THE WORLD 3/\.0JK

Discussion Paper

EDUCATION AND TRAINING SERIES

P'p'rI NG. EDT11 F'~-=:!!!-=~:'== ~~~=--:~.~1'!":::_~.!.!..:r~"lr,"~"..:r--1!lI.~.!!"lI'l:.':'::D-:l~..!'"'_r-..c"-==-=-'::':'==_':"!r.~","%.:L~"""-::~~":~'.!'I'~~~'~~!!'~~"~~""~=::'=-':'~~Y~~~~lA.f'':~:~_~~1

friucatioYl iYl .lVIalaysicl: _A l{ez)iezo of IXvenditures

, J

Jlrld Discussion of .Issues

I

('

~. [

[ !

Peter R. Maock

December 1985

Education and Tramin;~ Department Operations Policy Staff ....

The v:~w·; pres.'nted here Jre those of the JuthonsJ, and they should not be illterpreted JS reflecting those of the Worid Bank.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Education and Training Se~les

Report No. EDTll

C:DUCATIJ:~ IN ~fI\LAYSIA: A REVIEH OF I~XPENDITlJRES AND fnSC:';S51.0N OF ISSllr.S

~..

Peter R. Hoock

Education Policy Division

Education and Training Department

December L985

The World Bank do~ not accept responsibility for the vi~ws expressed herein, whlc~ are=those of the author(s) and should not ce attributed to the World Bank or:to its affiliated organizations. The findings, interpretations, tild conclusions are the results of research or analj'sis supported by the Iktnk; they do not necessarHy represent official policy of the Bank. The designations employed, the presentation of material. and any maps us~d in this document are solely for the convcllience of the reader and do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Wocld Hank or its affiliates concerning the legal status of any country, territory, ctty, area, or of its authorities, or cOl\cernir:g the delimltation of its boundaries. or national affiltation.

I

http:fnSC:';S51.0N

Ahutr8ct

This rerort is based upon a 1984 mission to Malaysia, the purpose of t"hich lIas to gather information and identify issues having to do wi th expenditule patterns in Malaysia's education sector.

A. net' policy era was launched in Halaysia in the early 1970s [oUm.ling a peri;)d c·f civil unrest. All futurt~ planning in tr.e countl"y \vas directed toward tWe' ohjectives outlined in the "N~w Economic Policy." The first objective called for the eradic~tion of poverty. the second called for th~ "restrllctllring of society" tu redress past conditions that mnde it difficult for certain groups to gain access to a proportionate share of the nation's assets.

Since then, the Halaysia government, "in its five-year plans, has attempted to provide a more egalitarian educational system by giving greater acce~lS to schools. At the same time, howev€!'c", ~he Government hafl tntrod'lce,: a program jf curriculum reform intended to raise the quality of education in the nation which, if fully implemented, would tend to raise the COqts of education substantially.

1:1is report provides a description of economic and political factors

that h~ve influenced the country's recent educational policy initiatives.

"

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I, INSTlTUTIONAL AND POLICY BACKGROUND •••••••••••••••••••••••

Administration of Education •••••••• ' ••••••••••••••••• Educational Policy Since 197J •••••••••••••••••••••••• 1

Structure of tile Education System.................... 4

- Primary and Secondary Education ••••••••••••••••••• 4

- Post-Secondary Education ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6

Enrollments Slnc2 1970 ••••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••• 7

Expenditures Over Time ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 7

II. ItIVESTMENT PROGR1\.'1 UNDER FOURTH ~!ALAYSIA PLA;-; ••••••••••••• 17

nl. 1';SUES IN PRIt1ARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ................. n

Enrollments and Total Costs , ••••••••• ,' _••••••••••••• ? t Quality Improv"!m~nts ••••••••

I. INSTr~'[jTI()NAL &~D POLICY B.c\Cl~ ROUND

1.01. In terms of both financlng and organlzation, the syster.1 or fonnal education in (\3.13Y5ia. is a highly centralized system. A World Bank survey in the mid-1970s indicated that 97, 94, and 81 percent, respectively, of all primary, secol1dary, and in-country post-secondary students are enrolled :In govern.nent schools or government-aided private schools (~!eerman. 1979, p. 100). The degree or subsidization in all such "assisted" schools is ve ry high.

Adminl5.tratioll of Education

1.02. Organizationally, the education system operates at four level~--central (or federal), state, district, and school. In Sabah and Sara"'''lk, which are much more sparsely populated than t:1e states of Peninsuliir ;'alaysia, the division replaces the distrLct as the third level in the administrative hierarchy.

1.03. Educational ',Jolicy and all educatior ,] pr-ograr.1S an~ set and moniLHed from the centf;r in Halaysia. The Hin;.ctry 01'. Ed,lIcation GloE), is divided into a set of professional divis!ons concerned with la educational matters such as curricult;.m developt::lent and teacheT:" training, on the one hand. and a set of civil service divisions plus the statutory bodieli for education, on the otber. A detailed picttlce of the ~1ini.stry's organ~zation is gi.ven in Figure 1-1.

1.04. The highest pollcy-making body within the HoE is the Educational Planning Committee (EPC). The E1'C is chaired by the Hinister of Educati.on, and its rlembers consist of the highest ranking officers in the :,toE (all those above di?lsional directors on the professional side and divisional secretaries on tbe administrative side). The one directo): Sitting on the EPC is the Director of the Economic Planning and Resear.ch Di.vision (EPRD), which serves as the secretariat to the committee (see figure I-I). ,\~, slIch, the EPRD channels proposals to the EPG from all other divisions of the ministry and is responsihle for coordinating the ministry's ;>lanning efforts \lith those of other governmental bodies including the [conoaie Planning Un~t (EPU) of the Prime ~inister's Depar~ment. 8eneath the EPC at the cent(~l level are six oth~r planning committees. responsible for (1) A developmnnt, (2) finance, (3) f>cholarsh and training, (!~) curriculum, (5) textbooks, and (6) higher education.

Education Polic Since 1970

1.05. In the early 19705, following seri.ous incidenr,s of unrest, a new polIcy er'l Ivas launched in Halaysia. As a basis for un-&,ty, a national Ideology--Rukunegara--was defined, stressing loyalty to~ing and country, the rule 0"[ law, and the impo rtance of mora li ty and good behav ior. At C1 rather more practical level, all future planning for the developaent of the nation was to he directed towards two objectives, which \lere linked undec the noncor.lmital LUbric, thE ~Ie\" Economic Policy (NEP).

http:Resear.chhttp:Educati.onhttp:pr-ograr.1S

Figure 1-1

C)l{(:ANTZATION S';"R11CTURF: OF HINIS11{Y 0;:' EDUCATION

'w ,1 THE PEOPLE I

NATIONAL STAT!:I.

PRiME, ----1 ;\AINIS1~1!f PAFlllAMEi'!T CAt'lINfT

l JMtMi;Hi~ r--" JI

J r ...u;';';'--:::ll~"A4 , 1",> f "'U~;>l"f ..1'.!.!I4"'" • i I "it I~HNi')nY Of 'OUiO(lO. .~_1

QOV(AIk)N " L~;~~I~..~J a;;VCAIIf)'M ~:Nt~li~ 1

... K>UfKA~ ',)uaUAiU'f',

OH'un M'~IS,U~ j , -.........,,,,,-,..IIW. ~\,U'''(H .,...,_ ...,"' .. ,_............. .._._ ..., '" ...."--" .... --~~ u-_...~ .. I_~ ......_ ....._""'._ ..t,.,~"""'_ ..............._.,.,-- ......

t ... ,,.,.....--_I_"""'..... ..... --'" -~.-~ (-.......... ,

_'___"f __.i

") 1 \t;(Hll't'e: t'!oF, l'.~;iIC;: t i no in ~Li i ;1 1'lEn (19H1, (:ilnr~ Ij

3

1.06. The Hrst pt'ong of this two-pronged policy calls for the eradication of poverty in the nation. As with~ost such goals In other countries, this one in :1~lnysia is sometimes expressed in absolute terms (raising the av!~rage level of wealth, income, and employment-o-pportllnities) and s::nnetimes in relative terms (reducing the gap between the lm.;est level and the average)~- To the extent that these two may be in conflict, however, :he official policy in MalRysia clearly favors the latter-reducing inequality.

1.07. The second objecti/e of the NEP is referred to as tl'e "restructuring of society." Nore conccetely, this has to do with the "reduction and eventual elimination of the identification of race with econ~mic functions." To redress past conditions that made it difficult for Malays aLd other indigenous people--the soil",--to gain access to a share of nat

or "sons of the

numbers in the population, the Halaysian government has nade race!ethnicity an explicit and fundamental factor underlying its decisions f:c>;" 8] L sectors, including education. This policy has mllch in common, certainty, ",ith affirmative action t'uliags in the United States, but it I']ould a:)pear to be more far-reaching and also more rigorously pursued.

1.08. The principal heneficiaries of this policy have been the Bumipllte,'a, who constitute about 55 pelcent of the population. The group that 'mus'::-Tose i.n r~lal:ive tl~r1:lS for the policy to be implemented is MclaY3ia's Chinese population. The other major ethnic gr~llps in Malaysia is tll; T,cmL',-::;peakLng Indians.

1.09. A~,though an und,~rst?,nd:ng of the Nl~P is cruciaL to any analysi:; of recent: d.!velopments in ~lalaysia, there have been other pol iey pr0n0l1nC(~1nents in recent times directed specifically at education policy. Very impr)rtant among these t1,S the Razak Report of 1956. The repoet, issued b:: a special committee chaired by the Ninister of Education at the time, Dato Abdul Razak, called for univerqal primary education and 11 unifi·ed ,.

- 4 -

1.11. The conversion fror.l English t') Bahasa ~·!alaysi'" as the medillt:.1. of inst.r·jctS.on 1:1 what had been Engllsh-Qedium schools began with Stafldard I classes in !970 in Peninsular ~alaJsia and proc~eded one ~rade at a time. The proces!', there is nml -::n{1"\!'?~te. In Sabah and -'. : t take at least one of the following pract:icnl 8ubjects: irldustrial arts, home (~cono[llics, agrlclllr·lral s.'i'~nce. or commercIal studies. The practical training is meant to be "pre'-vo,ational" only·--al1 exposure to the 1-1ol:"ld of work.

1.14. In 197.'., a Corn.mi..t:Lee of Cabinet ~!i~isters ""as set up :"0 h\ok cnce agai'l at education policy and tolElII1ned, now the Prime 11inister of Malaysia, served as t,le (;or.~Dittee's chainnall. The Cabinet Committee on I:ducation took its raandate seriollsl:,-, soli..:it'.ng views from all elements of :1alaysi

2

2

?fgure I-:;

STRUCTITRE OF THE FORnAL EDUCATION SYSTE.H

LII-",", F"" l' .;l"Qrll'U.

e· lila IU

--~-----r

2 IS!!

I I I I F'l~,",.--

Llly,)1 '"

! 11)(1'11

LIIYOI ~ h.ll.'l'er ""4'00

- 6

1•.'7. At the end of Fom III (grade 9), pupUs sit for the i.~ii~ Renda~ .!:el~t~!!. (formerly, Lower U;.:rtificate of Education) exa;nination conducted in Bahasa Malays!a. This provides the basis for selection into upper s2condary schooL The upper sc,:ondary level consists of three steams--ac3demic (i.e., :.'xts and scic~nces), technical (academic with 15 perci,nt of the L~structional '"irne given over to technt.:.:al subj,'cts sllch as mechanL'al drawing), and vOCe cional (concentrat ions in agriculture, comrD'~rc'~', home economics, and engineering/industrial arts;. In 198 f), there are ovel 800 upper secondary schools in Halaysia, ni.ne of wLich ;·.re des'l;snated as technic::.! aud 37 3.S voeat lana 1 schools. Two projects final1.:e

- 7

1.22. 1';

- 8

Figure I-)

ENROLWENTS Iti ASSISTED HiSTITlJrrONS, 1970-85

---,-,----- ."'-1~'2·260 • 366 1,679. ;'98 ___._ 1,1,43,961 ~.--.---

--------'--...~- S~()nt1 ~'l'y545,329

92,255

--,-.,-'T--r-'-.----r----,I--,r-'-~I--,---l---.__r___ 7/J 71 12 "/3 'I~ ?~ ;'«5 '17 'T8 i9 OIJ rJ 1 O? 3J 34.. tlj

Year

cf t~Q curve, ~~e laL~er :::-.e increase in the enroll~ent.

