DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION – DO NOT CITE
Access to and Equity in Higher Education - Malaysia
Hena Mukherjee
Feb, 2010
Contents 1.
2.
3.
Page
Introduction a. Background
3
b. Impact of policies on access and equity
5
Access a. Increase in Higher Education Institutions
7
b. Overview of increase in access – 1985-2008
11
Equity a. Race
16
b. Gender
23
c. SES
27
d. Region
30
e. Loans and Scholarships
33
4.
Constraints
39
5.
Major Findings
40
List of Tables
42
References
43
2
1.
INTRODUCTION
a. Background
1.
Malaysia is one of the smaller countries in the Asia Pacific region and consists of Peninsula 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 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.
2.
Politically, Malaysia has enjoyed 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. Since the racial riot of 1969, the New Economic Policy (NEP) was designed to create a more equitable society by the eradication of poverty and restructuring the society by eliminating the identification of race with economic function.
3.
One of the main thrusts of the NEP was to promote social equity through education. In operational terms this was done through the implementation of an ethnic quota system for student admissions to ensure that the composition of the student body in Public Higher Education Institutions (Public HEIs) reflects the ethnic distribution in the general population. This admission policy aimed at promoting social mobility through higher education, especially for the Malays who were identified as the poorest, most disadvantaged or economically marginalized group. This will be elaborated later.
4.
The Malaysian education system, inherited from the British, had since Independence been used as an important strategy in the development process of the nation. It is expected to fulfill the manpower demands of the economy, provide equality of educational opportunity for all and promote national unity in the Malaysian plural society.
5.
The nation embarked on the implementation of various education and economic development plans in realization of the need to strengthen economic development. The cumulative effect of
3
these actions is best reflected in the development and growth of the higher education sector, increasingly recognized as the cornerstone of the continued growth of a country.
6.
Primary and secondary education were democratized, resulting in strong upward pressure on the higher education system. To provide opportunity for higher education, the University of Malaya was established in 1962, although it took its first batch of 323 students in 1959, as the Kuala Lumpur Division of the University of Malaya located in Singapore. The enrolment by ethnicity for that year was 60% Chinese, 20% Malay and 20% Indians and Others. The enrolment of Malay students was far below their percentage in the population.
7.
Since then, the number of higher education institutions (HEIs) has grown and by the year 2007, there were 606 HEIs of various categories; universities, university colleges, foreign branch campuses, colleges, polytechnics and community colleges.
8.
Correspondingly too, 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 which are foreign students. There are close to 55 000 Malaysian students in foreign HEIs overseas. Given this data, it is estimated that about 25 % of the total population aged 18-24 are in higher education. Table 1 provides an overview of the progress in Malaysian higher education.
9.
However, 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 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 ever more pertinent when seen in the light of the national policy of making Malaysia a regional hub in education. This is because Malaysia cannot be seen as a regional hub for higher education when her citizens, albeit of particular social class or ethnicity, seek higher education elsewhere.
10.
This study shall first provide an overview of the development of national policies which had impacted the growth and demographics of Malaysian higher education. In Parts B and C, the discussions shall focus on access to higher education and equity in higher education respectively.
4
b. Impact of National Policies on Access and Equity in Higher Education
11.
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. It also recommended more courses in the National Language, Bahasa Malaysia.
12.
Based on the Report three new universities were established and one degree-granting, National Institute of Technology; three other institutions offering professional diplomas and subprofessional courses. These universities and institutes were established by 1971.
13.
After 1971 and on the wave of the watershed event of the 1969 race riots, the expansion in the number of tertiary institutions prior to 1971 was to increase access and equity in higher education.
14.
A committee formed by the National Operations Council (NOC) to study student development at the University of Malaya, after the 1969 racial riots 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. This ethnic quota system was in place till the meritocracy system was implemented in 2002.
15.
The expansion of higher educational facilities could not fulfil the demand for skilled and knowledgeable workers for an expanding economy as well as the increasing social demand. Hence the existing universities were asked to double their intakes. Private HEIs were encouraged to offer home grown certificates and diplomas, and degrees through twinning arrangements with foreign HEIs.
16.
In the mid-nineties, 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:
5
i.
The National Accreditation Board Act (Lembaga Akreditasi Negara) 1996 – to establish the National Accreditation Board (or its local acronym, LAN) to accredit programmes in the private higher education sector;
ii.
The National Council on Higher Education Act, 1996 to establish a council which formulates policy for the Malaysian higher education sector;
iii.
The Private Higher Education Institutions Act (PHEI) 1996 – to establish degree granting private universities and foreign branch campuses;
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 the society and the industry.
v.
The National Higher Education Funding Board Act, 1997 – to establish a higher education funding board to provide loans for students in HEIs.
17.
For the government, however, 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. In 1995, the enrolment in private educational institutions was 341, 310 compared with that of public institutions of 390,388.
18.
The Higher Education Strategic Plan, 2020 is expected to provide the long term direction for quality education and greater accessibility. Under the Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006-2010) three more universities are expected to be completed and more branch campuses of University Technology MARA will be constructed. Enrolment in institutions of higher education is expected to increase from 829, 831 in 2007 to 1,349,978 in 2010. This is highly achievable as in 2008, the total student population in HE are 921 548.
6
Table 1: Overview Malaysian Higher Education 1967:2007 ITEM Public Universities Private Universities and UniversityColleges Foreign Branch Campuses Private Colleges and HE institutions Polytechnics Community Colleges Students (postgraduates) Malaysian Students studying abroad Population age 18-24 Note: a. excluding local branch campuses b. including local branch campuses
1967 1 0
2007 20 33a
0 2 0 0 4560 (398) n/a n/a
4 488b 34 37 873 238 (45 888) 54 915 3 474 200
Source 1997 data: Interim Report to the Higher Education Advisory Council, 1974. 2007 data – Ministry of Higher Education, www.mohe.gov.my.
2.
ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION
a.
1.
Increase in HEIs
The policies adopted in the last five decades of independence such as the NEP mapped the direction and characteristics of the education system today. The NEP by imposing the ethnic quota system for student admissions in public HEIs, 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 the UK, Australia and New Zealand. However, students who could not afford overseas qualifications looked for local alternatives.
2.
This created a demand for locally available higher education opportunities and is seen as the catalyst for the growth of the private higher education industry. Private Higher Education Institutions (PHEIs), until the early 1970s, 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
7
external qualifications leading to Diplomas and Advanced Diplomas mainly from the UK professional bodies such as CIMA, ABE and ICSA. However, this could not meet the growing demand for higher education, which was fuelled by the economic growth of the country and the subsequent rise in demand for a qualified and skilled workforce.
3.
The move by the Government to create more public universities and the creation of private HEIs did not stop the growing number of students studying overseas which increased, for example from about 73 000 in 1990 (Tan, 2002) to 117 297 in 2000 (See Table 2). Realizing the rising demand and the need to cap the outflow of currency the Government began loosening control over private education. Private HEIs were soon offering undergraduate qualifications either as external programs or as twinning arrangements. This brought about a reversal in the trend of students studying abroad from 117 297 in 2000 to 54 915 in 2007.
4.
The move by the Government to create more public universities and the creation of private HEIs did not stop the demand for foreign qualifications. Realizing the rising demand and the need to cap the outflow of currency the Government began loosening control over private education. Private HEIs were soon offering undergraduate qualifications either as external programs or as twinning arrangements.
5.
The 1986/87 economic downturn etched a permanent mark in the Higher Education industry with many parents seeking local higher education alternatives as the cost of a foreign education became unaffordable. This downturn also brought in new players from the now slow and unstable manufacturing and construction industries into the thriving private education industry.
6.
The demand for more places was easily met by the formation of new PHEIs. The 7 th 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 PHEIs to boom to an unprecedented level. In 1992, there were a total of 156 PHEIs offering certificate, diploma and professional qualification either in collaboration with a university or a professional body (Lee, 2001). By 2002, there were a total of 706 PHEIs comprising private universities, university colleges, colleges and foreign university campuses catering for almost 300,000 students (Middlehurst and Woodfield, 2004).
8
7.
Selected private HEIs were upgraded to university colleges and private universities, GLCs and political parties were given licences to establish HEIs. Foreign universities were also invited to establish branch campuses. The growth of the private education sector increased greater access to higher education. However, this increase in access did not bring about greater equity in as those who entered private education had to pay higher fees.
8.
Today, this number has consolidated and reduced fallen due to Government actions to enforce existing policies and regulations (such as those influencing licensing and accreditation. As of 2005, there were 448 PHEIs (MOHE, 2007), most of which operate in the Klang Valley and large cities.
9.
There has also been an increase in public higher education institutions, in line with the vision to increase access to higher education and at relatively lower cost. Today each of the 14 federated states has at least one university each.
10.
The data for 2008 show that there is now a total of 20 public and 20 private universities, 21 private university colleges, 398 private colleges, and five foreign branch campuses. About 50 per cent of these are concentrated in the Klang Valley (Kuala Lumpur and Selangor), details of which are provided in Table 3 below. This is supported by numerous technical and vocational training providers, such as polytechnics and community colleges and skills training centers under the Ministry of Human Resources with a corresponding increase in the number of students.
