Abstract

The Government of Pakistan through the Ministry of Education (Now Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training) has formulated various Education Policies since 1970, all could not have achieved the target objectives due to poor governance, lack of budget, and a dearth of implementation of formulated policies. While Malaysia through the Ministry of Higher Education has successfully introduced “NHEAP 2007-2010, NHESP 2011-2015 and MEBHE 2015-2025” to achieve the vision of making Malaysia an international hub for HE by 2020. To serve the mentioned purpose, five International University Campuses were established. The current study is conducted to compare Pakistan’s and Malaysian HE policies so to highlight the gaps/weaknesses of Pakistan’s HE policies and strategies adopted by Malaysian policymakers to form a better HE system. For the purpose qualitative approach was selected and contents of written documents were compared and analyzed, i.e., education policies & reports, research papers/scholarly articles, dissertations & books.

Key Words

Comparative Analysis; Technology; Education Policy; Higher Education; Pakistan and        Malaysia.

Introduction

Pakistan has framed several education policies for advancement in the education sector. The ideology of the nation remained the basis of all the policies that have been formulated yet. Kamboh & Parveen (2016) wrote that the policies were drafted for nation-building and the social philosophy of the country. There were many educational five years of prospective plans, commissions, conferences, and policies since the independence of Pakistan (Dildar, Saif, & Naz, 2016). For instance, the National Education Conference recommended establishing the Inter-University Board of Pakistan to look after the administrative and management issues to better the academic quality. As Pakistan is an Islamic state, Islamic ideology was given due importance, and training of Military was made compulsory in HE Institutions (Government of Pakistan, 1947). The newly established state faced various problems, and several policies were recommended to fully achieve good progress in HE level (Bengali, 1999). National Education Commission 1959 recommended to introduce 03 years’ duration of Bachelor Degree as Honors Program and two years’ duration of Master’s Program and adding new subjects in the curriculum. It probably recommended the University Grant Commission for HE level (Aziz, 1986). First Education Policy was introduced in 1970 with the vision of decentralizing HE in the country and improving quality mechanisms (Ali, 2013) National Education Policy 1972 formulated with a bundle of recommendations. For instance, the establishment of new universities in various regions of the country, Area Student Centers in Universities, Establishment of University Grant Commission (UGC), and increase the enrolment rate in disciplines of Arts by 5% and in the field of Science by 10% (Aziz, 1986). The military government framed Education Policy 1979 with a goal of Islamization of the tertiary education system of the country (Ministry of Education, 1979). The National Education Policy 1998-2010 discussed strengthening the tertiary level in Pakistan. This policy document recommended increasing the budget of education from 02% to 04% GDP, to modernize the universities, and faculty development and grooming the HEIs (Ministry of Education, 1998). Moreover, the Education Policies’ recommendations for HE resulted in qualitative and quantitative terms and affected the academic standards of HE with the gap of quality and quantity (Hoodboy, 1998). Because of the improper framework of implementation, including financial issues and want of political commitment, the Education Policies of Pakistan could not effectively achieve the target objectives (Dildar, Saif, & Naz, 2016). To look back at Pakistan’s education policies, each government opposed previous targets and set new ones that have been a tradition in the formulation of education policies. To point out major loopholes, i.e., unrealistic targets & unclear time framework, all these changed from time to time with the change of political structure of the country; as a result, policies have been framed in Pakistan with lots of promises while in the time of implementation all went in vain (Ahsan, 2010).

On the other hand, several education reports and acts were passed in the early days of Malaysia like “the Barnes report, the Fenn Wu Report, the Education Ordinance, the Razak Report and the Education Acts 1961 and 1996”.  In the 21st Century, Malaysians observed the need for tertiary education and started initiatives for achieving the international standards with the formulation of tertiary education policy documents/reports, i.e., “the National HE Action Plan (NHEAP) 2007-2010, the National HE Strategic Plan (NHESP) 2011-2015 and Malaysia Education Blueprint (Higher Education) 2015-2025” (Zam, Aspah, Mohmud, Abdullah, & Ebrahimi, 2017). Tertiary education in Malaysia is based on public institutions and private institutions. Also, the first full-fledged public university was formed in 1959 is the University of Malay. Now in Malaysia, there are a total of 20 public universities, 33 private universities, five foreign university campuses, 37 public community colleges, 24 polytechnics & 500 private colleges (Ministry of Higher Education, 2009). In addition to this, in 2004, the MOHE established which was given responsibilities to direct tertiary education separately in Malaysia. MOHE struggled to formulate National Higher Education Action Plan 2007-2010 to make Malaysia an international hub of HE (Ministry of Higher Education, 2007).  With the merging of Ministries, a more comprehensive Blueprint was formulated which was launched as Malaysia Education Blueprint (Higher Education) 2015-2025 with the initiative to expand tertiary education towards more globalized patterns and to meet international standards or targets by helping the nation to become a developed nation by 2020 (Wan, Sirat, & Razak, 2018).