- 9

Figure 1--4

432,703

95,127

"

12,989

I~;

.

.':.'·

ENROU,MENTS I:{ ASSIS'L~D SECONDARY INS'!':TUTlONS. 1970-85

r-- --- ___ =.~------.--;::..: -j -------------- Lower Seconcary

_

Yenr

~ote: Enrollments are measured O~ a logarithmic scale so that the steeper the slope of the curve, the

la~ger t:,e Clercentage increase in the enrollment.

'" Based on T3ble Al in Appendix A.

-~--...-----""-------------------'-------.---------

965,870

411,623

I

- :0 -

Figun~ I--S

E:NROLLMENTS IN ASSISTW POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS. 1970-[35

:}

~1

Figure 1--6

HIN1STRY OP EDUC.ATION EXPE.."fOITIJRKS. 1957-84 (14$ BU..!.IONS)

Note: Dased on Table A2.

12

total allocated to :1oE prngr-Bms, r-oughly one-sixth was spent on development, or investment purposes in a typical year. The remainder was used to cover recurrent, or operational costs of the educational system.

1.26. Over time, expenditures bv the HoE have represented an increclsing proportion of Malaysia's GNP but a Q, easing proportion (at least since abollt 1970) of the federal budget, which h

20 ...

15

,.... .... ' c.~ OJ

t),... 10 ... (l)

p.. '-'

5 ..

- 13

Figure I-7

HINIS1'RY OF EDuCAcrroN EXPENDI11J'R,ES AS PERCENTAGE

OF FEDERAL BUDGET t\N!) PERCENTAGE OF

GROSS NATIONAL PRonDe:, 1957-84

,~''~r--~~.r~" of Bud,et \\; \ , ._,.//"!

J t

' A.A..A ~r 'v"b '''''''';~/ I ,/'--I>~' ~-«->j'~---",. I

,.,h_!o->~ % of GNP

/ I

'-I-"--'~"""""""-r--"'j"""~~~''r---r-''''''''-'t-'"'f''~i-'-''''''-)- -cw,.-~, ""~'''-'i-.r.-,.....-l

6~ 63. as 1$6 G? ~G 71 'it} 'Ji$ 'n '/'fJ @l

SJte: Based on Tahle A2.

- If.

Figure I-8

MINISTRY OF EOOCATION Rl":Cl!".

1 ~ I - 15

1

ftgure 1,-9

HHnSTRY OF RDUCATlml RECtJ'!it.RENT KXPKNDlTUlmS. 1976-84 (M$ BILLIC~S)

Emoluments

:a .. .J••f) •

,ii,." )1,.

- 16

Figure 1-10

IHNISTRY 02 EDUCATION OPERATIONAL BUD:;ET BY FUNCTION, 1981}

:~te: Based on table AS.

-- 17

PRO:;RAH UNDER FOURTH HALAYSIA PLAt\!II.

2.01, i\ principal reason for undertaking this study was to assess the impact, if any, on the development of Halaysia's education system, of a p'.lblic expt~nditure adjustment program initiated by the government during 1982. The annollnr.cd purpose of the adjustment program was to reduce fiscal and balance of payments deficHs that had emerged in 1980 and 1981 owing to a detrimental shift in the country's terms of trade, escalating public expenditures, and declining public revenues. To understand how the edl.lc&ti,m iavestment program has been .:;nd is being affected, it is nec~ssary to examine the allocations to this sector under the Fourth Naln),sil Plan, And to place these figures in perspective within the context of:he )verClll development budget and.recent trends in development expenditures for education.

2.02. f'igure 11-1 presents the development allocations to and expo.:nditurcs by the HoE under the Second, Third,

'.•,~;.'

.

- 18

Figure II-I

Hllnsnu Ui EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT AlJ.OCATI01{S

AND ~~:CPENDITUR.ES. 1971-85 (M$ BILLlmiS)

~1.6 ~--"'-------"------.-~"~--~~-

De':: sed Actt':tl :\} lcc:lt-lon EXDenciture

r~~ rstirnat:~d ~Expenditure. 19RO-33

http:CPENDITUR.ES

').,

- 19

2.05.. By allocating le~;s to agencies than had been approved in principl'~. the Treast:'ry retaLled greater control over the development budget. It was then much easier at the time of the [lid-Term Review (In'R) at the t"~d of 1983 to raise (or low,;r) the total five-year allocations to a&encies that had been successful (or l:nsllccessful) in spending their prov:l.sio1al allocations during the fit·st three years.

2.06" A second and perhaps more ir,:,ot-tant reason for the smaller provLsional allocations was that the nation's financial crisis was already loom!.ng on the horizon when til::! FHI' was being drawn up. By comrr.itti:lg smaller amounts in the FHP than promised -:or the plan Feriod. the Treasury waul,) find it easier at the time of the ~ITR not only to alter the proP:lrtions allocated across agencies_. but also, if necesspla,n was Zi.cSt dralv!l up. Unfortunately, the criterion used [,)[ the retention or de 8':

- 20

2.i1. 1~~ Ministry's 55 percent is an average figure. The increases in the allo,::ltions to the individual sub-sectors differ by.:t lot. [he allcc;i,tiol1 filL pri-uary education projects increased hardly .It all. (a 6 p~,r:t~.:: slli.f ... to ~t$665 "lillian). Hence, primary education's share of the total al.lK8::

2.12. The remainder of this report looks in detail at the principal indiv!.dual sub-sectors of r~le floE) e~~atllining the investment prospects for the r",rr.ainder of the FMP periorl and beyond and exploring other key issues. thapL:r III deals with primary and secondary educati.on, and Chapter: IV with por< t-"econdary.

[

I f t

t f

http:educati.on

,- 21

III. ISSUES IN PRHLARY AND SECO~DARY ED~CATION

3.01. This chapter of the report focuses on priL1in-y and seconuar:' ed'..H:ation wit" the exct~ption of voeational/t;echnical. t..Jhile growing considerably less rapidly than vocational/technlcal and pf)st-secondary education, primary and general secondary education together still account for over 95 percent of the nation's pupil populaticn (see Table Al in t\ppendi x A).

Enrollrents and Total Costs

3.0~. Clearly, the overriding determinant of the cost of any edw.:at i on"l system is the enrollment of pupils in the .,ystem. The very clo:;e ;'el;"tionship between enr"ollment levels and co':' t stems froCt the fact tha: i" ec!ucation--owing in" part to technological considera::ions and in par"': t( tl'anitionalisCt--the use of most purchas~d. i,nputs in cel~~':if)T\ t::; en r olL1ents does not vary greatly betlJeen 3ystems 01" over time. The 1:10S t costly of inputs are classrooms, a capital Input the costs of which,

1. ()', . i!~~t)LJ.. ~;O?'...~:_,1t ::.1:1 ::>ltlt t-i 1'.\t~M .. _, 1;, iop:)r::~ln:.ly in t;>~ grc\-.,·...:h o~. t. :11 c t ~) i n t: ~ (; ~::.. r:..:. t 1' !:. ,1 '..; ...-: u f ~ >t) dev(~lor01t2r:t of :'~O'3t:. ~~~'-:::\:,).

rel:lti\'ely less iLlpor::,.1nt at 1 ~~·ter stage. qua:i~.:.y th" llPi'r:l(;in~ of te.J.ch,,:het:~er instruc:tlJ)T1[1L :''..''i.: r·~:')l

n\~d

:',,;:1 :: \''0_ ~t 1 ~ '-: -'-"- -".,---'~

t~nh(l ~or~s) '~;{(' ~\;di ;;?~

P1TPIL-TS\CETI A~1) PTJPIL·-SCHOOL "X::03.

~'!n!~\'RY ;1;'1) S2COXD,\..'Y ::m;C.\.T:;:C:-{. 2.960-83

i. "

l I,

----~--------.-,~-------.---... -'--.-... --..- i 19M [S'H i9H 19'

-,' - l~i-t.

Unit C03ts

3.11. Table 111-2 looks at the recurrent costs of primary and s~condary educati)[1 for the most recent period, th~ years since 1978, for ~hich chen~ wen~ pa tcl:j data available when this Bank mission \las in Halaysia. Bet~Jcel1 1978 an1 1981, expenditures p~r pupil i~ primary, secondary day, and secondary boarding schools went up at a',erage annua" ratE:S of 10,13, and 17 percent respectively, w.',th r.lUch large,- than average "9J,,16. The generous provis·lon of primary and secondary education, with

over 95 percent of the full direct costs financed out of the central

government budget and less than 5 percent borne privately, represents a

conscious :,ffoct by ilalaysian authorities to achieve equal access to

e(;ucation for all H,:llaysians. The abs!'nce of eX31,lination hurdles and the

Tabla nI-~

tJNl! ~etrR..~E..fT COSTS OF PRllf.ARY .~"'D SECONDARY eDlJCATION, 1.978-83

fmrU;ilIf! " --,----------,-_._--, . ,~,ll " 1~1 Ql~"

~INf. n rt'OTImI (il) ;51 !&:~ lfO 479 10.31

IlJ) !liO s::r1 ,;1 4. '1/"

SECIt iIIIm E]l&!:.lUl(t~

Ibr SrJ~!Rdt {.l: ~oo sn :U5 H:!1 t2.iiL

8c'ii~~ ~1c, (4) t,9Jl) 1.~1'" 2t(U~ 3,214 J7,,)1

At. SdlLeh f(jJ 1!f,~ tJ~ 1.,~1 _oo:_...__ ..'_~_,_......... ___'___~~ ,~ .,..._~,~=..._._.,--.,."". ....~--.. ---,,.,------ '""'- _

No~,t'!: Th@ annual perc:encage change when the cost 1.ncreases frOtil Xl to X2 bet"W'een year tl and ye~.u: t2 1.5 calcula.ted a:l (In(Xl)-ln(Xt)) I (1:2-t1) •

SOl'XCUI: (

- 26

syst.e:n of automatic prol!lotion t:,t"ough Form III are directed t0ward precisely the same egalitarian g0":tend d~e

http:pres~nt.edhttp:readi.nghttp:Prim:.ryhttp:secondl,.ry

- 27

3 •. ~1. Howevec. tile l~lass size distributiol in Halaysia is highly skewed. About 90 ?ei

- 28 .•

years. In its evaluation of the curriculum, the MoE agreed that the existing two-y.-,ar course ~VilS inadequate to prepare new teachers to handle the m?Sc. Accordingly, a third year was added to the course in 1981 (resulting in no output of new teachers in 1983).

:1.26. For existing teachers, new in"servlce courSLS h:lve been ~nv~loped. All existing tenchers ar~ to receive NPSC trpining. ar~ tire "-J.gnlficant number of so-called "temporary" (unqualified) te.:.l.checs are to be ~ither upgraded via training or replaced.

3 :Zl , Under the Fou'ctll P lan, four new TTCs ~.;ere co be stin"ted, seve ral existing TTCs ...ere to b,~ expanded, and one TTC begun unde' the Third Plan ~,ras to be completed. It iB uncertai!l how much of this plan will actually be ir:lple:lented by t~ .. ('. end of 1985~ Clearly. hove"'l', tly~ cun:enc output of Malaysia's teachr_L' tra.tning syste;a--fewer i.:'nan 7,000 Ht.:;'1 r.GLt.:hers annually·--i::; inadequate to accommodate; (a) the gro\o!~n of. th-::: ~rima ry school plpiL populaUon (1,500-3,000 new teachers ::equired "l,lnuaUy); (b) teacler attrition of ahout 2 pe':cent (1.5CO"2,5GO teacher,; ;":!ll;~·'\]'i..Y);. (c) the Jne-time Inc~ease in the teacher rement ne=~g~ary to a~hieve NPSC tar ~et::; and to mak2 up for the absence of ell:)' TTC ._~ti' .. :)\:: in 199:~ (4,O()0-5,00) teachers each year bet.leen 1984 ani 1988); ar',d ~.:) ,:he replace1t~nt of "ter.lporary" teach~r.R (numbers not avp.!la::le).

3.28. ~limination of Double Shiftin&. In 193L there ~ere about 61,000 primary schJol classes in Halaysia (MoE, Data ihnk) but only about 45,000 primary 3chool classrooms (Halaysia, Inv~_stm~~~.-!. i,)3!"~~, Annex III, pp. 6-7). T,lis means that roughly half of all classf;s (32/61.) were sharing clas:;,roons. The goal of the HoE is to eliminate double sl,f.fti:lg altogether by 1995. Clearly, this has important implications hr the annual development bud~et5 between now and then.