11.
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 legitimizes selection. While there is clear evidence that basic access is provided through various channels, whether such access is equitable will be demonstrated at the other parts of this report.
9
Table 2: Number of Malaysian Students Overseas, 2000-2007 Country
2000
2001
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
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 Other countries
54,406
47,365
11,970
11,860
11,041
15,189
12,569
11,490
-
-
-
-
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
Australia
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Source: Ministry of Higher Education, www.mohe.gov.my, 2006 and 2008
Table 3: Public and Private Higher Education Institutions According to Location, 2007 State
Public HEI
Private HEI Universities
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
Universitycolleges
Colleges
Total Branch Campus
Total
Kuala Lumpur 2 7 6 96 0 109 Selangor 4* 8 10 86 2 106 Sarawak 1 0 0 32 2 34 Johore 2 0 0 30 1 31 Penang 1 1 0 29 0 30 Perak 1 2 0 24 0 26 Negeri Sembilan 1 0 2 19 0 21 Melaka 1 0 0 20 0 20 Sabah 1 0 0 19 0 19 Pahang 1 0 0 15 0 15 Terengganu 2 0 1 10 0 11 Kedah 1 2 1 7 0 10 Kelantan 1 0 1 9 0 10 Perlis 1 0 0 2 0 2 20 20 21 398 5 444 Total 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
10
111 110 35 33 31 27 22 21 20 16 13 11 11 3 464
b.
1
Overview of increasing access, 1985-2008
The period 1985 to 2008 saw great improvement in access to higher education in Malaysia. All levels of education, primary, secondary and higher, increased their enrolments 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, higher education enrolment increased by 1339.4 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 4)
2
Increased access to higher education is reflected in the percentage of the population 19-24 enrolled in higher education. 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 due to the liberalization of private higher education, the establishment of the government linked corporations’ (GLC) universities and universities established by political organizations. By 2008, 24.4 percent of the 19-24 age group were in higher education institutions.(Table 5)
3
The educational profile of the labor force has also changed revealing 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 of all employed persons had some kind of tertiary education, an increase of 10.8 percent since 1985. (Table 6)
4
Significant improvement in increasing opportunities for higher education took place during the 1980s, 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century. In this respect public universities have played a major role.(Table 7)
5
Intake increased from 48,004 in 1995 to 175,104 in 2008. Increased intake is most marked in the diploma and degree courses; intake in diploma courses increased from 13,513 to 52,278 and in the degree courses from 23,901 to 77,356. The increase in students for masters and 11
doctoral degrees is also significant; masters intake increased from 4,568 to 16,158 and doctoral students intake increased from 212 to 3,644.
6
Enrolment increased from 109,918 in 1987 to 511,224 in 2008. Enrolment in degree courses showed a sharp uptrend from 43,430 in 1987 to 274,349 in 2008. Masters and doctoral student enrolment also saw major increases; masters students increased from 3,252 to 36,094 and doctoral students from 381 to 12,243 between 1987 and 2008.
7
Output of graduates from the public universities has 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, 126,317. Output of diploma graduates increased from 6,227 in 1987 to 37,660 in 2008, of degree graduates from 8,420 to 60,040, of masters graduates from 1,338 to 8,656 and of doctoral graduates from 25 to 785.
8
Reliable data for enrolment in private HEIs are only available from 2002 to 2008. The story is once again of rapid increase in enrolment in private institutions. In 2002 there were 294,600 students in private institutions but by 2008 the number had increased to 399,852, recording an increase of 35.7 percent or an annual increase of 6.0 percent. The trend 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.(Table 8)
9
Opportunities for higher education are also available in publically financed polytechnics and community colleges, and this is supported by data available for 2002-7. In 2002 52,898 students were enrolled in polytechnics and 3,207 were enrolled in community colleges. By 2007 polytechnics had an enrolment of 84,250 and community colleges an enrolment of 14,438.
10
The overall status of HE enrolment for 2008 is portrayed in Table 9 where the total intake was 360,970. Intake in public HEIs was 124,883; private HEIs 185,864; polytechnics 40,574; community colleges 9,649. Enrolment included 408,862 in public universities, 399,852 in 12
private institutions, 86,280 in polytechnics and 17,082 in community colleges, a total of 911,076. Graduate output has kept pace with intake and enrolment.
11
Opportunities for higher education 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. Large numbers are accommodated in the public sector which is heavily subsidized, and the rest seek places at a cost in the private sector, or at an even greater cost in HEIs overseas.
Table 4: Expansion in Enrolment by Educational Level, 1985-2008
Primary Secondary* Tertiary** Total
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2008
% increase in enrolment 1985-2008
2 191 676 1 251 447 64 025 3 507 148
2 447 206 1 366 068 99 687 3 912 961
2 827 627 1 589 584 146 581 4 563 792
-
3 137 280 2 217 749 463 582 5 818 611
3 154 090 2 310 660 921 548 6 386 298
30.5
% Annual rate increase 1985-2008 1.3
45.8
2.0
93.1 45.1
4.1 2.0
-
Note: * Figures include Form Six ** Figures include enrolment in pre-university and matriculation courses in public higher education institutions Source: Ministry of Education, Malaysia
Table 5: Percentage Population Age 19-24 enrolled in Tertiary Education Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005* 2007*
Population 1,420,687 1,624,274 2,028,100 2,626,900 3,353,600 3,474,200
Enrolment 8,633 26,410 58,286 211,484 649,653 847,485
Note: * Age 18-24. Source: Ministry of Education, Pembangunan Pendidikan 2001-2010, Source: Department of Statistics and MOE, Educational Statistics. MOHE Website
13
% 0.6 1.6 2.9 8.1 19.4 24.4
Table 6: Number of employed persons by highest certificate obtained, 1985, 1990, 2000, 2001, 2005 and 2008 (000) Year
Total
Diploma
1985 1990 2000 2001 2005 2008
5,653.4 6,685.0 9,269.2 9,357.0 10,045.4 10,659.6
N 150.8 216.8 535.1 564.5 840.7 786.1
Degree % 2.7 3.2 5.8 6.0 8.4 7.4
% 2.1 2.5 5.1 5.7 7.3 8.2
N 120.2 165.8 471.3 533.9 733.5 874.1
Source: Labor Force Survey, 1985-2008
Table 7: Intake, Enrolment and Graduates of Public Higher Education Institutions, 1987-2008 INTAKE Date
Certificate N % 5810 12.1 13440 10.9 13952 10.5 25670 14.6
Diploma N % 13513 28.2 33403 27.1 43807 32.9 52278 29.9
Degree N % 23901 49.8 60285 48.9 57863 43.4 77356 44.2
Masters N % 4568 9.5 15512 12.6 14930 11.2 16158 9.2
Doctoral N % 212 0.04 780 0.6 2722 2.0 3644 2.1
Total N % 48004 100.0 123420 100.0 139274 100.0 175104 100.0
1995 2000 2005 2008 Note: Data Includes public universities, teacher training colleges, MARA Institute of Technology, polytechnics, Tunku Abdul Rahman College and Community Colleges. 2008 MOE –excludes teacher training colleges. Source: 1987-2005 Ministry of Education: Educational Statistics of Malaysia
ENROLMENT Date
Certificate N % 8537 7.8 9907 9.8 15226 7.7 27830 8.8 35380 8.3 48499 9.5
Diploma N % 54318 49.4 32588 32.2 93506 47.5 129177 41.0 139562 32.6 140039 27.4
Degree N % 43430 39.5 53557 53.0 79227 40.2 137538 43.5 210973 49.3 274349 53.7
Masters N % 3252 3.0 4499 4.9 7622 3.9 19045 6.0 34969 8.1 36094 7.1
Doctoral N % 381 0.3 539 0.5 1255 0.6 2813 0.9 6733 1.6 12243 2.4
Total
N % 109918 1987 100.0 101090 1990 100.0 196836 1995 100.0 316403 2000 100.0 427617 2005 100.0 511224 2008 100.0 Note: Data Includes public universities, teacher training colleges, MARA Institute of Technology, polytechnics, Tunku Abdul Rahman College and Community Colleges. 2008 MOE –excludes teacher training colleges. Source: 1987-2005 Ministry of Education: Educational Statistics of Malaysia
GRADUATES Date 1987 1990 1995
Certificate N % 2469 13.3 3154 13.2 5017 13.8
Diploma N % 6227 33.6 8101 33.9 11678 33.2
Degree N % 8420 45.4 10932 45.7 16432 45.3
14
Masters N % 1388 7.5 1710 7.1 3084 8.5
Doctoral N % 25 0.1 27 0.1 73 0.2
Total N 18529 23924 36284
% 100.0 100.0 100.0
8792 12.6 23364 33.6 33095 47.6 4199 6.0 148 0.2 69598 2000 100.0 7848 6.7 56010 48.0 45618 39.1 6309 5.4 857 0.7 116642 2005 100.0 19176 15.2 37660 29.8 60040 47.5 8656 6.9 785 0.6 126317 2008 100.0 Note: Data Includes public universities, teacher training colleges, MARA Institute of Technology, polytechnics, Tunku Abdul Rahman College and Community Colleges. 2008 MOE –excludes teacher training colleges. Source: 1987-2005 Ministry of Education: Educational Statistics of Malaysia
Table 8: Enrolment, Intake and Graduates in Private Higher Education, 2002-2008 ENROLMENT Year
Certificate
