' levels) while the Bachelor's degree level is usually for students from the age of 19 or 20 onwards with post-secondary qualifications such as the STPM (which is equivalent to GCE 'A' levels) or Pre-University / University Foundation qualifications. These degree programmes normally take between 3 to 5 years. After obtaining their Bachelor's degree, students can proceed to postgraduate studies. Higher education in the academic and professional fields is provided by: Public-funded higher educational institutions which include public universities, polytechnics, communi Private-funded higher educational institutions which include private universities, private colleges and foreign university branch campuses. MOHE is directly responsible for the operations and performance of public HEIs, whereas the private HEIs are guided by MOHE's policy guidelines and objectives. 3Affirmative action policies for the Malays had its origin in the Federal Constitution Article 153(1) which states that the Yang DiPertuan Agong (King) is required to safeguard the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of the other communities in accordance with the provisions of that Article. He is to ensure that a reasonable proportion of positions in the public service and of scholarships and other educational privileges accorded by the Federal Government is reserved for Malays. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong is also required to ensure that a reasonable proportion of any permits or licences which may be required by Federal law for the operation of any trade or business is issued to the Malays.

108

4The study gained much from the support and assistance of the Malaysian Qualifications Agency in tracking down elusive data and information. 5‘An amendment of the constitution in 1971 empowered the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to give directions to any university, college or other educational institution providing education at post secondary level where the number of places for any course of study is less than the number of candidates qualified for such places, to reserve for Malays (and natives of the Borneo States) such proportion of such places as the Yang di-Pertuan Agong deems reasonable. The intention of the amendments is to reserve places in those selected areas of study … where the numbers of Malays and natives of the Borneo States are disproportionately small.’ (Mohamed Suffian et al. 1978 pp 114-115)

109

References

Altbach Philip. 2010. Access Means Inequality in International Higher Education. The Boston College Center for International Higher Education. Number 61. Amartya Sen. 2011. 'Growth and Other Concerns' in The Hindu, February 14, New Delhi, India. Barr, Nicholas. 2004. Higher Education Funding in Oxford Review of Economic Policy. Oxford University Press, 20, No. 2

Frederic Docquier & Abdesiam Marfouk, Brain Drain database, World Bank 2007. Quoted by Fong Chan Onn in the Sunday Star, 16 May 2010. Fong Chan Onn. 2011. Tracing the brain drain trends in Malaysia. Malaysia Chronicles. INPUMA. 2000. Policy Issues in Higher Education in the New Millennium. Proceedings of International Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Universiti Malaya Karupiah, Premlatha. 2005. Students’ Educational Preferences and Occupational Aspirations. Penang: Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Universiti Sains Malaysia. Kee Poo Kong. 1976. Tertiary Students and Social Development: An Agenda for Action- Student Rural Service Activities in Malaysia. Singapore: RIHED. Leete, Richard. 2007. Malaysia from Kampong to Twin Towers: 50 years of Economic and Social Development. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford Fajar. Lee Fah Onn. 2008. Growth and Development of Private Higher Education in Malaysia. In Malaysia: From Traditional to Smart Schools, The Malaysian Education Odyssey, ed. Ibrahim Ahmad Bajunid. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford Fajar Sdn Bhd. Lee Kiong Hock, Quek Ai Hwa and Chew Sing Buan.ed. 2001 Education and Work: The State of Transition. Kuala Lumpur: Faculty of Education, Universiti Malaya. Lee, MNN. 2002. Education Changes in Malaysia. Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia.

110

Loh,Francis. 2005. Crisis in Malaysia’s public universities? Balancing the pursuit of academic excellence and the massification of tertiary education. Aliran Monthly Vol. 25: Issue 10. http://www.aliran.com/oldsite/monthly/2005b/10h.html Malaysia.1967. Report of the Higher Education Planning Committee. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers. Malaysia.1971. Report of the Committee Appointed by the National Operations Council to Study Campus Life of Students in the Universiti Malaya. Also known as the Majid Report. Kuala Lumpur: Government Press. Malaysia.1980, 1991, 2000. Population Census Reports. Kuala Lumpur: Department of Statistics. Malaysia. 2010. Kuala Lumpur: Department of Statistics. http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=101&Itemid=53&lang=en#8. Malaysia (various years). The Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth , Ninth and Tenth Malaysia Plans. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers Malaysia. Malaysia.1998. National Economic Recovery Plan: Agenda for Action. Kuala Lumpur: Government printers Malaysia. Malaysia. 2005. The Benchmark Report on Higher Education: Towards Academic Excellence. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers Malaysia. Malaysia. 2006. Education Guide Malaysia (10th Edition), Kuala Lumpur: Challenger Concept Malaysia. (various years). Labor Force Survey Report. Kuala Lumpur/Putra Jaya: Department of Statistics. Malaysia. (various years). Educational Statistics of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Planning and Research Division, Ministry of Education. Malaysia. 2008. Perangkaan Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur : Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan, Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi, Malaysia. Malaysia. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia Website: www.mohe.gov.my