3.29" The number of primary school classrooms in Halaysia in 11)1)1 W.,\S 44,994. According to a recent analysis by MoE staff, in order to achieve by 1995 (a) the eradication of double shifting, and (b) elass-pupil ratios of 1: 35 for 90 percent of the pupil population and 1: 24 for the remaining 10 p",rcent in isolated areas, the number of classrooms would h';ive to incr,:'!ase by 98 percent over the lll-year ~period, to 89,190 classrooms i!1 1995.. The required number of classrooms in 1990 would be 65,9St (a 47 percent increase over nine years) assuming (a) that 20 percent of classes would stUI have to share classrooms and (b) that by then 90 percent of pup' ,wuld be in classes of 36.5 (down from 37.5, but still abclle the 35 pUp.l.. ,.;;rget) and 10 percent still in classes of 17.5 (no change from >J! today). U!alaysia, Investment Program, Annex III. N.B.: The analysis assumes enrollments ot"Z.542 million in 1990 and 2.838 million in 1995. These enrollments are \}9 percent of the projected 6-to-11 year old age ~ groups in these years.)

3.30. NPSC an~ Secondary Education. By 1988 the NPSC will cover all

six primary grades. In 1989 the first cohort of t-,'PSC pupils will enter

lower secondary school. The tioE reasons that a new curriculuf1 with

char'lcterlstics 'limi1ar to those of the NPSC should be introduced into the

- 29

-~-

secondary schools at that time. ~he Curriculum Development Center of the Ministry (c;ee Figure 1··1 above) is nO'... \.]Qrking on the instructional materials.

3.3.1.. As vlith primary education, a class-pupil rati·) of 1:35 (up from 1:36.6 at present) and a teacher-clas" ratio of 1.5 (up from 1.43) are conGidered prerequisites for implementing the new curric.ulum. Double 5hifti~~ is even more prevalent in secondary than in primary schools; in 1981 there were only 56 secondary school classrooms for every 100 classes. The MoE accepts that 80 per 100 is the best it can hope for by 1990, and 90 per 100 by 1995. Horking with these coefficients, the ministry calculates thal-_ tr.:! number of secondary school classrooms nation-wide must go from 17,.':.27 in 1981 to 32,949 in 1990 (an 89 p~rcent increase over the nine-year period) and to 44,136 in 1995 (153 percent over sixteen years), ambitious car.;;ets indeed. (Halaysia, Investment Pr~Ea~, Annex III. These caL:ulations are based on projected enrollments of 1.441 m-Lllion in 1990 3nd 1.716 million in 1995.)

3 .3:·! _, Specially designed pre-service and iT- -service training will be intl:~o(kced in support of the ne\~ secondary sCllool curri(;ulu!"!1,_ In additi."f', the HoE plans to replace all nongraduate teachers at the upper secondary level with university-trair,(:.d teachers and to raise the number of graduate teachers at the lower secondary level to 40 percent of the total.

Research Support for the New Primar" School Curriculum?--..--~--------------- ~.--..----------

3.33. No matter what assumptions one makes about the rates at whidl the var5.ous elements are implelllented, iL is apparent that the NPSC and it~ secondary school counterpart are costly propositions with respect to both capital expenditures (especially for new classr"oms and teacher training) and recurrent expenditures (teacher salaries). Huch to its cr;:dit, the HoE has tried to demonstrate that these additional expenditures will payoff in terms of greater ·achievement on thC! part of the children in schaol.

3.34. MoE researchers ran a series of statistical analyses intended to explain differences in Bcade~ic achi~v2rnent acro~s the nation. This res.!arch 1s described in Appendix ·D.' Although th,~ results of the research should be treated ,.. ith some caution for reasons spelled out in the App'~ndix, neverthe18ss, tile 1'10E's findings need not be ignored, especially in the several instances wh~re these findings are consistent u1th ~lat has been reported else~~;re.

$J

3.35. Despite some contraditions, the results hint quite strongly that the teacher-pupil, reom-pupil, and pupil-school ratios are positively related to pupil ach~vement, ap..l also that grildllate teachers and single shift schools are ass"'ociated with higher achievement. If we accept these re!.a tionships to be causal. then the findings tend to support the government's decisions tn put money into smal!2~ classes (higher teacher-pupil ratios), classrooQ construction, school consolidation (hii~her pupil--school ratios), ar,d improving teache;.- qualifLcations.

http:17,.':.27

- :,0

3.36. A 1972 study by H.S. Beebout (ctte~ 1n Snodgras~, 19~O, pp. 255-257), I but not for English-medium schools I ~;/'nich stin existed side-by-side with Malay-med.uTI! schools in 1970. AlthJugll Beebout did control 'or pupil background (by including inittal achlev8lEnt: as an independent variable), it could be that school inputs had a gr~at,!r f,mpact on MaI.::~'-speaking ,lupiJ,s than on pupils attending Engli.sh--me958 and 7,830 planned, "'.nd 11,003 and 5,490 expected for completion; ~lsewhere in the same set of figures, the classrooms expected for completion are said to ~e 9,536 and 5,197 (\loE, Development and Supply Division).

http:M$1,483.63http:govE:rnm.mt

- 31

3.40. The discrepancies reflect) in ll

•• 32 ,

tIV. ISSUES IN POST-SECONDARY EDUCAfIO~ r I i

4.01. This chapter looks at post-secondary education in ~lalaysia, the ,f resilLence of which has been fairly tested in recent times owi.ng to: (a) rapid expansion and (b) heightened expectations. (a) Enrollments in gover,:unent institutions will have increased nearly 400 percent between 1970 and 1"185; total enrollments, lncluding students in private instituticns and stude':lts abroad, nearly 1,000 percent. (b) Under the New Economic PoHcy, highe:' education is expected to contribute importantly to the amelioration of pa~t social inequities.

Ih02 111e chapter is divided into three principal secti.ons: (1) an analysis of Malaysian post-secondary ~~llm"!nts at home and abroae, by cthnidty and gender, (2) an analysis of the '£'E.~_ting b~ of Malaysia's major institutions of higher education, and (3) a consideration of th~ efficacy of student loans as a means of both extendin~ ~cc~sd to and reduc Lng the fiscal-:'bur,len ofhtgher education.

4.03. Figure IV-l shows Malaysian post-secondary enrollments over time, not i':1.cluding students in teachet' training colleges. Bettveen l'HO and 1983, the total of such students {nCl'eased more than tenfold. For each degre,~-level. diploma-level, and certifi.cate'-level student respectively tn 1970. there were 5.4, 11.2, and 48.8 students in 1983.

14.040 Overseas enrollments have accounted for a significant part of the fanta:.tic increase in higher education enrollments. There were virtually nc Malaysian students studying abroad tn 1970. By 1930, thet'e were about 30 thousand, which amounted to 39 percent of the total post-secondary enrolhnent; by 1983, there wei:"

4.05. There are two explanations for Malaysia's large overseas enrollments. First, despite the great increase in the number of highe~ education places in the country. Malaysia still lags behind other East Asian countries on this particular indicator of development. Malaysia's enrollment ratio at the tertiary level in 1981 was just 5 percent. Korea, which has almost the same income per capita, haei a tertiary enrollment

ill ratio of 18 percent. In Thl:iiland and the Philippines, where lncome per capit'l is only half that tn Korea and Nalaysia, the terti.ary eSlrollrr.ent ratios WAre 20 percent and 26 percent respectively (Horld Bankji Qevel

33

Figure H'-J

ElfIlOIJJOml'S IN HIGHIm KOOCA?IO~J BY "t'Y1?E OlF COURSE, 197o-D3

).3!J

,120

l!O

lOO

~ ,,,

III III «'0

~.. \1 t:: ....

'toIY \J ~ II .... ~

eo '10 t) ~ tos: to 5

li:J

;ro

Ai)

-r~~ 19"ro

" Note: Based on table A8.

- 34

[~.06 " The New Economic 1'011 '.~y provides the second reason fo r the expansion of Halaysian enrollrne;!ts abroad. As ex.,lained i:. Chapter I of this report, a major objective of the NEP is the "restructurll.g" of Nalaysian society, meaning that the government intends to equalize (!conomic Oppoi~tur,iti.es acros~; racial/.:::hnic lines. S!.nce education, especially higher education, is one of the keys to socia.l mobility in Halaysia as else',.Jhere, p!'oviding access to scarce places in E-ducational i.nstitutions. is an important aspect of the NEP. Accordingly, seriC'·w efforts have been P.1ade to in.e::ease the t"elative intake of !~~:.£.ut~ into Halaysia's PJblic instttuL "H15 of hlgher education.

4.07. The distribution of enrollments in zovecnmc~t-assisted institut!,)ltS over time by race is shown in Figure IV-2.. Between 1970 and 1980, the proportion of government-institution places filled by 'Bilmiputer,!!. stucent~; rose from 54 pet"cent (approximately equal to this group's ?opulaL.on share) to 73 percent. Although the absolute numbers of Chinese and Indian students enrolled in government instituti.ons increased over this pertod ,IS 'olell, the relative enrollments of these r:HO mhiOrity' gro 1lp5 decline:l, '/ery significantly in the case of the Chinese"

l~ .oa. Despite this decline, hm-Je'!er, the Chinese and Indian shares of the total :>f higher educatIon enrollments actually ·..;ent up as seen in Figu-re-'[V-). in the Chj,,~s~ case from 38 percent in 1970 to 43 percent 1..1 1983, aad j.n the Indient CedE! from S to tl percent. Large numbers of students deni;::d entra ::! i~to Halaysia's public inst~.tutions sought other outJets to sat5.sfy their deaand for higher education.

L••09. As i!ldicated above, much of the student overflow spread abr)ad. In 1983, S9 percent of all Malaysian Chinese students enrolled -in higher educ.ation, and SS percent of Indiar:. wer~ studying outside Halaysia; fl)r Bum:L:e~:.~'=!2.. students, the figure was caly 20 percent. Horeover, a sigr,iricf'.nt number of Chinese and Indian Gtud

- 35

1$170 (N'-"ll. 364)

!lumlputlflu

IG81il (N=36,397)

r&:Zl

r.:0te: 3a.sed on Ta ble A9. ..

1 - 36 .

Figur-e IV-:J

1"OTAL HIGHER EDUCATION ENROU..::aWTS RY ~.;'CE. 1970-33

11900 UI03 C.J~'76 ,188) 119,869)

tzZZ] indlfl:clll ~ Otb~r

•1

uno (N:;ll, 364)

rzZJ Di17~1~)ut'~rn

Note: BaseJ -~ Table A9 .

4.11. ~~laysia's five universities and two colleges are constituted as semi-autonomous statutory bodies and, with the exception of policies and procedures for admitting students, are run luite free from government interference. The Higher Education DivisL i1 of the l-loE, oth~r than processing entrance applications, exe~ciscs little control over and matntains ohly modest information about the operations of theseinstitutions. Each institution has its o~m governing body and, though depe:1dent on the central. government for most of its development and oper&.tillf:, funds, ts g'_ven considerable leeway in dec.iding how to allocate theee f'mrb.

4.12. !igure VI-4 disaggregates, for each of Malaysia's established univers ~ti,'!s and the I'tARA Institute of Technology, the institution's to':aJ income '~n 1983 lr, t::rms of major expenditure categories--( 1) emoluments and (2) oth,~r ::urrent expenditures; and revenu~ sources-(l; grants-In-aid fror.! the fed~ral government, (2) fees collected fro~~lent3. and (3) other inco[lle. The "other i.ncome" category, whi.ch 1.S USLime and interest earned' en _;'k' institution's reserves. Grants-in-aid typt~alty account for about 90 percent of total income, ",nd fees for somewhere betHcen 5 ..... ,,1. 10 1"::r,::'::(1;-::;

4.1:,. There i.s no standard tuition fee charg~d stud,:,' ts in Nalaysian institutions. Different illstitutions charge different rat~s, even in the same fi!ld of study. :f an institution wishes to change ~hat it charges stu~ents, ~he new rates must be approved 'y the MoE, but tl:is seew~ to be a EE.?_ for~ :;:>roeedure. There has been some c:'ought given to a neH v'Hey of sta~dardtzed fees.

t•• l i f. On the expenditur":!s side, emolumen~:s .'CCQunt foc rOl.~hly two-thirds of the total on average, somewhat les3 in th~ scienc~- and technology-oriented i.nstttutionl:l (especially USH and the MARA Inf,titute 0

- 38 .

ltigure 1V-4

al~ EDUCATION UlCOK.E AND ~n"KNDI'ft.JRKS laY ;i~~a AlID CATEGORY OF llS~. 1983

(M$ Millions)

C;~l ~"---------------••--.-_________._____.____

":

7;;)

:tl (!J I-i

t;;)=' ';" ....