Diploma
Degree
Master's
Doctoral
Grand total
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
2002
93393
31.7
129929
44.1
67062
22.8
4019
1.3
197
0.1
294600
100
2004
84212
26.1
130265
40.3
105325
32.6
2981
0.9
108
0.1
322891
100
2006
68442
21.1
123937
38.3
124071
38.3
6477
2
860
0.3
323787
100
2008
60617
15.2
177773
44.5
151591
38
8540
2.1
1331
0.2
399852
100
Source: Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia
INTAKE Year
Certificate
Diploma
Degree
Master's
Doctoral
Grand total
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
2002
72 344
43.6
62 701
37.8
28 626
17.3
2035
1.2
57
0.1
165763
100
2004
57 961
34.1
69 573
40.9
40 742
23.9
1497
0.9
61
0.2
169834
100
2006
40 860
28.2
56 774
39.2
43 490
30
3301
2.3
350
0.3
144775
100
2008
47 875
25.8
91 483
49.2
43 261
23.3
2924
1.6
303
0.1
185846
100
Source: Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia
GRADUATES Year
Certificate
Diploma
Degree
Master's
Doctoral
Grand total
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
2002
62332
44.8
55988
40.2
20255
14.6
571
0.4
4
0
139150
100
2004
60073
44.5
56060
41.5
18385
13.6
423
0.3
46
0.1
134987
100
2006
18046
21.7
36321
43.7
27176
32.7
1592
1.8
51
0.1
83186
100
2008
18269
23.3
32685
41.6
26590
33.8
962
1.2
55
0.1
78561
100
Source: Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia
15
Table 9: Intake, Enrolment and Graduates in all Higher Education Institutions, 2008 Intake Certificate
Diploma
Degree
Masters
Doctoral
Grand
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Total
Total
Public
609
861
1470
10816
15439
26255
28657
48699
77356
7341
8817
16158
2158
1486
3644
124883
Private
23768
24107
47875
35128
56355
91483
20139
23140
43279
1577
1347
2924
180
123
303
185864
Polytech
9506
5513
15019
13849
11706
25555
40574
CommC
5214
3967
9181
280
188
468
9649
Total
39097
34448
73545
60073
83688
143761
48796
71839
120635
8918
10164
19082
2338
1609
3947
360970
Note: Public = Public HEIs, Private = Private HEI, Polytech = Polytechnics, CommC = Community Colleges Source: Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia
Enrolment Certificate Male
Diploma
Female
Total
Male
Female
Degree
Masters
Doctoral
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Grand Total
Total
Public
571
778
1349
34940
49887
84827
103183
171166
274349
17063
19031
36094
7526
4717
12243
408862
Private
29318
31299
60617
73112
104661
177773
70736
80855
151591
4398
4142
8540
799
532
1331
399852
Polytech
19315
11546
30861
29250
25169
54419
85280
CommC
9333
6956
16289
466
327
793
17082
Total
58537
50579
109116
137768
180044
317812
173919
252021
425940
21461
23173
44634
8325
5249
13574
911076
Note: Public = Public HEIs, Private = Private HEI, Polytech = Polytechnics, CommC = Community Colleges Source: Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia
Graduates Certificate Male
Female
Diploma Total
Male
Degree
Masters
Doctoral
Female
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Grand Total
Total
Public
75
91
166
7117
11204
18321
21103
38937
60040
4060
4596
8656
467
318
785
87968
Private
8736
9533
18269
12940
19745
32685
11916
14674
26590
529
433
962
33
22
55
78561
Polytech
7512
6211
13723
10136
8924
19060
CommC
2993
2294
5287
160
119
279
19316
18129
37445
30353
39992
70345
Total
32783 5566 22299
53611
86630
Note: Public = Public HEIs, Private = Private HEI, Polytech = Polytechnics, CommC = Community Colleges Source: Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia
3.
EQUITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION
a. Race
16
4589
5029
9618
500
340
840
204878
1.
Impact of NEP on Race in Higher Education
The New Economic Policy (NEP) was launched
in 1971 after the aftermath of the racial riots in 1969. The NEP was designed to create national unity through poverty eradication and restructuring of Malaysian society by eliminating the identification of race with economic function.
2.
Education was one of the strategies used to achieve the above 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 higher education through ethnic quotas in admission policy and providing scholarships and loans for them to study both at local and foreign universities.
3.
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% at the University of Malaya. This shows that there were strategies in place for increasing Malay participation at HEIs prior to the NEP. The NEP accelerated the access and equity processes in favour of the Bumiputera students. The term Bumiputera is the category used, after the promulgation of the NEP, to include Malays and indigenous people of Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak.
4.
The ethnic quota system of 55:45 in favour of the Bumiputera students was never followed except for one or two universities such as UM and USM. They admitted more Bumiputera students then the specified quota of 55%. The newer universities established during the NEP period did not follow the quota system.
5.
The affirmative policy for Bumiputera students in higher education was already in place in the 1960’s, much earlier than the NEP (see Table 11, Kee 1976). The enrolment figures for University of Malaya, the only University then, shows that in 1959, the percentage of enrolment by ethnicity was 60% Chinese, 20% Malay, 20% Indians and Others. By 1963, the Malay enrolment started to climb steeply overtaking the Chinese enrolment by 1972. The Malay enrolment in 1973 in degree courses was 52.9%, Chinese 38.8% and Indians were 7.7%. In the Diploma and Certificate courses Malay enrolment was 66%, Chinese 28.4% and Indian 4.8% (Table 10).
6.
By 2000 Bumiputera enrolment in universities had reached 60%, Chinese enrolment had declined to 32.5%, and Indian enrolment 6.88% (Table 11).
17
7.
These were degree awarding institutions and there were other non-degree awarding institutions established prior to NEP in 1971 and they were MARA Institute of Technology (1965), Tunku Abdul Rahman College (1969) and Ungku Omar Polytechnic (1969).
8.
These institutions were established on the recommendations of the Report of the Higher Education Planning Committee (HEPC) published in 1967. Owing to the democratization of educational facilities at the primary, secondary and post-secondary levels, pressure was builtup for places at the tertiary level. For example in 1965, there were only 3,955 sixth form student in 1973, this figure increased more to than three-fold to 13,727 (Kee, 1976, p14).
9.
Higher educational planning over the last decade has already achieved its objectives of providing more places in tertiary institutions and to increase the Malay student participation in tertiary education as shown in Table 11 below;
10. The NEP further provided the impetus to recruit more Bumiputera students
into higher
education through the establishment of MARA (Indigenous Peoples Trust Council) colleges, matriculation programs and provision of university scholarships exclusively for Bumiputera students. 11. The intake of Bumiputera students into public universities after the NEP was accelerated without abatement, as Table 13 shows. The affirmative policies introduced have increased access to higher education for Bumiputeras in the public HEIs. It is to be noted that MARA Institute of Technology only catered for Malay students by a special provision. It was upgraded to University Technology MARA in 1999 and has about 130,000 Malay students. NonBumiputera students have had greater access to higher education through the private education route but are disadvantaged by the higher fees. The poor may not be able to pay these fees and therefore denied an opportunity to obtain higher education. 12. In 2002, the admission policy changed from the ethnic quota system to meritocracy. Even under the meritocracy policy, intake of ethnic groups seems to have normalized, that is, matched the population distribution. The Bumiputera intake has been maintained since 2002 at 60% with Chinese at 30% and Indians about 6% over the eight year period (Table 12).
18
13. Tables 12 and 13 (below) show the full impact of NEP policy on higher education. Bumiputera enrolment into Universities, Polytechnics and Community Colleges shows a significant difference between the intake and enrolment figures. Taking enrolment in the total higher education system, Bumiputera enrolment for the four-year period between 2005-2008 in public universities has been over 80%, for the Chinese about 12%, Indians 3% and Others 2.7%. Bumiputera enrolment in Polytechnics and Community Colleges have been maintained over 90%, whereas the Chinese enrolment has varied between 2% - 4%, the Indians between 3% - 4% and Others between 1% - 2%. 14. As for the total enrolment in public institutions of higher education between 2005 – 2008, Bumiputera enrolment has been above 84%, Chinese at 10%, Indians at 3% and Others at 2.4%. 15. In the period following the implementation of the NEP, it would appear from the data available that the affirmative action policy in education has indeed increased enrolments of Bumiputera students in higher education in Malaysia. This is also true for non-Bumiputera student participation, but not to the same magnitude.