111

Malaysian Institute of Educational Research. 2011. Malaysian Economic Outlook. January 25, 2011. www.mier.org.my/outlook retrieved March 4, 2011 Marimuthu T. 1984. Student Development in Malaysian Universities. Singapore: Regional Institute of Higher Education and Development, RIHED Occasional Paper Series. Marimuthu, T and Sheela Abraham. 1992. Higher Education in Malaysia. Unpublished paper. Marimuthu, T, Jasbir Sarjit Singh, Chew Sing Buan, Noraini Mohd Salleh, Chang Lee Hoon, and N S Rajendran. 1999. Higher Education: Policies, Practices and Issues. Paper submitted to the World Bank. Middlehurst,R and S Woodfield. 2004. The Role of Transnational, Private and for Profit Provision in Meeting Global Demand for Tertiary Education: Mapping, Regulation and Impact (Case Study: Malaysia). Vancouver: UNESCO and Commonwealth of Learning. National Higher Education Research Institute (NHERI). 2010. The State of Penang, Malaysia: Self-Evaluation Report. OECD Reviews of Higher Education in Regional and City Development. IMHE: Paris http://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/regionaldevelopment The Star. 2011. ‘Uphold the Constitution’. Tuesday, March 8, 2011. N2. Sarjit Singh, Jasbir.1973. Education and Social Mobility in Malaysia: A Case Study of Petaling Jaya. Kuala Lumpur: Unpublised Ph D Thesis, Universiti Malaya. Sarjit Singh, Jasbir.1981. Higher Education and Social Mobility- the Role of the Universiti Malaya. South-East Asian Journal of Social Sciences. Sarjit Singh,Jasbir and Hena Mukherjee. 1993. Education and National Integration in Malaysia: Stocktaking Thirty Years after Independence. International Journal of Educational Development. Vol. 13.No 2:89-102 Schuman, Michael. 2010. Time. Asian edition. September 5.

112

Takei,Yoshimitsu, John Bock and Bruce Saunders. 1973. Educational Sponsorship by Ethnicity: A Preliminary Analysis of the West Malaysian Experience. Papers in International Studies, Southeast Asian Program Series No. 28. Ohio University, Athens, Ohio. Tan, AM. 2002. Malaysian Private Higher Education: Globalisation, Privatisation, Transformation and Market Places. London: ASEAN Academic Press. Tun Mohammed Suffian, H.P. Lee and F.A.Trindade (eds). 1978. The Constitution of Malaysia, Its Development: 1957-1977. Kuala Lumpur. Oxford University Press. 114-115 Ungku A.Aziz, Chew Sing Buan, Lee Kiong Hock, Bikas Sanyal.ed. 1987. University Education and Employment in Malaysia. Paris: UNECO, International Institute for Educational Planning, IIEP Research Report No.66. Van Horn, C.E. and Schaffner, H.A. (Eds.) (2003), Work in America: An Encyclopedia of History, Policy and Society. World Bank and EPU. 2007. Malaysia and the Knowledge Economy: Building a World-Class Higher Education System. Human Development Sector Reports, East Asia and the Pacific Region, The World Bank

113

APPENDICES Appendix 1 Intake, Enrolment and Graduates of Public Higher Education Institutions, 1987-2008 INTAKE Date Certificate Diploma Degree Masters Doctoral Total