""Cl (Il~ '""

(!J ~ '7l0'J p.. 0

.,.l lJJ r-l

-i

~

,~;fJ""Cl ~ >:: T(t;!

vr

n .,b iii 0 (,) -... IIIC](,) I'd !. '4l 1. ::J:l 0 u~ " €J.:«

lJR}!

~ USH

U'TI-'

MARA

1@S2 1H3 lQM

A USM U1'M v

Unlvers it," of Mu~aya

t:nlversity Pertanian Malaysia

Universiti Kebangsaan r1alaysia

t'niversiti Sains Malaysia 1:

i.:niversi ti Teknologi M'llaysf.a

!-!a 1115 Amanah Rakyat

A

.- 40

'+.16. If one can assuoe that the relationship between institutional size and expenditure per pupil would hold in the longer run, i.e., that then". are economies or scale in the production of higher education in HalaysiR, then one may ask whether the further expansion of Malaysia's existing ins titulions would not be a desirable poJ icy to follow. Indeed, despl.te the recent increases in enrollments, Malaysia's universities still appe.:,r rather small and unit costs quite large by comparison \lith other counl:riEs in the region at comparable levels of development. While the excei.ler:ce of MalaYtlia's universities, particularly the more established ones; is a matter of record, a program of gradual expansion in the future wouL! pErhaps further 1:'educe unit costs without ai'fec::ing academic standan's.

It .17. To some extent, this is the po licy already bei ng pu rSLIed in Malaysi.? \.le have witnessed the recent growth in the numbers enrolled in Malaysiu's major institutions of higher education. Horeover, under the Fourth Plan, post-secondary education was allocated 26 percent of th~ t-Ota1.c HoE devr lopment budget uriginally, and the ffi.l.d-t(HI'l rQ'ILsions increase the post···seconclary a~location to 33 percent. Host of the sizeable allocation is beinr uned to expand existing institucions (sec Table AI) in Appendix A). Although a detailed review of the list of buildings and other works originally planned for implementation over: the five·-year period shows that

I a sllr~risingly large number of projects have been deferred ,"'I neverthc,less, higher education is by far the fastest growing- element of Halaysia's domestic education system, grO'.ving two to thrf.>e tio€s faster than secondary and six to nine tirr.es faster than prlmary education in terms of em:ollments.

4.18. The aggregate figures r:lay, hOlVever, be somewhat mi.sleadine. A significant part of the development allocation to existing institutions is being used for branch campuses, thereby undermining perhaps the potential gain', to he achie;-~from larger enrollments. The National University and the Universities of Science, Agriculture, and Technology all have two campuses. The 11ARA Institute of Technology has six campuses and an extensi?e program of off-campus courses.

L•• :.9. Branch campuses and .off-campus courses can be cost-saving, to the extent :hat they reduce the requirement for building additional faCilities, such as dormitories, or permit students 1o1ho would otherwise h,Lve to quit jobs to continue working while studying part-time. Ho\.ever, branch campuse''; and off-campus programs are cost-augmcnt2:ng to the exten'i that they in'lOive the unnecessary duplication of specialized staff tJr~f large, costly tnputK such as libraries, lahoratories, and co~puter centers. The net eff,~ct in Halaysia of b~ilding extra-institlltional appendagcs:at the higher educaliion level is not known but is somethi.1g that r~rhaps"shollid be investigated:

41 The list of projects by ~nstitution is available frum tIll" ;luthor.

http:somethi.1ghttp:despl.te

- 41

[ •• 200 In addi tion to branch campuses apd of f-campus courses. the Halaysi.an government has begun construction of a brand new university under the Fourth t~l&ysia Plan, the Northern University in Ke~~h. It will soon admit its first class of about 300 students. Finally Lhere is the small and highly specialized International Islamic University (IIU), recently completed with Saudi assisr~nce. In .983, its first year, the lIU enrolled 122 Halaysians and 31 non-!.laysians.

Student Loans

4.21. Although there llk"1y be a Q\12stion about the short-run trade-ofEs betw€.2.n the expansion of existing institutions on the one hand, and the creation of new institutions al~ institutional branches on the other, in the long nm the question is perhaps moot. The government is doing both, creating new institutions and E!xpanding those that already exist. The ultiMate goal of the Malaysian go~prnment is to increase domestiC' enro1.lmeclts at the higher education level so as to lessen thet'li1tion's reliance on foreigners for the education of Malaysian stud~~~~:

The expansion of facilities for degree level courses is a delLberate attempt ::''1 reduce gradually the H"lmber of stujents pursuing courses overseas. In addition, facLlities for conducting pre-university courses will D~ grajually provided locally for students spnnsoied by th~ Government to pursue degree level courses overseas. These rneasures will not only help reduce the burden on foreign exchange lmt would also lessen the influence of undesirable cultures and values among students who leave the country at such an early age. (Malaysia, Mid-Ter~ ~evie~, p. 361.)

I~ .22. But on this front the government seems to be fight ing a lm;ing batt le. While the number of higher education students studying at home increased by 51 percent between 1980 a~d 1983 (Erom 46,457 to 70.214), the number studying overseas increased even more) by 67 percent (froll 29,731 to 49,655).

4.2"). Students enrolled in government-assisted post-secondary institutions in rtalaysia receive large public subsidies, in most cases covering over 90 percent of the direct costs of their education. Students enrolled abrgad may receive subsidies as ,.,rei I; few institutions of higher education an!)iwhere actually charge f.~es at the felll cost-recovery level. Nevertheless.:. 11alaysian sturlents overseas are faced with private costs well above those Borne by students studying at horne.

S!>

4.2t~. Host British and American universities and colleges charge tuition rates much higher than those prevalent in Halaysia. Moreover, there are substantial round-trip travel and addicional accomodation costs associated with overse:1.S st'.ldy. An HoE official estim

- 42

currently ~~32,000 (approximately U.S. $13,900) in precious foreign exchange. In Britain, ':.lhere foreign students used to be subsidized to the Bame extent as British students, in 1981 the Conservative Government imposed hefty fees on all non-British subjects attending British ins ti tut iores > inc ludi ng Commont{eal th scudents.

4.25. Wer~ the i'!alaysian government not willing to assist, the burden of fees and r",lated costs faced by overseas students might prove to be too much for mtlny ot the 50,000 students now out of the country and their families at homE\. One way that the Halaysian Government is assisting a fe\.J such students, approximately 1,000 at this time, is quite interesting and should he carefully evaluated with a view towards possible expansion so as to benefit more students. perhaps domestic students eventually as well as over·seas.

4.26. Tn 1982, in. ("esponse to the introduction of fees in Brit2.in, the Malaysim ~:overnment with assistance from the British Industrial Trade Associa:ioll launched d small program to extend interes t-free loans to Malaysi.m students abroad. Applications are rec.::ived by the overseas offtces of the Halaysian Student Department. To be eligible, an individual must al::-aady be studying abroad and certified as a stud'::i'{t i.n good :j;:amU.!)'i in an a~.::redited in!>titution. Each loan recipient !:lust have two guarant lrS, each earning a minimur:! monthly income of ~!$1 ,oe O. Loans may be eitl:er ·'short-t.erm" or "long-term" depending on circumsta,lces. The HoE rep.•nei no serious problems with the program to date.

1+ .27. In addition to this program for overseas students, some of Hal

- 1~3

charges and the other private costs of higher education. An officer in the Scholars'tlip and Training Division of the Mo~ indicated that at least 55 percent ~f all local stv1ents and 45 percent of Malaysian students overseas are government "sponsored" "tudents. Although many governmept agencies sponeor students uEing funds allocated by the Treasury as part of their annual operating bud~ets. the Scholarship and Training Division of the MoE acts as Lhe central coordinating budy, processing all scholarship appltcatilDs and administering all sch~la~ship funds on behalf of the

sponqoring ag~ncies.

4.31. Sponsored students typically receive MS3,OOO per year at the diploma level, and M$3,300 at the tegree level. In return for this financial assistance, nearly all sponsarad studenLa ~re bonded to their spon:lDrtng agencf.es for several years upon graduation. The length of t:1e bond period varies by sponsoring agency and by field of study, but sevenyear ~o~ds &~~m to be the most coanon. A graduate rn~y d'sch?~~~.hts or her bond by paying the sponsoring agency a predetermined amount, typica'lLy betw,'~en MS50,OOO and M$75,OOO. 'This indemnity is so large, however, 3S to be a'fordable only by tte very wealthy.

4.32. C:he program ot bonded scholarships in Halaysta might he justifted on t'le 1'as1.s of either or both of the folLowi.ng arguments: (1) Its re,>1l1ts are consistent with the New Economic Policy, helping (a) to equalize hous,~h01.d i.ncomes and (h) to restructure Malaysi.an society so as to etimina~e the connection that has existed between race and economic oppcrtulliLes; and (2) it encourages student"! to specialize in those fields wher~ market demand is Iligh and to avoid those fields where market demand is low. A recent study of the bonded schoLlrship program, however. by two rese,archer~3 at the University of Malaya ~I has led to a conclusion that the pro .. (ram in its present form serves neither the equity nor the efficiency gOals intended for it by the Malaysian Government.

4.3:1. The program, the researchers argue, should be reviewed hy the Economi,~ PLanning Unit and the Ministry of Education, and then either modtfiei s:) al'> to serve these goals, ot' eliminated. The aut',lOrs call for

" the pro~ra:Q's elimination and replacement ~{i.th "~ N?cional Student Loan Bank,

••• which would provide repayable loans to all students, both for ov,.!rseas as '.;ell dS local un{.versity and higher' education s::':ldies. These loans '''''ould ~ repaid, in full, out of the future incomes of the graduates. Even poor students will, thanks to their education, uI"timately emerge as relatively rich ;nembers of the society, and, therefore. they should discharge their soctal accountability to the next p,eneration by repaying their 10an3. For this reason, the supply of student aid should he in the form of repayable loans rather than grants. (Mehmet and Yip, pp. 23-24.)

51 The study i!l summc rized in Appendix E.

http:Malaysi.anhttp:folLowi.nghttp:agencf.es

4.34. Despite the theoretical attractiveness of all such recolJUuendations, student loans remain relatively untested in practice, and where they have been tried, their history of success has been nixed (see Woodhall, ;983, for a review of international experience with student loans). A student loan scheme, even L it is a fiduciary success, cannot solve all I.f a nation's proble!!ls in the area of higher education finance. Questicns:oncerning the efficiency and equity of the system will remain, and nevi onl~s are llkely to emerge. Student loans should not be looked upon as a panac!a. Nev

- L,5

BIBLICGRAPHY

Aziz, A•.\., 'lnd C.T. Yow. "Halaysia." In Schooling in the ASr.:AN Region, edi:ed by T.~. Postlethwaite and R.B. Thomas. Ne'", York~ Pergamon Pre:;s, 1980.

Aziz" U•. \. "The Universities of Hlllaysia." :n The C01"lll1onwf.alth Unl.'~s1tie.s Yearbook, 1983.

Heyneman, S.P. "Influences on Acaflemic Achievement: A Comparison of Results from Uganda and Hore Industrialized Societies." Sod of Education 49 (July 1976): 200-211. ~~~.,~~L

Hai.a)'sil1, Government of. Bel~r,jawan Persekutuan 1979. [Budget Book, 1979.1 Kuala LUl!lpur: Department of Stati

- 46

}~d-Term Review of the Fourth Plan ter

Heerman, J .. Public ~euditures in !-lalaysia: Who Benefits al!i \~L' Ne'.' Yurk'; Oxford University Press, 1979.

!'lehmet, O. and Yip Yat Hoong. "Technical} f;cient Uic and High-Lev'2l Manpo~er Development in the Malaysian University System: The Role of Publ1,: S::holarship Policy." International SymposIum on Technol(';gy, Cultul'elnd Development, University of !-lalaya, De;::ember 1983.