19
Table 10: Enrolments in tertiary education by ethnic group, 1973/74 Ethnicity Institutions Degree Courses University of Malaya Science University National University Agricultural University National Institute of Technology Sub-Total Diploma & Certificate Courses Agricultural University National Institute of Technology MARA Institute of Technology Ungku Omar Polytechnic Tunku Abdul Rahman College Total Enrolment at all levels Percentage Distribution by Ethnicity
Malays
Chinese
Indians
Others
Total
4,000 511 1,415 75 192 6193 (52.9%)
3,592 836 34 34 46 4542 (38.8%)
755 128 9 3 1 896 (7.65%)
34 28 31 2 95 (0.81%)
8,381 1,483 1,489 114 239 11,705
1,168 1,082 3,997 705 2 13,142 66
177 149 186 613 5,667 28.4
13 11 27 947 4.8
26 4 24 149 0.8
1,397 1,246 4,021 918 615 19,903 100%
Note: Data do not include some 26,580 Malaysian students enrolled in overseas institutions, a significant portion of who are tertiary students and Chinese. Source: Compiled from data obtained from Mid-Term Review of Second Malaysia Plan, 1971-75, and data obtained from institution sources.
Table 11: Enrolment in Universities by Ethnic Group, 1980 - 2000 Race
Bumiputera
Chinese
Indian
Others
Total
Year
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
1980
73,315
49.24
54,664
36.71
12,819
8.61
8,091
5.43
148,889
1990/ 91
317,937
59.65
171,264
32.13
33,410
6.27
10,408
1.95
533,019
2000
827,593
59.92
449,103
32.52
93,973
6.8
10,494
0.76
1,381,163
Source: Malaysia Development Plans
20
Table 12: Intake into Universities by Ethnic Group, 2002 – 2009 Race
Bumiputera
Chinese
Indian
Year
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
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
-
-
40,416
Source: Malaysia Development Plans
21
Others
Total
Table 13: Enrolment in Public Higher Education Institutions by Ethnicity, 2005-2008 Universities
Polytechnics
N
N
Year & Race 2005 Bumiputera Chinese Indian Other
207021 33484 7838 4675
Total
253018
2006 Bumiputera
237886
Chinese Indian Other
38430 9073 9132
Total
294521
2007 Bumiputera
304719
Chinese Indian Other
41863 10422 10448
Total
367452
2008 Bumiputera
333235
Chinese Indian Other Total
45062 10901 11975 401173
%
%
81.8 72.8 13.2 92.2 3.1 75.5 1.9 83.5 100.0 75.1
68264
80.8 73.4 13.0 91.6 3.1 76.0 3.1 90.0 100.0 75.9
75901
82.9 77.1 11.5 91.5 2.8 78.1 2.8 90.7 100.0 78.9
77542
83.1 78.0 11.2 91.9 2.7 76.5 3.0 90.8 100.0 79.7
78123
2656 2169 745 73834
3307 2405 799 82412
3591 2357 760 84250
3645 2678 834 85280
Community Colleges N %
92.5 24.0 3.6 7.3 2.9 20.9 1.0 13.3 100.0 21.9
9205
92.1 23.4 4.0 7.9 2.9 20.2 1.0 7.8 100.0 21.2
10363
92.7
Total N 284490
3.2 172
1.7
36312 0.5
373
3.8
10380 3.6
179 9929
1.8
5599
3.2 100.0 3.0
336781
91.9
324150 3.2
231
2.0
41968 0.5
457
4.1
11935 3.8
222
2.0
10153
11273
2.2 100.0 2.9
388206
92.0 19.6 4.3 7.9 2.8 17.7 0.9 6.6 100.0 18.1
12860
91.8
395121
91.6 18.3 4.3 7.4 3.1 18.8 1.0 6.3 100.0 16.9
Source: Ministry of Higher Education
22
4.3 287
2.0
45741 0.6
557
4.0
13336 4.2
307
2.2
11515
14011
2.7 100.0 3.0
465713
15706
91.9
427064 3.7
323
1.9
49030 0.7
675
4.0
14254 4.7
378 17082
2.2 2.9 100.0 3.4
13187 503535
% 84.4 100.0 10.8 100.0 3.1 100.0 1.7 100.0 100.0 100.0
83.5 100.0 10.8 100.0 3.1 100.0 2.6 100.0 100.0 100.0
84.8 100.0 9.8 100.0 2.9 100.0 2.5 100.0 100.0 100.0
84.8 100.0 9.7 100.0 2.8 100.0 2.6 100.0 100.0 100.0
b. Gender
1
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. The development of higher education policies were not gender specific, however, policies directed to increasing access to higher education benefited women’s participation.
2
The percentage of women with higher education in the total population vis-à-vis men has gradually increased over time. In 1980 women comprised 31.7 percent of persons with higher education. This increased to 40.6 percent in 1991 and further increased to 47.5 percent in 2000 (Table 14).
3
The largest increase in the proportion of women in the population with higher education is seen among Bumiputera women, increasing from 32.2 percent in 1980 to 49.1 percent in 2000, an increase of 17 percent. Chinese women in the population with higher education increased by 15 percent while Indian women increased by 10 percent (Table 15).
4
In terms of regional differences, women in Sabah and Sarawak had the lowest percentage of the population with higher education, ranging from 25.8 percent in 1980 to 38.6 in 1991 and 44.6 in 2000, compared with women in the more developed peninsular west coast states, where of those with higher education women constituted 33.1 percent in 1980, 41.2 percent in 1991and 47.3 percent in 2000. (Table 16)
5
There is very little difference among the races in terms of women’s participation in the labor force. Between 1985 and 2008 women’s participation rate stood around 45 percent. (Table 17). However, tertiary education improved chances for all women to participate in the labor force but opportunities for women from different geographical and ethnic 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. Urban women of all ethnic groups had fairly similar opportunities: 68.3 percent Bumiputera women, 69.3 percent Chinese women and 66.9 percent Indian women were in the labor force. 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). (Labour Force Survey, 2008: 77- 89).
23
6
Labor force data from 1985 to 2008 further confirms that women with tertiary education have greatly increased their participation in the work force. Table 18 demonstrates that of those employed with diplomas the percentage of women had increased from 40.5% in 1985 to 49.9% in 2008 while among those employed with degrees the percentage of women had dramatically increased from 23.8% in 1985 to 46.2% in 2008.
7
Despite the progress made by women, it should be noted that in 2008 more than 70% of the population outside the labor force were women. Women with tertiary education also lagged behind their male counterparts in the labor force. In 2008, of those with the highest qualification, that is degree level, 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 79.3 percent (Labor Force Survey, 2008: 61).
8
Women have increasingly enjoyed better training and learning opportunities since the 1970s. In the local higher education institutions enrolment steadily shifted in favor of women. For instance, at the University of Malaya, in 1970, there were 5512 or 70.8% male students and 2263 or 29.1% female students. This picture had changed dramatically by 1995 when there were 7047, or 42.9% male students to 9374, or 57.1% female students. By 2008, the balance had further shifted in favor of women with 16,567 women or 59.0 percent women enrolled at University of Malaya.
9
Women’s enrolment at all levels of higher education increased significantly between 1985 and 2008. Women have overtaken men at all levels of higher education except at the doctoral level. Table 19 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.
10 Reliable data for private higher education institutions is only available for the period 20022008. As shown in Table 6, enrolment in the private sector follows a similar pattern as the public sector with women by 2008 overtaking their male colleagues. The data for 2008 shows that in 2008 women made up 55.4 percent of all enrolment in private higher education institutions.
24
11 Intake figures for the same period further enforce the view that women largely outnumber men in entering the universities and colleges. In 2008 women’s intake in all tertiary institutions had increased to 55.2 percent.
12 In 2008 women represented 57.2 percent of all graduates from higher education institutions. In the public sector institutions 62.7 percent of graduates were women while in private institutions 56.5 percent, in polytechnics 46.2 percent and in community colleges 43.4 percent of graduates were women.
13 Women are beginning to represent a significant proportion in nontraditional, professional and technical programs. In 2008 UTM enrolled 44.2 percent women while UPM enrolled 63.9 percent women. In 2008, women constituted 42.5 percent of enrolments in technical fields, 63.8 percent in information technology and communication studies and 68.4 percent in science disciplines.
14 In private higher education institutions in 2008, 50.6 percent students enrolled in first degree science and technological disciplines were women, in technical and vocational courses 24.0 percent students enrolled were women.
15 Women still dominate education, arts and social sciences. For instance in the public institutions in 2008, 74.5 percent women enrolled for education and 73.5 percent women enrolled for arts and social science disciplines. 16 Women’s participation in professional, managerial and technical occupations increased between 2004-2008 and decreased in agricultural occupations.