N % N % N % N % N % N %

1995 5,810 12.1 13,513 28.2 23,901 49.8 4,568 9.5 212 0.04 48,004 100.0

2000 13,440 10.9 33,403 27.1 60,285 48.9 15,512 12.6 780 0.6 123,420 100.0

2005 13,952 10.5 43,807 32.9 57,863 43.4 14,930 11.2 2,722 2.0 135,992 100.0

2008 25,840 13.9 64,805 34.8 75,577 40.6 16,158 8.7 3,644 2.0 186,024 100.0

ENROLMENT Date Certificate Diploma Degree Masters Doctoral Total

N % N % N % N % N % N %

1987 8,537 7.8 54,318 49.4 43,430 39.5 3,252 3.0 381 0.3 109,918 100.0

1990 9,907 9.8 32,588 32.2 53,557 53.0 4,499 4.9 539 0.5 101,090 100.0

1995 15,226 7.7 93,506 47.5 79,227 40.2 7,622 3.9 1,255 0.6 196,836 100.0

2000 27,830 8.8 129,177 41.0 137,538 43.5 19,045 6.0 2,813 0.9 316,403 100.0

2005 35,380 8.3 139,562 32.6 210,973 49.3 34,969 8.1 6,733 1.6 427,617 100.0

2008 49,114 9.2 164,975 30.9 271,405 50.8 36,094 6.8 12,243 2.3 533,831 100.0

GRADUATES Date Certificate Diploma Degree Masters Doctoral Total

N % N % N % N % N % N %

1987 2,469 13.3 6,227 33.6 8,420 45.4 1,388 7.5 25 0.1 18,529 100.0

1990 3,154 13.2 8,101 33.9 10,932 45.7 1,710 7.1 27 0.1 23,924 100.0

1995 5,017 13.8 11,678 33.2 16,432 45.3 3,084 8.5 73 0.2 36,284 100.0

2000 8,792 12.6 23,364 33.6 33,095 47.6 4,199 6.0 148 0.2 69,598 100.0

2005 7,848 6.7 56,010 48.0 45,618 39.1 6,309 5.4 857 0.7 116,642 100.0

2008 20,090 14.7 47,191 34.5 60,040 43.9 8,656 6.3 785 0.6 136,762 100.0

Source: 1987-2005 Ministry of Education: Educational Statistics of Malaysia.

Data Includes public universities, teacher training colleges, Institut Teknologi MARA, Polytechnics, Tunku Abdul Rahman College and Community Colleges. 2008 MOHE website – excludes teacher training colleges.

114

Appendix 2 Enrolment, Intake and Graduates in Private Higher Education, 2002-2008 INTAKE

Certificate Diploma Degree Masters Doctoral Total Year Students % Students % Students % Students % Students % N %

2002 72,344 43.6 62,701 37.8 28,626 17.3 2,035 1.2 57 0.1 165,763 100

2004 57,961 34.1 69,573 40.9 40,742 23.9 1,497 0.9 61 0.2 169,834 100 2006 40,860 28.2 56,774 39.2 43,490 30 3,301 2.3 350 0.3 144,775 100

2008 47,875 25.8 91,483 49.2 43,261 23.3 2,924 1.6 303 0.1 185,846 100 ENROLMENT

Certificate Diploma Degree Masters Doctoral Total Year Students % Students % Students % Students % Students % N %

2002 93,393 31.7 129,929 44.1 67,062 22.8 4,019 1.3 197 0.1 294,600 100 2004 84,212 26.1 130,265 40.3 105,325 32.6 2,981 0.9 108 0.1 322,891 100

2006 68,442 21.1 123,937 38.3 124,071 38.3 6,477 2.0 860 0.3 323,787 100

2008 60,662 15.2 177,773 44.5 151,591 38 8,540 2.1 1,331 0.2 399,897 100

115

GRADUATES

Certificate Diploma Degree Masters Doctoral Total Year Students % Students % Students % Students % Students % N %

2002 62,332 44.8 55,988 40.2 20,255 14.6 571 0.4 4 0 139,150 100

2004 60,073 44.5 56,060 41.5 18,385 13.6 423 0.3 46 0.1 134,987 100 2006 18,046 21.7 36,321 43.7 27,176 32.7 1,592 1.8 51 0.1 83,186 100

2008 18,269 23.3 32,685 41.6 26,590 33.8 962 1.2 55 0.1 78,561 100 Source: Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia

116

Appendix 3 Intake, Enrolment and Graduates in all HEIs, 2008 INTAKE Certificate Diploma Degree Masters Doctoral G Total

M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total

PuU 609 861 1,470 10,816 15,439 26,255 28,657 48,699 77,356 7,341 8,817 16,158 2,158 1,486 3,644 124,883