Psacharopo,llos, G. "Returns to Education: An Updated International Comparison." In T. King, ed., Education and Income, Horld Bank Staf f Werking Paper No. 402. \'/;lshington-:-D:'C.:-IBRD;Tuly 1980.

Woodha~_l. M. "Student Loans as a l1eans of rinancing Higher Education: Lesse ns From I nterna t lonal Expe rience, \H th Special F..mphas is un Les s neve~ 0pE:d Countries." Horld Bank Educat ion Depal:tment, unpublished manu'cri.pt, 1983.

World 3ank. Halaysia, Industrial Training Project, Staff .:\p.eEa~sa~_y.::~ot-.!:. Repo;·t tIo. 3740a-:!A. \·J;"shiniton:-D.C.:-·-[BRD~1982:

Halaysia, Strllc:tural Change and Stabilization. Report No. L'~829"" ... t1.t\. Washington, I).C",: IBRD~ 1983. --"---

Aorld Development Indicators, .J 97 8. i,Tas~ington, D.C.: L978.

Indicators 1979. Washington, D.C.: ______c

t Indicators 1980. Washington, D.C.:

=-;-______,.__~________ .-'--__~_--'-__1~9___8_::;.1. \.,ash i ng ton, D. C • :

World Develo t Indicators 1982. Washington, D.C.: 1

APPENDIX A

STATISTICAL TABLES

! i

f' r l

t

I ~ r, i i,

.! - i ,~ !~

:.t lFJi>

----

Appendix A Page 1

Table Al

E.N"'tdll..LHEWfS III ASSIsr.m INS'TlTOTIONS ~y Um.. 01 ImUCATION, 1970-85

1970 1980 1983 1985 lq7~-~ij 1980-B3 1993-85 lq70-B~

PRIIIARV 1,679,796 2,009,587 2,120,050 2,2bO,3bb 1.1l".: 1.BI 3.21: 1.Bl 1 01 Tol:al 75.01 63.8'{ 62. n 59.51

SECONDARY 545,329 1,089,438 1,219,450 1,443,9bl ~.91 3.8! B.H b.21. 1 of TO':ill 24.31 34,61 35.71 30.0'1

Lower !leron,:ary Sources: For 1970, Malaysia. Fourth Mlll.:.\ysia Plan (198\, pp. 3115-6). for 1980-85, Malaysi., M1d~T~~ ~view (1984, p. 350).

http:Diplml.il

-- ----

Appendix A

Page 2

~IINIS1'RY OF EJJI'CA:i'IO~l EXPENDITURES, 1957-S!.

----~-----.--

E~p8nditures eM$ M,) Total as Perce~-age of:

Year RE:current Development Total Fed. TJtal S!Capit a

1957 123 13 136 14.2 2. 22

,1958 135 15 150 15.2 J.3 23

1959 150 9 159 16.2 3 • 1 24

')'1960 165 ll~ 179 18.0 3.2 ~t)

1961 J84 27 21i 17 .5 3.7 30

1962 : 19 43 262 18.5 l~ ,!, .\'5

1963 -:.37 46 283 15. Lf !J, .:'.. :,7

],1964 : 83 !,4 327 15.0 /'- ,R

1965 . 34 67 401 18.'! 4.6 43

-' 1966 : 60 63 423 18.6 4.S !+3

_,'Iii',"·', I 1967 -·03 52 l,S5 18 •.'3 t • •7 -'+5

1968 Olf 53 457 18.9 4.5 4" c,

1969 -.39 43 482 18.9 £) .4- tIS

1970 ;77 44 521 liL1 if • '3 !,S~-',' 1971 i36 36 622 17 .9 5.0 56

1972 '98 112 910 21.1 6.7 79J, 1973 ,\05 142 947 21.2 ),3 Sl

1974 1,1)51 187 1 ,:~ 3c 20.0 S .7 103

1975 l,158 212 1,370 19.4 6.3 111

1976 1,260 218 l,Lf73 18.0 5.5 116

1977 1,749 "28 1,977 18.6 £..4 152

1978 1,790 208 l,9Y8 16.9 5,8 15 1)

1979 1,916 278 2,194 15,3 5.1 167

1980 2,226 467 2,693 12.7 5.4 194

1981 2,723 639 3,362 12.4 ..6.1 237

19~L. 2,989 868 1,857 13.7 6.6 266

1983 3,05.7 808 3,865 n.a. rt.a. n.a.

19B!, 3,362 ':;65 3,927 n.a. n.3. "1.3..

~--------------. --------------------

~~ote: Federation of Halav'i, 1957-6-=+;- :lalaysia, 1965-84- Actual expenditures, 1957-82; estima~d 1983; budgeted 1984.

1

',;urces: Fer 1957-75, Snodgrass (1980, p.249). For 1976-t\4,

expenditures, :!alaysia, aw-an P2rsekutuan (1979-84);

CW, \~orld Bank, :!.a );

popu).ation, i·lor'.

(1978-8~). For :lllaysia, >lid-Tem

1983-8~,

~eview : ,

Table ,I]

HINISTRi OF EDlICATION FXPENDTTURES AS PERCE:-';TAG 2

OF FEDERAL EXPSNLi..'URES, 1976-S!1

Education as Percent~ge of Federal:

Development Rec:c:.rrent Total

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

\'?76-80

1981 1982

1981-82

1983 198 f•

1981-84

9.2% 7.1% 5.5% 6.5% 6.3%

6.6%

Fourth

5.h% "1.6%

6.6%

n.a. n~a.

o.a.

21.6~~ 18.0% 23.6:~ 18.6% 22. 3~; 16 . 9~~ 19.1% 15.3/' 16 • 3~; 12.7%

19.9% .l5.6;~

ia Plan Perior:

17.4~~

17.9% 12.4~;

D.n

17.7"1. 13.1%

17.9% n.a. 17. n n~a.

17. n n.a. ----

, ..II

Note: Actual e:r.:pend:tures, 1.976-82; estimated 1983; bc~geted 1984. _

Sources: Malaysia, Selanjawa! Persekutuan (1979-84).

I

I

Table A4

HlNISTRY OF EDUCATION ExpE~mITURES BY CATEGORY, 1976-85\ I I

Education Expenditures 01$ m.)

Other Emoluments/ Development Smoluments Recurrent Recurrent

Third Halaysia Plan Perio,j· . .-.. ~------

~976 218.1 134.8 1,125.0 10.7%

1977 227.9 t 6 7 .!I 1,')81.5 9.6%

1978 207.7 229.8 1 ,56C.O L'?.8%

1979 278.3 244.2 1,672.0 12.7% &

1980 467.0 295.5 1,930.!, 13.3%

197 :'·-80 1,399.0 1,071.7 7,868.9 12.0% I~

.¥ourth Halazsia Plan Period ~ 1981 639.1 373 .2 2,350.1 13.7% ! 1982 867.7 385.6 2,603.1 12.9% ! 1983 807.9 !~LI6 .8 2,6tO.? 1 '.. .6%

1981-83 2,314.7 1,205.6 7 ,563 .l~ 13.7%

j 98/! 564.9 2,265.0 1,097.0 67.1;% 1985 603.6 n'U/l n.a. n.a.

1981-85 3,483.2. n.a. n.a. n.a .

. §

Note: Al:tual expenditures. 1976-82; estimated 1983; budgeted

1984; planned 1985. The increase in emol'.lments ~relative

to other rec"..rrent e.'Cpenditures in 198.'1 reflects the fact

that in earlier ye3r~ all salaries of school pe~sonnel

wet"e counted as p..'l.rt of the grants-in-aId to schools.

Sources: For 1976-84, ~Ialaysia:

for 1933-85, development

Hid-Term Review (1984).

~~ Page 5

Ta::>le AS

MINISTli.Y 01 !DUCAUCII OP'!:UrIOILU, llU\:lGlTS :at l'1f!lC'IlOH. 1983-84

-_._---_.__._------------------------------- ----------"' (M.:1laph.n S ill. uJ.ll1olU)

"~--'----1lt;o llmlnto )!on -EI!lOl u"""otll

Wo. of ._----- Grand ?"rc"'lt"~" of l'Ootll 114111r14o .. ""'odit., ";ot"l \;c-'.l"lta Oth:.t.'" Tota! Total Grand Total -","","--'--'

1983 196,173 347.1l 99.0 446.8 2,431.2 178.6 2,609.6 3,056.6 100.0:C

i"ri""ry t. S2c:oudar;' 176,825

lhi.... ry In,,':rvet :,01.1 n.a. 116. \ 40.~ 156.5 9fJ2." 54.3 1,036.7 1,193.2 39.0%

Stoecod&ry lJultructiolJ D.3. 73.1 26.4 99.5 :Z'~.-5 11.3 . ~~6-",.,~, 996.3 32.6X

Otber n.a. 3.3 1.7 10.5 4.0 12.0 :~~. 0 2b.) 0 .• 9%

Y"cw.lc.al " Vocat1mll 71 0.6 0.1 0.1 43a.8 0.0

Table A6

DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS AL"l) EXPTh'TII11JRES FOR

EDUCATION AND TRAINING. 1971-85 (M$ millions)

Reyi~ed ~ ~~tual R2yii~ TKP Actual Original FRP E5tieat~d Rrvi5~d FnP Alloc'tion, Expenditure, Allocation, Elptftditure, Allocation, Expenditure, Allocation, 1?71-:5 1'71-75 197&-00 Iq76-a~ 1981-85 1981-83 lval-a5

2,243.89imnSTRY Of E»OCAnlli~ 828.BS 65D.M 1,812.31)

Priur', E:JucatiCIl 15:':.&\ 11b.u5 374.49 2'10.41 629.75 571.31 665.3'1 Sec 00 dall'l' Audesi t ::M.40 219.75 518.73 l.'l9.SO 5«.52 b'lIl.Y'B 8111.24 SKomll1l'l' Tf!Ch./Ycc. 45.% 34.75 ~S.84 42.75 115.00 134.'!5 278.U HiIJhH Tf!dlaical 7.70 6.'tll 27.09 i7.17 69.61 175.23 TfSlh ~lul IhhlwJ; CoII1N,l2 0.50 2.5il 6.20 3.n 12.4C 0.57 0.5'1 P

-------------

Table A7

SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATIONS AND EXPENDITURES FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING. 1971-85 (M$ millions)

Stccad ~117Gi! Pl~ ~ivd iil.1lia PI~ Fou't~ Raliytii PI~

Inc".se ., Prr(~t.te of: ~~i~ ~ Act~~l 2Ivi~ ~ Actual Uri,iftAi ~ E~tilit~ RfViied F~ lilMCI!! til -Aliocatii:l1, b~HItt'~, iUIlIClhaill, U~itllfl!. 1mCClti ClI, upodHurc', AlIcclltion, ba ~t, Criqinai Estiaated 1911-1' Im-75 191b-st H!n-fJO IIJf!HtS ItflHU 1981-1l5 1984-85 Alloc.ti~: ,~~~iture

til (~I ~~) (bl lal l:a) :(1 k-lll ((-"III !(-ill/il

~1"ISIRV Cf E~'I~ (l"l8.!;j e58.1W ~ ,1112.3e !,3O&.14 2,243.69 2i31~.74 314aJ.~ 1,169.46 55.21 5O.~1 r~ ~s : Gf Tct~l 94.21 '1Q.~a B4.U \W.n 7541~ 7a.GX 76.11 7i.Bl Eip.lf;. ~~ 1 of Allot. I~/~I 19.51 72.n 103.21

.'" Prl~Y ~tu'~tiaa 1~2.S6 m.os :m.Q9 2'V{).IJ! b~.75 511.S1 W.l9 94.C8 s.n IlI.51 Pri~r~ ., Z of Total i7.4~ 16.61 11.41 IB.!ii 21.11 '9.41 g.bt 5.9'1 Erpen. j~ 1 Of Allot. Ih/il lS.Y1 17.51 93.71

~ag'irv Educ~tiCft 329.1i41 2"".)).50 5M.51 432.61 ~.52 763.43 1,096.,U m.24 Ch.n n.n SKcr.duy iii 1 of lehl 37.S! 34.51 26.31 2fl.Ol 22. r;: 26.0% 2~.OI 20.S1 'ZPIM. u ! of Alice. (~ljl 11.21 1li.. 6Z m.ll

Pll~t -S~·GIQ~U)' £diauti ~ 113.6i .' 249.26 1f;>l'l.CI 5a~Ul 769.~ r:2.D.02 1,52t.n 7~.92 'Ii.n 85.41 PQit-~~dar~ ~~ 1 af Total 33.41 35.71 lS.4X n.ll 25.ln 27.91 33. :n. U.lI E:pll'n. il~ Z of GJlIcc. !;/!l 114.'11 61.21 Hl6.U

Oth~ Ko£ Pr09:~' 52. ,}4 lS.il m.il'> N.i5 UM.f.l 159.19 19?-40 40.22 7.7'1. 25.U Othtr ~ .i 1 cJ r~~~! Sl.G:! 5.&1 s.n Uil &.4. S.U 4041 2.51

~ Elpl!il. a§ % 0: (ll!oc. (b/lli i~.OI &5.51 ~.11

GTHfR A6E1:£IES 51. HI :w.~ :m.D 2lt.lf7 1~5.2;i 62~.OO 1,092.51. -ISH. 56 '-S.ll: 7J.jl Othlr ~eft(~~' il$ Z cl iQt~! ~.I.I~ 5.61 i5.6~ !~.Jl 24.'11 21.2% 23. n :':9.2Z tIlPII:,1. n % of AUac. 1~/al 7b.21 ;0.71 ®.l.n

HH~ G1'1.