Therefore, the study is based on a comparative analysis of Pakistan’s and Malaysian HE Policies to differentiate both HE systems, to identify strategic plans of Malaysian HE policies and weaknesses of Pakistan’s HE policies.

Statement of the Problem

Nonetheless, both Pakistan and Malaysia remained colonized by the British, Pakistan got independence in 1947 while Malaysia in 1957. Both are Muslim counties where Malaysia became a sovereign state later than Pakistan, but the Malaysian education system is progressing better than Pakistan’s education system. Therefore, the current research study is based on analyzing Pakistan’s and Malaysian HE Policies to identify the gap, to find out weaknesses of Pakistan’s HE Policies, and to identification Malaysian Strategic Plans concerning HE policies. Further, the study is based on a comparison of both HE systems concerning the quality of education and, research & development at the HE level.




Research Questions

Following the research question guided the present research study:

• Which strategies did Malaysian Policy Makers apply in policy documents to have a better-quality higher education?

Research Methodology

Qualitative, and further content analysis approach was used to analyze the policies, written documents

 related to higher education in Pakistan and Malaysia. In the content analysis method, researchers use the term universe for the population. Because here universe comprises documents to be studied rather than respondents or participants to be used to draw the population. To determine the universe of the study, based on analysis of written documents, includes all HE policy reports from the 1990s to onward, all research papers/scholarly articles, dissertations, and books from 2010 and onward of Pakistan and Malaysia.

Discussion

Data in this study are the secondary documents, i.e., policy reports, some research papers/scholarly articles, dissertations, and books. These documents are analyzed based on developing concepts through the content of written documents. The analysis was done under the following theme:

Quality of Higher Education

In Pakistan

The following analysis is based on Pakistan’s Higher Education Policies in the context of quality:

• Education Policy 1998-2010 mentions that the country stands in the 21st Century, where the future of education seems worsening. This policy report emphasizes that HE is important enough for development. Based on quality, the policy report recommends meeting international standards to produce qualified graduates who can compete worldwide. Moreover, the report focuses on transforming the country by transforming the generation into a developed generation. To improve quality, it recommends the opportunity of computer-based learning, more research work, to give scholarships to students and faculty members from universities, and also to meet global education standards to achieve the standards of the 21st Century. The report also recommends access to quality education and producing highly qualified manpower to meet the needs of the 21st Century. It further proposes the effective provision of resources in maintaining the quality of HE. This policy report highlights in bringing quality to some disciplines like Engineering, Agriculture, Law, and Medical/Health where the emphasis is made on degree programs of all these disciplines with innovation and research work and more publications.  Quality of education has worsened where the present system is not able to respond with a large number of initiatives to improve quality. Hence the policy document reports the low quality of HE which relates to the quality of teachers and students along with support services of educational institutions. The major causes of low-quality education reportedly are insufficient budget, absence of libraries, book reading culture & publications in journals, poor laboratories, infrastructure facilities, and resources. Perhaps the research trend is lacking among faculty members and university students. The policy document mentions that quality education is a global problem that needs to be focused, but unfortunately in Pakistan, the quality of HE was not seriously considered.  While in other countries the major focus is given to quality in the shape of quality councils, performance indicators, and academic audits, provision of quality mechanisms, publication/research work, and ranking of universities. The policy recommends improving the quality of teachers of higher learning institutions to boost up the quality of education. In sustaining the quality of HE, the policy document recommends establishing additional campuses with the provision of academic, administrative, and financial infrastructure. It also proposes to provide better student support services, qualified teachers, and an effective management system. It also suggests discouraging rote learning in the system to acquire real knowledge. 