25
Table 14: Persons with Higher Education in the Population by Gender, 1980, 1991,and 2000 Year
Male
Female N
Total
N
%
%
1980
101634
68.26
47255
31.74
148889
1990/91
316753
59.43
216266
40.57
533019
2000
725461
52.53
655702
47.47
1381163
Table 15: Persons with Higher Education in the Population by Race and Gender,1980, 1991 and 2000 Year
Gender
Bumiputera N
1980
1990/91
2000
Chinese
%
N
Indian
%
N
Total
%
Male
49702
67.79
38007
69.53
8566
66.82
96275
Female
23613
32.21
16657
30.47
4253
33.18
44523
Male
185687
58.40
103572
60.48
21179
63.39
310438
Female
132250
41.60
67692
39.52
12231
36.61
212173
Male
421469
50.93
245395
54.64
52887
56.28
719751
Female
406124
49.07
203708
45.36
41086
43.72
650918
Table 16: Persons with Higher Education in the population by Region and gender, 1980, 1991 and 2000 Year
Gender
Category 1 N
1980
1990/91
2000
%
Category 2 N
Category 3
%
N
Total
%
Male
76139
66.88
15600
71.88
9895
74.16
101634
Female
37705
33.12
6103
28.12
3447
25.84
47255
Male
224665
58.83
54265
60.51
37158
61.39
316088
Female
157196
41.17
35421
39.49
23372
38.61
215989
Male
541917
52.72
109354
49.86
72696
55.38
723967
Female
485966
47.28
109972
50.14
58570
44.62
654508
Table 17: Labour Force Participation Rates by Gender, 1985 to 2008 Year Total 65.7 1985 66.5 1990 64.7 1995 65.4 2000 63.3 2005 62.6 2008 Source Labour Force Survey, 2008
Male 85.6 85.3 84.3 83.0 80.0 79.0
26
Female 45.9 47.8 44.7 47.2 45.9 45.7
Table 18: Number of Employed Persons by Highest Certificate obtained and Gender (000) Diploma N 1985
Male
89.7
% 59.5
91.7
% 76.2
Female
61.1 150.8
40.5 100.0
28.5 120.2
23.8 100.0
120.6
55.6
114.8
69.2
96.2 216.8 288.3
44.4 100.0 53.9
51.0 165.8 300.9
30.8 100.0 63.8
246.8 535.1
46.1 100.0
170.4 471.3
36.2 100.0
460.2
54.7
421.1
57.4
380.5 840.7
45.3 100.0
312.4 733.5
42,6 100.0
394.5 391.6
50.1 49.9
470.9 403.2
53.8 46.2
786.1
100.0
874.1
100.0
Total Male 1990
Female Total Male
2000
Female Total Male
2005
Female Total
2008
Degree
Male Female Total
N
Source: Department of Statistics, Putra Jaya
c. Socio-economic Status
1
A number of research studies in the 1970’s and 80’s attempted to assess the effectiveness of NEP policies in eradicating social disadvantages. (A sample survey will be carried out to assess the current SES in HEIs).
2
A study carried out on education and social mobility in Malaysia (Jasbir S Singh, 1973) confirmed the central role of education in promoting upward social mobility in Malaysia. The study demonstrated that Malays with low social origins were more likely than other races to achieve higher education and move into high status jobs. 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.
3
While the NEP has brought some considerable social restructuring it has also extended the dimensions of discord. Unexpectedly, class divisions appear to be sharper, making the problem of national unity as, if not more, critical than before the NEP (Singh and Mukherjee, 1993).
27
4
A study to assess the role of the University of Malaya in enabling students from low status families to pursue higher education was carried out in 1981 (Jasbir S Singh). The data established conclusively that the University of Malaya very effectively promotes youths from low status social origins to high professional occupations. A significantly high proportion of students (58.9%) in the final year at the University of Malaya had parents who worked in skilled, semi-skilled and manual occupations. Many of their parents were among the poor farmers, rubber tappers, laborers and manual workers. Only a small proportion of the students (12.4%) had parents in the high status group, that is, the professional, managerial and executive groups (Table 20).
5
Despite gaining entrance to the university, the children from the low social origins suffered some disadvantages when competing for places in the traditionally prestigious faculties of Medicine, Law and Dentistry. Among the future doctors, lawyers and dentists there was high recruitment from those of high and middle status parentage; only 21.6% of law students originated in low social status compared with 62% Economics and 68% Education students.
6
The University of Malaya has acted almost equally as a channel of upward social mobility for Bumiputera and Chinese students but to a lesser extent for Indian students.
7
In the mid 1980s a study on “University Education and Employment in Malaysia” (Unglue Aziz et.al) surveyed sixth form students, undergraduates and graduates. The survey findings show that the educational opportunities of the lower SES groups have been enhanced since the implementation of the NEP. Larger proportions of sixth form students and undergraduates than past graduates had fathers who were from the manual workers category (Table 21).
8
A study carried out in 1978 (Marimuthu T: 1984) on student development in Malaysian universities assessed the socio-economic status of final year students in five Malaysian universities. The study shows that only 2.7 percent of the students come from higher socioeconomic status homes, and their fathers hold professional, managerial or executive positions. The data on occupation is well reinforced by the data on income and education. A similar proportion (2.7 percent) of the fathers earns incomes over $1,500 and 5.6 percent have either a college or a university education. In fact, those who possess university education are a minority (only 1 percent). 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 28
supervisory, lower professional, technical, clerical or sales capacity. About three quarters of the fathers hold jobs ranging from skilled to unskilled categories, have had primary education or no education and are more likely to receive incomes below $400 per month (Table 22). Table 20: Distribution of University of Malaya Students by Race and Social Origin Race High
Fathers’ Status Middle Low
Total
Malay No %
34 14.4
68 28.9
133 56.7
235 100.0
No %
38 9.9
108 28.0
239 62.1
385 100.0
No %
9 25.6
12 34.3
14 40.1
35 100.0
No %
81 12.4
188 28.7
386 58.9
655 100.0
Chinese
Indian
Total
Source:
Table 21: Distribution of Respondents by Fathers’ Occupation Occupation of Father Professional, managerial and
Graduates
Undergraduates
Sixth Form students
N 604
% 51.1
N 364
% 16.4
N 243
% 15.7
272
23.0
746
33.7
604
39.2
306
25.9
1,105
49.9
695
45.1
1,182
100.0
2,215
100.0
1,542
100.0
proprietorship Clerical and sales, small business and others Manual Total Source:
29
Table 22: Occupational Status and Educational Level of Malaysian University Students, 1978 Occupation Professional/Managerial White collar/clerical Skilled Semi-skilled Unskilled Housewives/pensioners etc. No information Number Percentage Source:
No % 19 2.7 158 19.9 201 29.0 68 9.8 173 25.0 28 4.1 66 9.5 695 100
Education University/College Secondary Completed Primary Some Primary No education
No % 39 5.6 14 20.4 167 24.1 215 31.0 131 18.9
695 100
Income RM 1,500 and above 700 to 1,499 400 to 699 200 to 599 199 and Below
No % 19 2.7 86 12.4 151 27.8 196 28.3 241 34.8
695 100
d. Region
1.
Findings to date are based on data on employed persons in the labor force with tertiary education, 1985-2008. A more comprehensive picture of the current situation will be obtained from the sample survey currently being undertaken.
2
Between 1995 and 2008 percentage of persons with tertiary education in urban areas increased from 15.0 percent to 25.0 percent. In rural areas percentage of persons with tertiary education increased from 6.3 percent to 13.3 percent. The increase in the urban areas may partly be explained by migration of rural folks with tertiary education into the urban areas in search of better job opportunities and living conditions (Table 23)
3
Women have taken great strides in achieving higher education (Table 24). Of females in urban areas percentage of women with higher education increased from 16.7 percent in 1995 to 30.2 percent in 2008, an increase of 13.5 percent. Over the same period, of women in rural areas, percentage with higher education increased from 7.4 percent to 18.9 percent in 2008, an increase of 11.5 percent.
30
4
However the gap in achieving higher education between rural and urban women has increased over time. In 1995, a gap of 9.3 percent existed between urban and rural women; in 2008, a gap of 11.3 existed between the percentage of women with higher education in urban and rural areas.
5
Among the ethnic groups (Table 25), Bumiputeras in urban areas have the largest increase (12.1 percent) in persons with tertiary education between 1995 and 2008. Over the same period the Chinese have an increase of 10.7 percent and the Indians 8.4 percent. In the rural areas, Bumiputera percentage of persons with tertiary education increased by 8.5 percent, the Chinese by 5.0 percent and Indians by 5.2 percent.
6
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 25). For the Bumiputera, the gap between urban and rural increased from 10.1 percent to 13.1 percent; for the Chinese the gap increased from 7.8 percent to 13.5 percent; and for the Indians the gap increased from 9.0 percent to 12.2 percent.
7
There are significant differences among the three regions identified in terms of persons with diploma qualifications (Table 26). In 1985, Category 1 states (western peninsular states) had 61.7 percent of all such persons, Category 2 states (eastern peninsular states) 27.6 persons and Category 3 (Sabah and Sarawak) states 10.7 percent persons. By 2000, Category 1 states had 69.0 percent, Category 2, 17.3 percent and Category 3, 13.7 percent of persons with diploma qualifications. The situation in 2008 was similar to that of 2005.
8
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. The situation has not changed much between 1985 and 2008.