Appendix A P~fe' 8

Tabli'! AS

ENROLI:~TS I~ HIGHER EDUCATION BY

INSTITUTION AND TYPE OF COL~SE. 1970-83

------------------- ..._-----_.----~------.----....---1970 1'roO 1983

--_._----- ...._-_._----- ---""--_.._-"--_._--- ----------------------_.-Certif • liipi~P.a 2~ree TOTAL Cl!f"ti r. Diplo.:a I!!qr~e TOTAL C~tif. lipl00a rn~r~ TUTt.l

- -----------~.....-----------.-------...--------...---------.-----_._------_...... _----_.-. Kuuntan Polyte

Anpendix A Page 9

Table A9

Do'ROLLl.fENTS IN HIGHER EDUCA"i'ION BY

RACE AND TYPE OF COL'RSE. 1970-83

-----------_._--19118

..... - 1:111Il0l1\1 1....14'" ill:Wl ..h""" .... - !:!II"- 1....1"'. ~. WUlIIoi!.l hiIl- Ou"".. 10.1l ~'.n lo..\i1 I.n 11l'.1I1 n.LI ~H t~.ill 1.5~ loo.n

~"'r1ti ",.-Toot&l 1,311 1'll n l,lll 1l,el~ 9,~14 1,111 l~ :11.521 l!I,5)1 !2,m l,4!2 J:J' n,m 1 &f 1!lIti~ Total 1r>.1'! l1.ft (\.1& Ia.fi :i6.ll lIl.!l t.;~ 0..11 Il!!'l.'lt :il.41 l4.51 ••n s.n "'3.81

a.mIS I3tOO

~~t wi, bitie... $'::' Ml 1,1,n ll,lII» 5,IM Itl'U 23'1 »,1'2 11,141 1,W I,U) Ci n.tI:~

l.n l.n IlUI .u,.1 ».!;l Ml L.Zl t~.~ fI1.0t no)l ~. 71 1.61 lU.Ol

l""tlU,h_I:I;,'fWM $,I1' lel tt.st:l J,m 21,111 4,~

t

ut't -.,~ .....

Pa~e 10

Table AlO

HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLJliL~~S BY SEX, 1983

.--..-.. ---------------.--------------.. -~---------------------------FIf'uiQI

Ihle Frllalll Tohl Total

~~iv~r5ity of Ral~y~ 5,169 4,614 'l17!U 47.21

Univ~r'ity gf ~ricultur~ K11~y5ia .,313 1,139 6,052 23.n

Matianl~ University of Aal~ysia 4,QU) 4,019 [1, 929 45.01

Uni~~r'ity of Sci!nCf ftalaysia 4,1)']5 2,672 1,1 71:1 ~?51

1111i\llnHy of TechnoloqJ tl.lhY5i1i 4,11J l,llB 0,026 21.51

Intfin4tion~1 Islaaic l~iviT'ity lOE! '17 153 lQ.n;

~l4 Institut2 of TlChnQlo~y 7,613 8,e69 14t~~2 47.21

TuukiJ Nl~ul Ralleun Coll~~ 4,7~1 3, i4l> 7,~7 19.81

loti'll ~5,74S 24,404 60,141 ~4.bI -""----------_ ......._-----"......._------""-_ ..._-

Source: Mt:>E. Righer Education Division.

---------------------------------------

TobIe All

H1GHER L~UCATION INCOME ~~ F~ENDITlnt£S 'BY SaJRCE ~~ CATEGORIES OF USE, 1980-83 (H$ '000)

----...- ... ----------.------------.-... --..-----------.... -.... -~......,..---------,.. ------------... ---... ----_....,. ...---~ up~!\lIituns lntl..&e flMsl ----------_... _---_........ _- 5!lrplll~ Total

uolu81!nts ktI-Emol. Totil GrilJlh fltts Cth!!r Tohl (t'fficitl Intf)~1! ...---"" ....... ... ------ ----- _ .---- _ ---

Uninrsity al 1990 5S,4b4.5 lB,C.o~.l 1!,~71.B 58,520.1 5,217.1 :Z,3tlQ.3 ~tm.ll (5,127.21 7.n fhlaya 19EI b2,845.7 n,~o.4 a1,8911.1 75,400.0 :5,552.;S 2,611.0 B3,·lM.3 1,il4B.2 ~.C1

1CJtl2 ;\4,406.7 23,325.4 01,n2.1 00,455.8 5,645.0 4,114.2 90,215.0 2,452." 6.31[UM] 19£i3 "-4,585.2 11,102.3 15,697.5 71,524.:, ;)1 555•6 3,000.0 ~O,460.2 (5,:221.3) 7.31

Itnivenity IIf 1'~O 27,11i6.3 11,24,\.2 3',040.5 l4,ca~.2 2,eoa.B l,lO5.~ lS,l911.'3 (en.CI 7.41 ~ri (:.II tun 191U 33,6'2.2 2l ,S67.1l ~,5t.O.O ",'41.6 2,806.1\ ,,296.7 ",U4.7 61~M.1 11.21 ilahYlia .,82 lIl,697 .Il :U,MO.:l 61,;~.b ss,lm.o 2,703.11 2t~2.S M,U'd.l 1,&J~'.3 ,1,:U [UPM] 1993 !:l.a. a.a. 'S4,IIM.a 47,415.1 5,l'U,I) ~,67B.7 (4,~.1I

i\iUl'mill lIni- noo 37,681.1 14,154.6 52,467.5 3fi,200.2 3,102.4 3,~1.'l 45,584.5 (~,OOl.OI iI.61 "'T'iii tv IJ~ 1931 47,107.3 17,005..9 M,U3.2 64,n6.2 3I e71.3 3,m.S 71,tro.O 1,Bn.1l :l.ln Ralaysia H'82 52,S·H.l 21,655.1 74,1111.1 72,040.2 49218.4 2,5U.l 111 1821.7 4,62~.~ ':S.U [UKM] 1~83 58,573.2 1!i,2il7.2 16,l'iilO.4 57im"~ 5,3'13.6 2,l'OO.2 65,W.3 1U,47~.U 3.:n

!.Minf"sity of Fl'OO 24,121.5 1&,425.B ~,547.:S 33,'42.!8 1,919.4 1,424.6 31,m.D U,260.51 :I.ll &Ci~atR 14181 10,269.6 23,m.7 54,007.3 56,"97.5 t,21J2.1 2,2'1I,C 61,079.4 7,012.1 3.71 'tllla'fllitl 11912 M,511!a.5 4~,M7.7 :M,424.2 S7,m.3 2,:za2.1 2,1'9.8 '2,411.2 2,IIfBl.0 3.14 [USH) 1'~ 40,1130.7 't4,m.d 61,114.'1 44,2~O.9 l,Il1UI 2,53',9 "',tlrt.5 ml~t1·"" 5."11

l!i'!itertiity of 1980 lIl,llS.J ll,lSO.2 26,496.5 UJ,6'~.1 :t,749.4 l,m.1 72,611.3 (l,m.1I 12. r~ Tecilnoil!!.IY 1981 22,51.19.1 ',001.6 :S1,510.1 3l,W.b l,~a2.9 .,trtbO.3 l'a,627.3 7,056.6 ill.ll! lblaysh 1982 22,15b.O al~7'!il.1 !A,S01.1 16.113.0 1,:m.O ~.O 39,1il3O.Q 3,122.9 tUl'1. [trr'H] 1933 75,651."1 11/10'1.2 37,5M.b 75 11m3.6 2, !lfJ,\l !!l.r) 2fI,tl22.4 (1,544.7.1 Ul'f.

" MiA Inti,lutl 19~~ 33,1'0.7 n,~2".4 S6,&l~.1 42,559.2 1,812.9 1il89. \) ~5,261.1 111,354.Q) ,1,01

m T\l:c~nol ~~y ~'Bl 39,157. '3 27,~5.6 ",7XVI 65,148.4 2,146.3 I,OiM.7 toB,J01.1l J,578.~ 3.11 1'182 4.11,lU.l IS,4S4.l ",812.4 76,S9~.2 2,147.9 1,226.1 711,'70.2 137.0 l.T!.

..f:! 1961 47,010.9 39 1141.9 M,152.7 13,552.7 3,i7i.b 1,330.0 e8,062.3 l,'W9.6 3.61 - ---------,------------ ...~,-.----------..---~---~-------------_........ _------,. .' 9 Q

Source: MoE, Finance Division.

http:toB,J01.1lhttp:ecilnoil!!.IYhttp:U,260.51http:2,703.11http:2l,S67.1lhttp:5,127.21

Table Al2 t ~ UNIT RECU RRE~:T COSTS OF HIGHER EDUCATIOl\ , 1980-84 P t.

Ope ratio [lal Expenditures

(HS '000) Enrollment Cost /S tuden t

(HS)

r ~ ~

University of Hnlaya [UM] (degree courses only)

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

71,473.8 81,896.1 87,732.1 85,687.5 80,660.0

8,l>14 8,878 8,990 9,783

n.a,.

(8,045)

(9,016)

8,495 9,225 9,759 8,759 n.a.

(8,88 /1) (9,530]

(9,504)

~,

; r. ~ ! r

University of Agriculture Malaysia [ UPH] (degree and diploma courses)

National University of Malaysia [UKM] (degree course~~ only)

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

39,040.5 59,560.0 61,788.6 56,946.8 55,989.5

52,467.5 64,113.2 H,197.1 76,%0.4 75,024.0

3,',34 4,052 5,010 6,052 6,289

6,508 7,357 7,942 8,929 n.a.

0,433)

(6,000)

(5,726 )

(8,217)

.. 11,369 (11,372) 14,699 [ 18,370] 12,333 9,410 (9,491) 3,903

8,Gil2 (9,163) 8.715 (12,400J 9,342 8,608 (9,35 l l) n.a.

~

!,(

t, f I'

i !r f Ii ~

University of Science Malaysia lUSH] (degree cou l:'se,; only)

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

40,547.3 54,007.3 59,424.2 61,114.9 14,808.2

3,889 4,531 5,715 6,767 6,501+

(2,897)

(5,577)

10,'.26 11 ,920 10,398 9,031

11,502

(13,996) [15,165]

(10,958)

~.

r f·

t,

University of Technology Mahlysia (Urn1 (diploma ar..d degrtle courses)

1980 19tH 1982 1983 1984

26,496.5 31,570.7 36,507.1 )7,566.6 41,789.2

4,170 4,862 5.415 6,026 6,542

(3,515)

(6,012)

6,35/, 6,493 6,741 6,23/. 6,388

(5,874) [8,200]

(6 ~ 249)

t (

t ~

MARA Institute of 1980 56,615.1 8,997 (8,339) . !Ii 6,293 (6,789) Technology (diploma, 1981 66,722.9 11 ,107 - 6,007 certificate and 1982 78,832.4 12,951 " ,164 degree coul'ses) 1983 86,152.7 14,5/.2 (13,511)

~ 5,924 (6.376)

2 1984 93,193.0 15,/;22 6,043

Sources: HoE, Finance and Higher Education Divisions; in parentheses, Halaysia, Review (1984, p. 355); in brackets, Aziz (1983).

rlid-Terlil.