PHEI 23,768 24,107 47,875 35,128 56,355 91,483 20,139 23,140 43,279 1,577 1,347 2,924 180 123 303 185,864

P 9,506 5,513 15,019 13,849 11,706 25,555 40,574

CC 5,214 3,967 9,181 280 188 468 9,649

Total 39,097 34,448 73,545 60,073 83,688 143,761 48,796 71,839 120,635 8,918 10,164 19,082 2,338 1,609 3,947 360,970

Notes: PuU – Public Universities PHEI – Private Higher Education Institutions P – Polytechnics CC – Community Colleges

ENROLMENT Certificate Diploma Degree Masters Doctoral G Total

M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total

PuU 571 778 1,349 34,940 49,887 84,827 103,183

171,166

274,349

17,063

19,031

36,094

7,526

4,717

12,243

408,862

PHEI 29,318

31,299

60,617 73,112 104,661

177,773

70,736 80,855 151,591

4,398 4,142 8,540 799 532 1,331 399,852

P 19,315

11,546

30,861 29,250 25,169 54,419 85,280

117

CC 9,333 6,956 16,289 466 327 793 17,082

Total

58,537

50,579

109,116

137,768

180,044

317,812

173,919

252,021

425,940

21,461

23,173

44,634

8,325

5,249

13,574

911,076

Notes: PuU – Public Universities PHEI – Private Higher Education Institutions P – Polytechnics CC – Community Colleges

118

GRADUATES Certificate Diploma Degree Masters Doctoral G Total

M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total M F Total

PHEI 75 91 166 7,117 11,204 18,321 21,103 38,937 60,040 4,060 4,596 8,656 467 318 785 87,968

PrHEI 8,736 9,533 18,269 12,940 19,745 32,685 11,916 14,674 26,590 529 433 962 33 22 55 78,561

P 7,512 6,211 13,723 10,136 8,924 19,060 32,783

CC 2,993 2,294 5,287 160 119 279 5,566

Total 19,316 18,129 37,445 30,353 39,992 70,345 22,299 53,611 86,630 4,589 5,029 9,618 500 340 840 204,878

Notes: PHEI – Public Universities PrHEI – Private Higher Education Institutions P – Polytechnics CC – Community Colleges