31
Table 23: Percentage Distribution of Persons Employed in the Labor Force with Tertiary Education by Stratum, 1995-2008 Year Urban Rural 15.02 1995 6.32 18.27 2000 8.92 22.92 2004 9.72 25.0 2008 12.9 Source: Labour Force Survey Reports 1995-2008
Table 24: Percentage Distribution of Employed Persons in the Labor Force with Tertiary Education by Stratum and Gender, 1995-2008 Year
1995
2000
2004
2008
Gender
Male
Female
Total
%
%
Urban
14.31
16.68
15.02
Rural
5.78
7.44
6.32
Urban
16.98
20.49
18.27
Rural
7.75
11.38
8.92
Urban
20.27
27.35
22.92
Rural
7.98
13.22
9.72
Urban
21.8
30.2
25.0
Rural
10.1
18.9
12.9
Source: Labour Force Survey Reports 1995-2008
Table 25: 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
13.6 5.8 17.9 11.6 23.4 6.7 24.3 10.8
12.4 3.4 14.6 7.5 19.2 6.3 20.8 8.6
12.1 4 8.5 3.4 15.5 3.7 10.5 9.4
15.1 6.5 19 9.7 23.8 10.5 25 13.3
17.2 Urban 7.1 Rural 21.5 2000 Urban 9.9 Rural 25.1 2004 Urban 11.3 Rural 29.3 2008 Urban 15.6 Rural Source: Labour Force Survey Reports 1995-2008 1995
32
Table 26: Number and Percentage of Employed Persons by Highest Certificate Obtained and Region, 1985-2008
Year
Categories
1985
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
1990
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
2000
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
2005
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
2008
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total Note: Category 1 = Western Peninsular States Category 2 = Eastern Peninsular States Category 3 =Sabah and Sarawak
Diploma
Degree
N
%
N
%
92.9 41.5 16.1 150.5 141.5 51.4 23.4 216.3 368.7 92.2 73.2 534.1 597.7 138 103.7 839.4 541.5 141.7 101.2 784.4
61.73% 27.57% 10.70% 100.00% 65.42% 23.76% 10.82% 100.00% 69.03% 17.26% 13.71% 100.00% 71.21% 16.44% 12.35% 100.00% 69.03% 18.06% 12.90% 100.00%
88.1 15.9 15.7 119.7 123.3 24.7 17.1 165.1 361.3 63.8 45.9 471 555.6 94 82.3 731.9 628.9 136.7 106.7 872.3
73.60% 13.28% 13.12% 100.00% 74.68% 14.96% 10.36% 100.00% 76.71% 13.55% 9.75% 100.00% 75.91% 12.84% 11.24% 100.00% 72.10% 15.67% 12.23% 100.00%
Source: Department of Statistics, Putra Jaya
e. Scholarships and Loans 1.
Discussions on access and equity issues in higher education cannot be complete without some discussion of the means by which access and equity is demonstrated. The current system by which higher education students are financed impacts on both access and equity.
2.
Higher education in Malaysia falls under the purview of the Ministry of Higher Education, which is responsible for the funding of the public higher education sector. As the main provider of financial support, MOHE supports public sector higher education not only by heavily subsiding the operations of the institutions, but also as a major source of funding through scholarships and loans .
33
3.
Higher education funding for the purpose of this discussion incorporates all forms of funding, loans and scholarships/sponsorship. The financing of higher education in Malaysia is thus fairly straightforward as it follows the trend that is observable in almost all developing countries of the world. That is, a high proportion of expenditure is from the central government budget through the Ministry of Higher Education or other departments. The others are local communities, families and individuals, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), private enterprises and corporations as well as foreign aid. The other sources of financing education in can be highlighted as follows and a brief summary of the categories and the distinguishing features are given in Table 27 below. i.
State or Local authorities - in the form of school construction, land donation, e.g. Selangor government and UNISEL
ii.
Foreign aid - mainly in the form of scholarships and capital investment, e.g. The Chevening award, Commonwealth and Fulbright Scholarships.
iii.
Families, individual and communities - usually in the form of family sponsorship, grants, donation and contributions.
iv.
Enterprises, corporations, and estates – mainly in the form of scholarships, donations and loans, e.g. The Star Education Fund, The Kuok Foundation, Sime Darby group of companies.
v.
Political Parties – MIED, Kojadi.
vi.
Non-governmental organizations and religious bodies – largely providing loans, scholarships e.g. MAPCU and NAPEI [need to spell these out]
4.
There are various organizations that provide financial assistance to students pursuing higher education by various means such as scholarship, sponsorship and loans. Case studies of two such organizations are given as illustration. The National Higher Education Fund Corporation (or its Malaysian acronym PTPTN) and the Public Service Department (or its Malaysian acronym JPA) provide higher education loans and scholarships respectively.
5.
The PTPTN Story: PTPTN was established under the National Higher Education Fund Act 1997 (Act 566). It began its operations on 1st November 1997. The objective of PTPTN is to ensure efficient loan financing for students who are eligible to pursue studies at institutions of higher learning. This is in line with the government aspiration that no Malaysian should be denied access to higher education. This body was set up to manage the disbursement of public 34
funds for the purpose of higher education through low interest student loans. The most recent development (Budget 2010) saw a further 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.
6.
PTPTN loans are open to students from both public and private sector HEIs and loans are given out in three categories summarized in Table 28 below:
i.
full loan is given to students from families with income below RM. 3000 a month (or less than approximately USD 900 per month);
ii. partial loan 1 is given to students from families with income between RM3001 and RM 5 000 a month (or USD 1 001 and 1380 per annum), loans are given to fully cover the tuition fees and a portion for subsistence; iii. partial loan 2 is given to students from families with monthly income of above RM 5001 (or USD 1381 and above) will only be eligible for loan up to the maximum of their tuition fee.
7.
PTPTN has in the last 10 years provided higher educational loans to the amount of RM 26.2 billion, benefitting about 1.3 million students. In 1997, PTPTN approved 12 000 applications and in 2008 the number of approvals increased to 97 000. This shows a marked achievement by the government of Malaysia if seen from the pre-1999 era where loans were not available to students especially those wishing to pursue higher education in private HEIs. The availability of study loans has increased enrolment in the private higher education sector, now at 50% of the total student enrolment in the country.
8.
Provision for loans is equitable and as demonstrated in Appendix X, there is no gender bias in the approval of loans. The number of loans to female applicants 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. Comparing Gender in relation to student intake for Certificate, Diploma and Degree (as loans are only provided for these levels of qualifications) to total number of students who had obtained loans in Table 29 below shows no discrimination in terms of gender in accessing loans.
9.
However, there are slight variations in relation to ethnic composition of students who had obtained loans from PTPTN. The data can only be tabulated for the year 2000 as enrolment 35
data for other years are not available by ethnic group. Table 30 shows the variation; that whilst there are 60% bumiputera students in HE for the year 2000, 75.4% had obtained loans from PTPTN as opposed to non-bumiputera students which was at 24.6% even though the total enrolment was at 40%. One possible explanation for this is the SES of the student. Note: PTPTN data based on student enrolment.
10.
The Scholarship Story: The government of Malaysia, through the Public Services Department, provides scholarships to students based on academic merit. These scholarships are usually provided to students pursuing a course study in local and foreign institutions and a large percentage of which is allocated for disciplines deemed critical such as medicine and pharmacy.
11.
There has been gradual growth in the number of scholarships provided and the increase is significant particularly for study in the local HEIs. For example in 2000, a total of 3763 grants were provided and this increased to 10 000 in 2008. Increases albeit on a smaller scale are shown in the total number of scholarships to foreign HEIs; from 748 in 2000, to 2000 in 2008. The smaller increase in foreign scholarship can be attributed to the higher cost of study and the increase in the local provision of foreign programs through twinning and 3+0 and branch campuses.
12.
The data however show inequity in the division of scholarship according to ethnic lines. For example, the number of Bumiputera students who had successfully obtained scholarships to pursue a course of study internationally in 2000 was 598 whilst in the same year only 150 non Bumiputeras were successful. Similarly in 2008, the Bumiputera recorded 1100 compared to 900 non Bumiputera students. On the domestic front, in 2000, 3444 Bumiputera and 319 were non bumiputera. In 2008 figures were 7826 and 2174 respectively.
13.
When put against the data on student enrolment, there is clear disparity in the number of students from the non Bumiputera group obtaining scholarships and this is clear from the figures in Table 31 below.
36
14.
The conclusion from the data on loan and scholarship paints a picture of inequality in the distribution of grants to students according to racial lines. It shows that whilst there is access to higher education, this access may not be equitable.
15.
There is no available data on the socio-economic status of the recipients of scholarships, hence no conclusion can be made as to disparity if any in the provision for scholarships. Equal access to education presupposes equity so that a fairness-preserving shift to an efficient allocation could produce an allocation that is both efficient and fair. This cannot be seen in the way scholarships are awarded.
16.
In relation to loans, one can presuppose that Bumiputeras are in the lower bracket of Malaysian society and therefore are more eligible than non Bumiputeras. However this was be shown in the light of new data on student SES categories and is subject to the forthcoming survey.