~ote: Enrollment figures for 1980 and 1983 appearing in the Hid-Term Review are marginally lower than those obtained directly from the HoE, owing pe rhaps to the exclusion in the first instance of post-graduate students and/or pre-matriculation students. These figures are presented as well to show upper 2stimates of unit costs. The highest estimates of all. for ~"e year to(;11 ... .-~,.. ~ ____......... t .. ,--~-,~,

APPENDIX B

r-1ALAYS[AN BUrGETARY SYSTEt'l

Appendix B Page 1

:tAtAYSIA.I\' BUJX;ETARY SYSTE~l

Prepared by Internal Audit Unit of the Ministry of Education for World Bank rUssian on Education ExpendltJre~-, June 1984.

1. Control by the Treasury l"'''r the expenditure of ;Jllblic l"lOnies of the F,'deration may be exercised at three stages, as follows:

a} IhE. formulation and submission of a ~:e.~~l and its approved-'?.::: thE' Treasury. Evet-y ~r(\p()sal involving the expen":iture of 1eceral monies or having aey financial implication must b~ Submitted to the Treasury before it receives government approval. This .:ny take place either during the preparation of thc! annual budget ',hen the whole program of expenditure for the year comes under rc~iew or, in special cases, at any other time of the year.

Th.! execution or administration of a projec(:.: After a project has been approved by the l~gislature and the funds required for it::; implementation have been issued, the primary responsibility fo~ its execution and administration lies with the controlling of ficer of the Agency concerned. who is appointed by the ~1i:1ister of Finance. The Treasury may also request to be consulted on 'iu'~st1ons involving the choice OC methods of cost and to be kept informed of the prngress of expenditure on any scheme.

c) The state of audit and report. '·l1wn the Auditvr-r:eneral's Leport isreceived; the Treasury will investil':1t2 the ;;oints raisej therein for the purpose of assist: 'g ;.:.e Public Accounts Com.'flittee in its consideration of the report and of bringing about improvement in the future.

The financial year of the gover~ment cor~esponds to ~he calendar year, and the national budget consists 0f both trje r'evenue and the expenditure estimates of the year in question. Revenue is classified by type or source, and each revenue item is coded. It is reflected on a comparison basis of three years, with the past year actual, current :rear estimated, and new year anticipated •..

3. TheeApenditure budget on tlie other hand consists of cperating 'inc. development components. ','h!" Operating Budget is ll''lde up of two types of expenditure, namely (~) ~arged and (ii) supply expenditure. Charged expenditure is what~is prOVided for by prevailing Ipgislation and caters for payments like the King's privy pll[!,e, the salary vf judges and payments of pensions expenditure. This type is charged dirt·ct 1.y to the Consoli:lated Fund and not debeted i:1 Parli,Qr:1ent.

Appendi~~ Page 2

4. Supply expenditure includes all items of routine e.xpenditure such as salarie:; and other administrative expenses of government agencies. Expendi tures such as these are classified under ''Heads of Expendi ture" Iolherf"! e.:\ch head is identified ""ith a particular agency of government. Each hecld is further broken down into subheads 1.,-.fIich refle-::t the details of the expenditure in terns of standard objects, each of \.lhich i.s given a specific standard code. The operating budget 13 financed out of the Consolidated Revenue Account and is introduced tn Parliament in the form of a Supply Bill under Ai: t icle 100 of the Constitution.

5. The Devaloprnent Budget is also pres~nted in terms of Heads of '::xpenditure, where each head is i~2ntified with a specific agency of the government. Details of each head are, however, not expressed in terns rf standard objects of expendi.ture as in the case of the ()perating Budget but rather in terms of projects, with projects being idel;tified with a nunber running in sequence from one project to the next. Again, unlike the Operating Budget. which is also ex[)r~s::;2.''i: in :e["r.',s (If activities below the standard object ('~: \~xpe!1diture classif ication, the Development Budget is not; instead the am0unt not0d under each project is further expre'5sed in terms of [he type of exp

.\ppendix B Page 3

8. Short-teen budgE'.t to'-ulation, t..'hich includes the annual opecHting and annual d~velopm~nt ex?~nditures is basically a process of interac:ion bet'Ween, on thf. one hand, the operating rtE,encies and. on the other, the central asencies 'Which consi~:t of the Treasury, the Public S'crvices Depc.rtment (PS:), and the Economic Planning cnit (EPI,;) in tr,e Prime :1inister's Depart:1.ent. The submission by agencies of their bndg 1il?;ency conform to the approv,!d 'bvera.ll national five-year developl'lent plan and th2,t ti:.'Y are properly phased over.: the period.

11. Upon the comp:letion of the budget hearing, the BRO prepare" a staff paper in wtiC1.l he sets out his assessment of:: the budget prc::posals, hi3 reasons for a::cepting or rejectir'.g them and'!:he amount of tunds he r~commends for the ne'.1 year, together with the justification. The staff paper ~o prepared is suhrnitted ':0 the :Director of Budgets \>lho may either ag,ree with the recommendation u1a~ or alter the proposed amounts on tt'e basis or his own judgment:. Tne decision on the final amoun': to be provided in the ~h~'H Year is then conveyed to the cJperating ag~ncy by the Budget Director, through ~l letter under his signature.

http:bvera.ll

~pendix .B_ P::tE:e 4

12. Upon receipt ,)f the 13tter, the operating agency submit::;; to the Treasury its revised proposals, adjusted to the figure ap?toved by the Budget Director. The revised proposals so received fror.:: each agency are com"iled and printed to for:n the 'lnnual budget docuoent. 7he budget Jocument is subsequently submitted to the Cabiilet through the :U:1l.ster 0:: Finance. i:'nen the consent of the Cabinet h

Appendix f1. Page 5

17. '~he Accountant-General is turn issues a notification to the ;~or: rolling officers of all the i.1~e'lcies, informing them ::hat the funIs :equired for the executioq of their programs and projects have ~ee~, released and tho.:: th,:;y may now inct;r the necessary obligations ;Hld experldi tures. The controlling officet' is nOrTIally the eldef execuL.ve of any ~Unistry) and this pe. >on is responsible for the :rlan.lgement of all tilt.:; 3ifairs of the :-linistry.

18. Apa'ct from ensuring that the programs of the agency ge t implementet.! eff,~ctlvely ancl efficiently, the controlling officer is also placed in gen(:ral charge of the monies voted f'or the al';,ency/ministry. H(> is aP?Jinted control" ng officer by thO! Hinister uf Finance and his Juties'include the contt"olling of expellditure and the proper marl~ene~t of all public funds collected, received Jr disbu~sed by hir~. A controlling officer may be called before ::he Public Accounts Com~ittee establ~shed by Parliamen~ to consider the report of the o-,.uditor-General and to assist it.. :n inquiries into management of public funds and inef~icient admj~istration of public programs withi the agency. J

19. To enable budget e.

Appendix B Page 6

AN};lJAL Bl]tx;ET FOR..'11JLATfOI' CYCLE

{

1. Call e1rc:ular for m.:w1- ________

3. Tr.~GUf7 t'Ge41v.8 ~ba1••1oo••~O· • ...u.. 1041....Idual &t.&d"

~u4I

APPF.N9IX C

D."PANSION OF PIUHARY .~"'D SECONDARY EDUCATIO:l

1960-83

Ae.E..endix C Page-l---

1. This appendix do('uments, for both primary education and secondary educatio:1, how the number of pupils, number of teachers, and number of schools have changed over time in :talaysi'l since 1960. Ideally, we wculd like to have ir.formation on the It

App~nd1:x C Pag~ 2

Table Cl

E't-."'ROLLHD·''1'S, TEACHERS, AND SCHOOLS. PRIMARY ~~ SECONDARY EDUCATION, 1960-83

I.M ------------------, -----

P\!pih l,m,013 1,911 ,1142 2,008,567 2,120,05il 1 100.01 lOolUl 108.81 11}{1.0X

TIfI,J,dilln 11.111. cU,149 1.13,521 7J,2lB 1I1,.fs:M SdIools &,107 flo$!~ &,M 6,~7()

V't!Bi aRl'iT fl:o,ill 1,1)111,615 1,114,3111 1,602,~ 1,~,i52 1,133,1'9'2 klaysil 1 li.U m.n Il.Rt tn.11 1I1.!!1

THdm'1 17,6~ 02,I6i1 5l,~ &l,121 ",14')

~~h; 44:1;0 4lC9 Wi ms lim

~i15 127,27l tt:.o,1'f2 l4'lIJ~H I l.H 7.en 7.91

llMdllYli 11.1. 41~ S,~ 6,124 SWlXll" n., e2''J I?~

~il!li M,m tl1 ,13.'5 Xil1,m ~.m 2Ht,m 1 l.lil !Ul 9.!rl 1~•.n "J.ll J~\i B.a. l,6:tm 3,132 El,411 !J9~ Sc~I\i 119 1171 1m 1210 1275

h,il'5 1J149~$ 1,8J?,27!& I, !M!,Q...I.!\ 'l 1~l.Gl 1~.Cl 1~.Ol

T~'VI Ill••• n,m 44,~' ~911,\ ~b m fP.I INI 1,t;~

h:.il§UlM Pl:spi h ~1I,m m i :n1 m,l18 Yf~,lS1 f fWaVf.ia 1. 1'10. IX ~.m M.1l 15:11 l

IlMdrln 4,511 29i2~ YJ'Im ~,'"

I~h 241 t.'13 162 tf~5

~ils g,~ !l,I'$l ~,IOO 61,!M 1 l.n 6.fiX 5.61 ~i.tn T~I 1.3. It.a. I,D47 ~ 2,~41 2,!fI4 fdall't 2ft 16 m '12 f

~ r L "

1!5i;l, If5I 11)'2,451 X 7.11 IO.ll

~ih ',266 ~I,'n lUI lUX

IMclt\rrs il.ol, •• a. 3,M3 4,~-02 Sdlooh n SZ 'to H'~

Note: Seeondl'ry education figures combine upper and lOHer secondary but exclude technical/vocational secondary.

Source: Halnyda. Invest:'nlent Program (1984. l'P, 21-33),

http:fWaVf.iahttp:11}{1.0X

••••

------

Page 3

Table C2

PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN ENROLLMEN'f 5 , TEACHERS, iJrn SCHOOLS. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION. 1960-83

._.'_._---&anul Pl'f"Cet. ~t ~t~,: Total 'Cf(l~t~ Cb.Rqe ~~t~~~a: ..

19bo-M IIJM-76 1976-£0 1900-83 1%0-7,) 1976-t1l 191..0-76 1976-33 l%o-llJ 116 Fluln) (7 )'iI/WI's' (23 yel\nl------_.,--_._--

fRlAA'P Plapih 2.861 2.797. 1.231 I. LGll. 2.911 1.4B1 ~.1l 10.ft 73.71. T"iCI1K'a 0.1. ?m 3.561 3.m l.iiI. 1.5'1t. 1t.1. 211.61 n.a. 'Schocll 0.201 O.4n 0.411 0.131 11.4·01 0.291 41.71 2. !1 vn

Pcmift!!o:llllf ~i!5 2.m 2.591. o.m 1.%1 2.411 1.141 48.61 B.n &0.'1 &la~i

APPENDIX 0

:!INISTRY OF EDUCATION KESEARCH ON DETE~!l~A11S OF SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVE}IENT

:';ppendix D Page 1

1. '~!oE researchers ran a series of regression Bn

Appendix D Page 2

regression equations. Table 04 indicates :--ow many times the statistical relationship with pupil achievement was tested and, of these. how many times it was found to be positive (at two diffe.cent si;:~nificance levels) hoY many times negative (at two different s ignifica nee levels) and how many times not sign if iea nt ly di f fe rent from zero.

..