119

Appendix 4 Academic Staff in PHEIs with highest qualification by gender, 2008

Institution Doctoral Masters Degree Others Total Grand

Total M F M F M F M F M F

UM 487 355 427 495 124 177 8 4 1,046 1,031 2,077

USM 614 341 288 218 103 134 54 28 1,059 721 1,780

UKM 442 334 420 599 148 253 - 1 1,060 1,167 2,247

UPM 503 374 330 418 119 194 - - 952 986 1,938

UTM 499 187 538 429 128 115 8 1 1,173 732 1,905

UUM 140 90 402 491 27 44 4 2 573 627 1,200

UIAM 424 182 329 417 129 245 - 5 882 849 1,731

UNIMAS 113 53 175 191 52 88 - - 340 332 672

UMS 142 79 167 173 37 33 3 - 349 285 634

UPSI 101 43 200 180 49 83 - - 350 306 656

UITM 339 279 1,800 2,818 370 621 88 39 2,597 3,757 6,354

UDM 22 9 118 111 31 70 - 2 171 192 363

UMT 75 29 99 143 22 44 - - 196 216 412

USIM 63 20 102 165 53 87 - - 218 272 490

UTHM 76 20 298 237 124 107 5 2 503 366 869

UTeM 44 6 276 175 75 44 - - 395 225 620

UMP 38 12 183 133 43 41 1 1 265 187 452

UniMAP 45 6 101 59 59 42 91 58 296 165 461

UMK 13 1 16 19 16 29 - - 45 49 95

UPNM - 1 3 7 1 4 57 56 61 68 129

TOTAL 4,180 2,421 6,322 7,478 1,710 2,455 319 199 12,531 12,553 25,084

120

Appendix 5 Academic Staff in PHEIs by designation and gender, 2008

Institution Professors Assoc. Prof Lecturers Others Total Grand

Total M F M `F M F M F M F

UM 206 113 216 165 483 581 141 172 1,046 1,031 2,077

USM 137 21 250 97 606 489 64 114 1,059 721 1,760

UKM 157 78 197 165 589 746 117 198 1,060 1,187 2,247

UPM 120 44 215 115 399 479 218 348 952 986 1,938

UTM 138 29 275 78 664 518 96 107 1,173 732 1,905

UUM 20 4 73 37 428 463 52 123 573 627 1,200

UIAM 95 9 143 44 414 408 230 388 882 849 1,731

UNIMAS 39 3 50 17 214 238 37 74 340 332 672

UMS 17 4 45 11 255 210 32 60 349 285 634

UPSI 24 3 32 6 241 194 53 103 350 306 656

UITM 70 20 490 481 1,955 3,225 82 31 2,597 3,757 6,354

UDM 3 - 7 5 130 113 31 74 171 192 363

UMT 13 3 28 7 126 143 29 63 196 216 412

USIM 25 3 7 8 127 145 59 118 218 272 490

UTHM 20 1 26 5 310 213 147 147 503 366 869

UTeM 20 - 20 2 281 177 74 46 395 225 620

UMP 13 2 12 3 204 149 36 33 265 187 452

UniMAP 23 2 37 2 172 111 64 50 296 187 452

UMK 7 - 6 1 12 5 20 43 45 49 94

UPNM 1 1 4 - 49 49 7 18 61 68 129

TOTAL 1,153 340 2,201 1,286 7,769 8,987 1,510 2,312 12,531 12,553 25,084

121

Appendix 6

Publications and Citations of Selected Malaysian Universities vs other Leading Asian Universities, Jan 1999-Feb 2009

Country No. of Papers

No. of Citations

Citations Per

Paper

Universiti Sains Malaysia Malaysia 3,250 13,257 4.08

Universiti Malaya Malaysia 3,439 14,316 4.16

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Malaysia 1,528 5,624 3.68

Hong Kong Univ of Sci & Tech Hong Kong 10,402 96,281 9.26

University of Hong Kong Hong Kong 18,700 187,339 10.02

Seoul National University Korea 33,779 271,702 8.04 KAIST Korea 15,168 102,086 6.73

National Taiwan University Taiwan 27,255 196,631 7.21

Peking University China 22,857 148,132 6.48 Tsinghua University China 23,182 121,584 5.24

University of Tokyo Japan 67,864 882,361 13.00 Kyoto University Japan 49,657 618,383 12.45

National University of Singapore Singapore 28,602 236,388 8.26 Source: Wong and Ho (forthcoming), compiled from Thomson ISI’s Essential Science Indicators

122

Appendix 7

Relative Citation Index (Share in total citations/share in total publications), 1981-2005

1981-1985

1986-1990

1991-1995

1996-2000

2001-2005

ASEAN4 Malaysia 0.42 0.44 0.47 0.47 0.41

Thailand 0.56 0.68 0.83 0.74 0.63 Indonesia 0.63 0.55 0.84 0.67 0.63

Philippines 0.60 0.79 0.82 0.86 0.63

Asian NIEs 3 Singapore 0.43 0.46 0.56 0.64 0.69

South Korea 0.61 0.53 0.55 0.59 0.64 Taiwan 0.65 0.56 0.54 0.57 0.58

Emerging Economies China * 0.40 0.41 0.45 0.51 0.56

India 0.27 0.28 0.33 0.41 0.48

Advanced Economies Japan 0.78 0.78 0.76 0.78 0.85

US 1.41 1.44 1.42 1.44 1.44

Asia Pacific(Ex-Japan) 0.61 0.60 0.61 0.65 0.66

World 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Source: Wong, P.K. and Ho, Y. P. (2007). ‘Dynamics of Science and Technology Catch Up by East Asian Economies: A composite Analysis Combining Scientific Publications and Patenting Data.’ Paper presented at the 2007 Atlanta Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, October 19-20, 2007. Atlanta, USA.

123

Appendix 8

University Education Cost Comparison (Annual Expenses in RM) Malaysia Australia Singapore USA UK

Tuition Fees 8,700 56,800 9,400 59,300 61,100 Living Expenses 10,000 49,100 24,800 23,200 45,100

Total 18,700 105,900 34,200 82,500 106,200

Source: Yap Ming Hui, New Sunday Times, 13 June 2010 quoting LIMRA as at 2008 1. For science and engineering course multiply ‘overseas’ tuition fees by 1.3 times 2. For medical course multiply ‘overseas’ tuition fees by 2 times 3. For the USA Ivy League universities multiply ‘overseas’ tuition fees by 2 times