Table 27: Scholarships and Distinguishing Features of Malaysian Awards No 1.
Category of Scholarship Government/State
Distinguishing Features 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. ii. iii. iv. v.
On merit Limited field of study To local institutions only First degree Coverage RM. 6-10k per annum
3.
Corporate
i. ii. iii. iv. v.
On merit Limited field of study To local institutions only First degree 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
37
Table 28: Eligibility is measured according to family income per month 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
Table 29: Gender Compared: Loan vs. Intake 2000 Intake
Gender
2005 Loan
Intake
2008
Loan
Intake
Loan
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Male
48579
45.3
35362
40.0
48433
41.9
59,300
41.1
68931
44.4
59292
37.9
Female
58549
54.7
53010
60.0
67189
58.1
85,018
58.9
86373
55.6
97288
62.1
107128
100
88372
100
115622
100
144318
100
155304
100
156580
100
Total
Source: PTPTN and Ministry of Higher Education, www.mohe.gov.my
Table 30: Bumiputera and Non bumiputera comparison in loan and enrolment for the year 2000 2000 Ethnic Cluster
Loan
Enrolment No
%
No
%
Bumiputera
827,593
60
66613
75.4
Non-Bumiputera
553,570
40
21759
24.6
1,381,163
100
88372
100
Total
Source: PTPTN and Ministry of Higher Education, www.mohe.gov.my
38
Table 31: Bumiputera and Non bumiputera comparison in scholarship and enrolment for the year 2000 Ethnic Cluster
Enrolment*
Scholarship
No
%
NO
%
Bumiputera
827,593
60
3444
92
Non-Bumiputera
553,570
40
319
8
Total
1,381,163
100
3763
100
Note: * intake data will be more accurate representation of the true picture Source: PTPTN and Ministry of Higher Education, www.mohe.gov.my
D. Constraints 1.
The access to and collection of relevant and accurate data have posed a continuing challenge for the study team. i.
The time lag between request for data/information and response from the relevant authorities has slowed down the progress of the study considerably. Considerable effort has been required to meet key government officials.
ii.
The process of organizing and conducting a sample survey in selected HEIs has turned out to be more complex than expected with some institutions unable to take decisions speedily.
iii.
Documentation and data not in the public domain have also eluded the research team to date.
iv.
In many cases, breakdown by ethnic category was missing and needed careful pursuit.
v.
Datasets have tended to be incomplete with varying definitions and parameters rendering comparisons across time difficult. The numbers cited in the next section illustrate this: in Ministry of Education enrollment data the age cohorts change from 19-24 for the years 1970 – 2000 to 18-24 for 2005 onwards.
vi.
The situation has been complicated by the fact that in 2002 (???) the Department of Higher Education within the Ministry of Education became a separate entity as the Ministry of Higher Education. This change seems to have exacerbated the entire process of data collection and information gathering for this study.
39
vii.
For the private HEIs, the task facing the team was identifying reliable, updated consolidated data from public sources, resulting in the need to seek, review and disentangle various data sources.
E. Major Findings 1.
The higher education sector in Malaysia has grown remarkably since the first university campus was established in 1959. In 2008 the nations’ tertiary education landscape may be described as a multi-level, diversified system which includes public universities, branch campuses, community colleges, and polytechnics in juxtaposition to a vibrant private higher education sector with universities, colleges, international universities’ branches with developed campuses, and a whole array of skills training institutions.
2.
The diversified scenario has provided better access to tertiary education with participation rates increasing from 0.6% of the 19-24 age cohort enrolled in tertiary education in 1970 to 8.1% in 2000. Figures for 2007 for the 18-24 age cohort show that 24.4% of this group were enrolled. The increased participation is 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. The study has not yet completed data collection on socioeconomic backgrounds of students but earlier social mobility research in Malaysia appears to indicate that the system has provided satisfactory access to the disadvantaged. However, a sample survey to be conducted will hopefully yield updated information in this regard.
3.
Increased access however has not come with equitable patterns of participation. The public system has overwhelmingly supported one ethnic group – the Bumiputeras – through its affirmative action policies. Bumiputera students have had the winds of the National Economic Policy blowing them upwards and onwards as the group that has enjoyed advantages in terms of favorable admission quotas to public universities, scholarships to local overseas institutions, and loans over the last decade to attend private HEIs and GLC institutions.
40
4.
Women from every ethnic and geographical category show increased participation in education and training in 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. While there was increased representation of women in professional and technical areas of study, women tended to predominate in arts, education and social studies.
5.
Data from the study show that the public university admissions quota system worked better for the Chinese than Indian students. Overall however Chinese and Indian representation were lower than their proportion in the population. Government scholarships have financed a small segment of these groups and 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 is hard to change.
6.
The implementation of a university admissions policy based on meritocracy has not changed the picture much.
Enrollment figures post-2002 in fact reflect the ethnic distribution in the
population in universities. Taking into account enrollment in Polytechnics and Community Colleges, enrollment data reiterate the overall post-NEP finding that all groups increased in higher education enrollment with Bumiputera enrollment the greatest in magnitude.
41
Page
List of Tables Table1
Overview of Malaysian HE 1967-2007
6
Table 2
Public and Private HEIs according to Location, 2007
9
Table 3
Number of Malaysians Overseas, 2000-2007
9
Table 4
Expansion in Enrollment by Education Level, 1985-2008
12
Table 5
Percentage Population Age 19-24 enrolled in Tertiary Education
12
Table 6
Number of employed persons by highest certificate obtained, 1985, 1990, 2000, 2001, 2005 and 2008 (000)
13
Table 7
Intake, Enrolment and Graduates of Public Higher Education Institutions, 1987-2008
13
Table 8
Enrolment, Intake and Graduates in Private Higher Education, 2002-2008
14
Table 9
Intake, Enrolment and Graduates in all HEIs, 2008
15
Table 10 Enrollments in tertiary education by ethnic group, 1973/74
19
Table 11 Enrollment in Universities by Ethnic Group, 1980 – 2000
19
Table 12 Intake into Universities by Ethnic Group, 2002-2009
20
Table 13 Enrolment in Public Higher Education Institutions by Ethnicity, 2005-2008
21
Table 14 Persons with Higher Education in the Population by Gender, 1980, 1991 and 2000
25
Table 15 Persons with Higher Education in the Population by Race and Gender, 1980, 1991 and 2000
25
Table 16 Persons with Higher Education in the Population by Region and Gender, 1980, 1991 and 2000
25
Table 17 Labor Force Participation Rates by Gender, 1985 - 2008
25
Table 18 Number of Employed Persons by highest certificate obtained by Gender (000) 1985-2008
26
Table 19 Intake, Enrollment and Output by Gender, 1987 – 2008
Annex 1
Table 20 Distribution of University of Malaya Students by Race and Social Origin
28
Table 21 Distribution of Respondents by Fathers Occupations
28
Table 22 Occupational Status and Educational Level of Malaysian University Students, 1978
29
Table 23 Percentage Distribution of Persons Employed in the Labor Force with Tertiary Education by Stratum, 1995 – 2008 Table 24 Percentage Distribution of Employed Persons in the Labor Force with Tertiary Education by Stratum and Gender, 1995 – 2008 Table 25 Percentage Distribution of Employed Persons in Labor Force with Tertiary Education by Stratum and Ethnic Group, 1995 – 2008
31
31
31
Table 26 Number and Percentage of Employed Persons by Highest Certificate Obtained and Region, 1985 – 2008
32
Table 27 Scholarships and Distinguishing Features of Malaysian Awards
36
Table 28 Eligibility measured according to family income per month
37
Table 29 Gender Compared: Loan vs. Intake
37
Table 30 Bumiputera and Non-bumiputera Comparison Loan and Enrolment, 2000
37
Table 31 Bumiputera and Non bumiputera comparison in scholarship and enrolment, 2000
38
42
References
Altabach, PG and Mcgill Peterson, P (eds) (2007). Higher Education in the New Century: Global Challenges and Innovative Ideas. Rotterdam: Sense Publications and UNESCO, Center for International Higher Education, Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts. Bok, D (2003). Universities in the Market Place: The Commercialisation of Higher Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press Chai, HC. (1977). Education and nation-building in plural societies: The West Malaysian experience. The Australian National University: Development Studies Center, Monograph no. 6 Chew, SB, Lee, KH and Quek, AH (eds) (1995). Education and Work: Aspirations of Malaysian Secondary School Students. Kuala Lumpur: Faculty of Education, University of Malaya. INPUMA (2000). Policy Issues in Higher Education in the New Millennium. Proceedings of International Conference, Kuala Lumpur, University of Malaya Jasbir, SS (1973). Education and Social Mobility in Malaysia: A case Study of Petaling Jaya. Kuala Lumpur: Unpublished Ph D Thesis, University of Malaya. Jasbir SS (1981). “Higher Education and Social Mobility- the Role of the University of Malaya. South-East Asian Journal of Social Sciences. Jasbir SS (1982). “Education and Social Equity in Malaysia” in EDC Occasional Papers No 3. London: Department of Education in Developing Countries, University of London Institute of Education. Jasbir SS and Mukherjee, H (1993). Education and National Integration in Malaysia: Stocktaking thirty years after independence in International Journal of Education, UK, 1993. Kee, PK (1976). Tertiary Students and Social Development: An Agenda for Action- Student Rural Service Activities in Malaysia. Singapore: RIHED. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia (2001). Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2001-2010. Kuala Lumpur. Leete, R (2007). Malaysia from Kampong to Twin Towers: 50 years of Economic and Social Development. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford Fajar. Lee, FO (2008). “Growth and Development of Private Higher Education in Malaysia” in Ibrahim Ahmad Bajunid, Malaysia: From Traditional to Smart Schools, The Malaysian Education Odyssey. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford Fajar Sdn Bhd. Lee, KH, Quek, AH and Chew, SB (Editors) (2001). Education and Work: The State of Transition. Kuala Lumpur: Faculty of Education, University of Malaya.