Appendix ;) Page 3

Ta!:lle D1

REI; RZSSION A.'>;ALYSES OF PRI:l-\.RY EDIJCATlO~

AQiIEVe!E:'l TEST SCORES

;Ialay English Language Language :!a ths Science

Permanent Teaci·.en: ( ~~) 1.33 -0.60 -0.45 0.29 (4.61) (-1.66) ( -1.~7) (1.17)

Teacher-Class :Zat :.0 0.31 0.85 1. 37 1.57 (0.08) (0.17) (0.32) (i}.:'5)

Single-Shift Schools ( ~) 0.07 0.06 -{) .04 0.0/. (0.91) (0.59 ) (-0.50) (f).6:l)

Teache ]. :{a t Lo ).35 -O.ul (.':'4 1),09 (1.43) (-G.03) (l.iO) (0.':'1)

Li b rary-Scl-.ool Ra:io 4.65 0.3 1,

Rrr;;u::ss:)s "SA:'~S;:S iF LO'o.'tR Aat :i::\·;::'.rS-;: 7£5:

SECOSD.>city SCJRES

::Jl'L.>,:-:J~;

~t.11.lY

:....angu.age Eng ll'h ~~tngu ..lJ~. ~!ath5

C'~"'?OS 1 te $.cor~

'!al.1,!

t..anguage Eng It s~ ~n.guage

l

.-\;:0 e_:1d i x J Page 5

7a~le ;))

,ue RESSION .-'..'l.\LYSES 0, L'??ER SF.CO~J.\RY ElJCCATIOS ACHIE':E~ID'T TEST SCORES

~lalay English Cocposi te ~fal.l y Eng 11 sh Language Language Scie ,1ce Score La ng \.lage La '1g ua ge S ..:ier.c e

7eacher-Class R.3 t 10 )3.04 -). 54 -48.98 -9.72 -II•• 05 (2.9}) (-0.90) (-1.:'5 ) (-0 .42) (-0.71 )

Single-Shift 5cho)ls (~) -0.06 a .C6 a 01 0.09 0.1 ) (-1.49 ) ( 2.00) (1.87) (LIS) (1.89 ) t

Teacher'-Pupi '. ;(a t io -2.69 4.81 5.29 0.05 L87 ! (-2.38 ) (1.45 ) (1.86 ) (0.03) (LI) )

Library-School Rat io -5.56 ~q 16 6.48 4.09 6.07 I.(-1.06 ) (L24) (0.49 ) (0.45) (0.78)

Roooe-'Pupil Rat io -0.0) O.OJ 0.05 0.05 0.0) (-2.58 ) (0.89) (1.55 ) (2.84) (1.50 )

\.Iorkshop·-Sc hoo I :~a t io -0.13 -5.01 0.06 L86 -,) .30 (-0.12) (-L51) (0.02) (0.95) (-G.:'9)

Pupll"SeilOol Rat io -0.01 0.05 O.OJ 0.01 0.02 (- '.• 23) (J .65) (2.51 ) ( I .35) (3.08)

Cla~3-Pu)il "atio 1.53 -1.34 -2.32 ..1).48 -0.90 (2.63) ( -1.07) (-1.92) (-D.48) (-1.05 )

Science Labs-~chool Ra t 10 L 50 2.39 ).23 0.18 1.82 (1.37) (0.74 ) (1.17) (0.10) (L14 )

Degree lt~achers (~) ,) .39 ::-. -, 3.05 , .99 (2.28 ) " 7.) 7 ) .: I .01)) ': ~ .... '. )

Certif ie.He -=- eache rs (:) ,). ]9 i..:-1 -1.55 -,J • ~ ~

(: .,,,'1.) (l.nl (-I .:q) (-l .) ..... 'I

Cons ta nt 5.83 12J .0) 115.13 1)5.50 77.26 -1).02 1.9 0 :. .... J.:. :)"' .... ) (0.20) ( 1.40) (L 5)) (L25 ) ( L i

Table D4

SUHHARY OF REGRESSION RESULTS

~o. or Regression Percentage of Equat ions 111 t.1l ich Equa tions in \.fuich Statistical Efiect of Var{abl~ Is:

Independent Variable Independent Va~iable \las Included ++ + o

Permanent Teachers (%) 4 25~ 25% 25% Teacher-Class r~tio 14 7"1. 86:{ Single-Shift Schools (%) 14 22% 6[, % Teacher-Pupil Ratio 14 n 727, 7 ~' '0 Library-School Rati0 14 77. 93% Room-P'lpil R"tio 10 10% 20% 60% 10% Workshop-Schcol ~atio 9 57% 33% Pupil-School Ratio 9 56% 11% 33% Class-Pupil Rati0 10 10% 10'% 70:: Science Labs·"Sch.)o 1 Ratio 10 10% 90% Degree Teachers (%) 8 7 SI. 25% Certificate Teachers (t) 8 25% 50~ 13.:; 1, .). J

All Variables 122 18:': 6%

Note: This table sunmarizes the regression results in Tables 01, D2, and D3.

++ posit1ve crnd significant at .1f) level in a t~...o-tailed test t r;r: 1.66), + positive and signifi~ant at .20 level in a two-tai~ed test t GEl. 2'1

and LT 1.66), o nut significantly different froo zero (..t:, GT -:.1.29 and LT 1.29),

negative and significant at .20 level in n t:ij>-tailed test (t L[ -1.:'9 2.nJ GT -1.66),

neg&(ive and significRnt at .In level in a t~p-tailed test (t :.:r -1.66),

where GE greater than or equal to, GT = greater tnai1,

LE less than or equal to,

LT less than.

APpemIX E

U:-lIVERSI1Y OF ~t.u..AYA RESEARCH ON SaWLARSHIPS FOR lUG HER EDUCATION

..

x E

1. A recent study by :1enr::et and Yip at the Institute of Advanced Studv (lnstitut Pengajian Tingg.i) of the University of ~!alaya eXdmines tu ;.,Jhat E')'.II;nt the bonded scholarshi? ,;ro)~ram in ;!alaysia is consis:"ent. ;.,JJ eh the goals of the New Economic Pol ami to what: l:xtent it helps to all.eviate manpower bhort

..:\ppendL-: E Page 2

Table £1

SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOLARSHIPS BY RACE M"D VALUE OF A\..'AJill

-----_.__..__.. _---------------- El5t Hal iysians

tLilaY!i Cilinlt'Sl:' lndi illS lImi Oth~rs rO!P1. -.-.---.----- -------- ------- ----

lI,due of f,-cRolirshi p t!'J, 1:01. I iol'l 1 1Ii1. Col. I ~OQI I Uo. Col. 1 ao.. I !:!o. Col. I f!~ I !!C. Col. 1

--------_._ ----

iU i-~,OOCI 252 26.31 72.4'l. Ob u,.n. 19.01 23 43.41 6.61 7 13.51 2.01 3\8 lil.01

tit 3t .)OH .. os 73.81 19.01 113 a3.11 12.61 30 50.61 3.:31. 45 86.51 :'.01 II9b 12.01

::.:::::::. :z::.;;= E::-::;;;::: 1;':':: ~~ ;;::= ;..;:::::: === == :,;::::= === ::.;:..:g;:::;: ..-==~ a:::;::==.

Hm'll %0 ICCl 77.21 179 1001 14.41 ... ~'" 1001. 4.31 ~L !~! ~ .. Z! 1.,244 levI

Source: M~lmet and Yip (1983), p. 8,

",

,

Appendix E Page 3

Table E2

SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOLARSHIPS BY RAet AND l1OUSEHOLD mCOME

Kilays Chinese Indi~ns TOTAL ---------... ,,-.-....... ~ ... _... _... -... ------------- ----- --------------........ --......... ---... _--- ... _----_.... _--------_ .... --_ ...

Total Kousphol,j Slur!! 01 Shul! of Shire of Shu, of Sharf of Share I'll tlo. 01 Shart! 01 Shllrp of I'kmthly Incoee Schjlufjhips Pcpuiwtion Scholarships Population Schoimihips Populition Sc.holars Schohrshi~5 Ptl~uhtbn

11$0-300 14.21 63.21 3.41 26.01 ~.:n 39.71. 153 12.31 411.41.

"$ 301 - 5C0 32.B'/. 1'1.01 20.71 26.2l. 2/.1.41 2Y.U 377 30.31 22.n

! ~

f. "$ 5Cl - 1,000 30. U. 12. ?l 41. 91 21.71 311.61 20.51 :m 11. 'n. IB.21

1'1$ 1,0')0+ 22.91 4.91 34.01 20.11 24.51 11).41 3!7 25.51 10.n '.

n::==--.: &:::::::: &.:~:::= 8:::::::= 3..&=:;: ~~:: C;:\1::1::: f:r.a-..tt::.=""''''..u:

TIlT AL 100.01 100.01 ,\'11. ~X JOO,OI 100.01 100.01 1,244 ICO.Ol 100.01 I f ,,

.......... --.-...-.,.-~.---.-----~....---, --------_......-~- ... -~-~----------- ...-----.-- ... -.---.,---

Not,e: Monthly income frem 0.11 sources i.nclu~J.ing rem:f.ttanc.;:!s, Popu1lJtioll shares from 1977 A~gricultural census.

Source: Me.hm

-----

Fi~ure El

DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOLARSHIPS

~'.PJ?endix E Fage 4

III 0

..-I

.c III ... III ~ 0 .c u ~

.... 0

fJ ... III

t1 eJ ;.

..-I 4J III

...-l

§

u

.._-" ~

O.ll

(l.EJ

0.'7

0.6 Diagonal /0 . .6 eLi

(;1.31

O~V~ J

(l.t - _________----

.o --, I -, i t 0 o.a (l.4 Cl6

.

-"---,-~--r---0.3 1

Cumulllltiva Share of Population

tic The Lorenz curve D10tted here is based on the unique shares in the last two columns of Table E2. The five coordinates cf this curve are (0, 0), (.~94, .123), (.715, .426), (.897, .7-'+5), and (1, 1).

Appendix E Page 5

5. The "Gini coefficl.:"nt" is a nUrlAric i.ndicator- of equality or inequality sur:u:narizing the inform:Hion ,~ontained in the Lorenz curve. It is thE~ ratio of (a) the .. 1"'; program is that the program serves as a tool by ,,,lucll

gOlernn::ent planners have succeeded in eliminating shortas'"s a:~J:'6

in the market for skillvl oanpower in Halaysia. To this question, as tc

the previous question having to d0 ;lith the program's impact on the

distribution of incoCle tn ~\alaysiil, ~!ehmet and Yip respond sot'Jewhat

pessi:nistically.

8. To in ';lith, they refer to an official manpo'",er forecast il:dicating the :leed for "a sizeable expansion i;;. the ;:>roduction 0:' scientific and technic;:11 personnel" (1973 Hanpower Survey, conducted by the Econot'Jic Planning Unit of the Prime 'Iinister's Department; cited by ~ehnet and Yip, 1903, p. 1). Gesrite this official statement or need, sponsored u"iversity students have tended to shy away frol.!'l the scientifi.c and techrical fields and choose, instead, to get their degrees in the arts, hl:mar.i ties, socL::>l scie:lces, general science, (:!conot'Jics, 'lnd busi.ness acministration, 'lreas Io;hich :lehmet and Yip categorize as "generi'list" fielcs.

9. For their samrL~ of scholarsLi.p holders, ,'lehcwt and Yip report that 77 percent had earned "generalist" degrees, oniy 23 percent "professional" degrees. Apparently, anticipating secare governoent positions upon graduation regardless of specialization while at university, a majority of students chose '.."hat they perceived to be les5 rigorous fields of study. This tendency \olaS about equally true for all of the three major racial groups, L~rhaps slightly more so (or the Indian scholars t~an for t'1e ~I.'llay and Chinese (;Iehmet and YiD'; p. il).

~

10. Although the >I

ourSl2S to',':3L'ds scielCce, enginecri:lg, ;lrchitecture, and other ;lP?lied ,;ub,:ccts," but that ";:mch of this shUt has occurred a:::ongst non-Bum utee;! "[H'()llcl2s" 1983, r. '18). Si:1cC t!1e preponderance ,jf ,3cl1(':1arsh tera p,'!r'1a.ps it is the scholarship ;)r03r";:1 ! s ~ ucl' \",ish to :lire them.

',Ill

http:attracti.vehttp:p,'!r'1a.ps

----- ----

7able E3

SAMPLE DISTRIBL7ION OF SCHOLARS SIX MONTHS AFT~ GR.'\,,)UATION BY RACE AND EMFLOYMElIT ST~_ruS

~------ ----- ._- -----East l\al"r~un!l

Ihl.lrs C'hin~se huli.ns iJtd ath,"I'''S TOT ilL

E£jll Orlle-"l t Sblll5 Ma. Cal. I foe I ID. Col. I RG-J 1 :In. Col. 1 blI 10. Cillo I Roa I !'JJ. l".al. !

--.,----- --------

UPI.OYFD 590 61.51 TS.tn tZ2 ba.21 15.71 34 "".:;'1 4.41 32 01.51 4.11 na 62.S1.

1',abl i ( ~tor SIb 53.81. 00.01 78 43.bI 12.11 21 39.61 3.31 J.O JI.n 4.n 64~ SUl Pdv