43
Lee, MNN (2001). Private Higher Education in Malaysia: Expansion, Diversification and Consolidation, Bangkok, Paper presented at the Second Regional Seminar on Private Higher Education: Its role in Human Resources Development in a Globalised Knowledge Society, UNESCO PROAP and SEAMEO RIHED, 20-22 June 2001. Lee, MNN (2002). Education Changes in Malaysia. Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia. 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 University of Malaya (Also known as the Majid Report). Kuala Lumpur: Government Press. Malaysia (1980, 1991, 2000). Population Census Reports. Kuala Lumpur: Department of Statistics. Malaysia (various years). The Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Malaysia Plans. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printers Malaysia. Malaysia (2008). Perangkaan Pengajian Tinggi Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur : Bahagian Perancangan dan Penyelidikan, Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi, 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 (2006a). The Ninth Malaysia Plan, 2006-2010. Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan Nasional Malaysia Berhad. Malaysia (2006b). Education Guide Malaysia (10th Edition), Kuala Lumpur: Challenger Concept Malaysia, (various years). Labour Force Survey Report. Kuala Lumpur/Putra Jaya: Department of Statistics. Malaysia, Ministry of Education (various years). Educational Statistics of Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Planning and Research Division, Ministry of Education. Malaysia (2009). Higher Education Statistics 2008. Putra Jaya: Ministry of Higher Education. Malaysia (2009). Quick Facts. Seri Kembangan: Department of Polytechnic and Community College Education, Ministry of Higher Education. Marimuthu, T (1984). Student Development in Malaysian Universities. Singapore: Regional Institute of Higher Education and Development, RIHED Occasional Paper Series. Marimuthu, T (2008). “Tamil Education: Problems and Prospects” in Ibrahim Ahmad Bajunid (General Editor), Malaysia – from traditional to smart schools – the Malaysian Educational Odyssey. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford Fajar.
44
Marimuthu, T and Sheela A (1992). Higher Education in Malaysia, unpublished paper. Marimuthu, T, Jasbir SS, Chew, SB, Noraini, MS, Chang, LH, and Rajendran, NS (1999). Higher Education: Policies, Practices and Issues. Malaysia. The World Bank. Middlehurst, R and Woodfield, S (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. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia Website: www.mohe.gov.my Shyamala N, Chew, SB, Lee, KH and Rahimah, A (Editors) (2009). Education and Work: The World of Work. Kuala Lumpur: Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Malaya. Tan, AM (2002). Malaysian Private Higher Education: Globalisation, Privatisation, Transformation and Market Places. London: ASEAN Academic Press. Ungku Aziz, Chew, SB, Lee, KH, Bikas, S (eds)(1987). University Education and Employment in Malaysia. Paris: UNECO, International Institute for Educational Planning, IIEP Research Report No.66. World Bank and EPU(2007), Malaysia and the Knowledge Economy: Building a World-Class Higher EducationSystem. Human Development Sector Reports, East Asia and the Pacific Region, The World Bank
45
Annex: Table 19: Intake Enrolments and Graduates in Public Higher Education Institutions Year
Gender
1995
2008
M F M F M F M
Year
F Gender
2000 2005
1987
1995 2000 2005 2008
Year
1987
1995 2000 2005 2008
M F M F M F M F M F M F
% 71.3 28.7 65.3 34.7 62 38 59.7
Total 5810 13440 13952 25670
10341
Intake 7449 6064 15620 17783 19620 24187 24945 27333
% 55.1 44.9 46.8 53.2 44.8 55.2 47.7
Degree Total 13513 33403 43807 52278
40.3 Certificate Enrol % Total 6651 78 8537 1886 22 7366 74.4 9907 2541 25.6 11252 73.9 15226 3974 26.1 18083 65 27830 9747 35 21480 60.7 35360 13880 39.3 29219 60.2 48499 19280 39.8
Enrol 27079 27239 19174 13414 41105 52401 57861 71316 59432 80130 64656 75383
52.3 Diploma % 49.9 50.1 58.8 41.2 44 56 44.8 55.2 42.6 57.4 46.2 53.8
Certificate Grads % Total 1838 74.4 2469 631 25.6 2338 74.1 3154 816 25.9 3574 71.2 5017 1443 28.8 5359 61 8792 3433 39 4601 58.6 7848 3247 41.4 10580 55.2 19176 8596 44.8
Grads 3673 2554 4759 3342 6100 5578 10830 12534 21154 34856 17413 20247
Diploma % Total 59 6227 41 58.7 8101 41.3 52.2 11678 47.8 46.4 23364 53.6 37.8 56010 62.2 46.2 37660 53.8
Intake 11085 12816 24187 36098 20157 37706 28657 48699
Total 54318 32588 93506 129177 139562 140039
% 46.4 53.6 40.1 59.9 34.8 65.2 37
Master's Total 23901 60285 57863 77356
Enrol 24070 19360 27940 25617 38805 40422 57090 80448 75713 135260 103183 171166
63 Degree % Total 55.4 43430 44.6 52.2 53557 47.8 49 79227 51 41.5 137538 58.5 35.9 210973 64.1 37.6 274349 62.4
Grads 4842 3578 5677 5255 7853 8579 13759 19336 16789 28829 21103 38937
Degree % 57.5 42.5 51.9 48.1 47.8 52.2 41.6 58.4 36.8 63.2 35.1 64.9
Source: 1987-2005 Ministry of Education: Educational Statistics of Malaysia
Total 8420 10932 16432 33095 45618 60040
Intake 2124 2444 6668 8844 7182 7748 7341 8817
% 46.5 53.5 43 57 48.1 51.9 45.4
Doctoral Total 4568 15512 14930 16158
Enrol 1838 1414 2494 2005 4045 3577 10289 8756 17851 17118 17063 19031
54.6 Master's % 56.5 43.5 55.4 44.6 53.1 46.9 54 46 51 49 47.3 52.7
Grads 574 814 774 936 1246 1838 2063 2136 3167 3142 4060 4596
Master's % 41.4 58.6 45.3 54.7 40.4 59.6 49.1 50.9 50.2 49.8 46.9 53.1
Intake 157 55 515 265 1753 969 2158 1486
Total 3252 4499 7622 19045 34969 36094
Total 1388 1710 3084 4199 6309 8656
% 74.1 25.9 66 34 64.4 35.6 59.2
Grand Total Total 212 780 2722 3644
Enrol 267 114 385 154 782 473 1868 945 4192 2541 7526 4717
40.8 Doctoral % 70.1 29.9 71.4 28.6 62.3 37.7 66.4 33.6 62.3 37.7 61.5 38.5
Grads 15 10 22 5 43 30 104 44 504 353 467 318
Doctoral % Total 60 25 40 81.5 27 18.5 58.9 73 41.1 70.3 148 29.7 58.8 857 41.2 59.5 785 40.5
Total 381 539 1255 2813 6733 12243
Intake 24958 23046 55762 67658 57368 75906 78430
% 52 48 45.2 54.8 43 57 44.8
Total 48004 123420 133274 175106
96676 55.2 Grand Total Enrol % Total 75550 55.6 135985 60435 44.4 57359 56.7 101090 43731 43.3 122140 50 244323 122183 50 193847 46 421840 227993 54 229521 42.6 538404 308883 57.4 221647 43.4 511224 289577 56.6
Grand Total Grads % Total 10942 59.1 18529 7587 40.9 13570 56.7 23924 10354 43.3 18816 51.9 36284 17468 48.1 32115 46.1 69598 37483 53.9 46215 39.6 116642 70427 60.4 53623 42.5 126317 72694 57.5
GRADUATES
1990
Gender
Intake 4143 1667 8772 4668 8656 5296 15329
Diploma
ENROLMENTS
1990
M F M F M F M F M F M F
Certificate
Notes Data includes public unversities, teacher training colleges, MARA Institute of Technology, polytechnics,Tunku Abdul Rahman College and community colleges 2008: Ministry of Higher Education – excludes teacher training colleges.
47
Data for degree includes advanced diploma and higher diploma Data for master's includes postgraduate diploma Data for diploma (1990) – teacher training college data not included