• National Education Policy 2009 mainly focuses on quality education. It is highlighted that previous education policy could not effectively achieve the targeted objectives that lacked several key aspects, i.e., quality, access, and equity. However, this policy report’s vision is to provide quality education to the youth by helping them recognize their potentials, to contribute to the development of society and the nation. To have a sense of nationhood, develop the concept of tolerance, justice, and democracy. The policy document prioritizes improving the quality of education, especially in the perspective of making a knowledge-based economic society and graduates. To achieve the dream of a knowledge-based economy, good quality education is the main instrument to make it a reality. To determine the quality of HE, it requires internal and external evaluation and accreditation mechanism concerning international practices that proves quality education. To maintain the quality of HE, it is required to develop active and well-qualified faculty at universities. In the instruction approach ICT skills are to be implemented with a maximum output of students' learning. Creation of a well-trained workforce to produce effective graduates with employability chances that determine a knowledge-based economy in the country. Universities are recommended to introduce quality assurance programs along with peer evaluation and foreign expertise. Faculty pre-service training of at least six months to be mandatory after being selected through the Public Service Commission. Colleges’ affiliation standards to be developed. At the Bachelor level, Science-based education is recommended to be included in Social Sciences degree programs to let the graduates developed a balanced worldview. Broad-based education is to be strengthened in the country to produce mastery in areas of specialization. In respect to international standards, four years’ honors programs were strongly suggested to be introduced in the system. 




• Draft National Education Policy 2017 came with the vision of the 18th amendment of the constitution of Pakistan by promising to raise the literacy rate to 90% by 2025, reduce gender gaps, and balance urban and rural areas concerning improve quality education. After the 18th amendment, the National Education Policy 2009 was partially stopped to be implemented to improve the quality of HE. The policymakers realized to improve the quality of education is to improve the curriculum along with a valid assessment and examination systems. Updating HE Curriculum concerning the National Curriculum Review Committees of HEC. HE Commission (HEC) introduced the ranking of a public and private institution to develop a healthy competition that assures quality HE. The policy reports highlight several dimensions that deteriorated quality HE in Pakistan, i.e., the dearth of physical facilities, low profile of faculty members, poor mechanism of the assessment system, up-gradation of curriculum, the privation of research culture, and so on. No Pakistani university so far has made any place among the top 100 universities in QS world university ranking, and hardly any university is seen in the top 500 universities ranking. However, in Asian rankings of Pakistan’s universities have gradual improvement, whereas in 2015/16 ranking 06 of Pakistani universities ranked above 170 in the Asian ranking system. After the creation of HEC in 2002, good progress has been observed in the HE system. In 2002 the number of universities was 59 that increased up to 178 by 2014-15. The enrolment rate increased from 276 to 1.3 million by 2014-15. Funding of universities and scholarships for faculty and graduates increased significantly. Unfortunately, the quality of HE is not up to international standards. Only 27% of faculty members possess Doctoral Degrees, most universities having the poor performance of research work making international ranking low concerning QS ranking of world universities that Pakistan hardly managed to be included among the top 500 universities. Provinces are able enough to spend less than a 13% budget on HE. The appointment of senior officials and leaders is not transparent, and sometimes political influences affect the quality of education and innovation in the country.  Pakistan also signed the global agenda of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2015-2030. Whereas SDG 4 focuses on quality education which has 07 targets. As per this agenda, Pakistan is supposed to develop quality education from primary up to tertiary level. In the implementation of the international agenda to develop the knowledge economy of Pakistan concerning National Vision 2025, It is the target to strengthen the university quality concerning QS (Quacquarelli Symonds, England) in comparison to another global ranking of universities. Transformation of the teacher-centred approach of teaching-learning paradigm into student-centred to develop knowledge, skills, and competency. Introducing 04 years Bachelor's program to link with international standards. With the US-Pak relation of knowledge corridor, it is set to produce 10,000 Ph.D. Faculty for HE Institutions in ten years framework. Based on international standards there are three categories of HE Institutions, i.e., Tier I (Higher Quality Research Universities), Tier II (Degree Awarding Institution), and Tier III (Colleges or Institutions affiliated with Degree Awarding Institutions). However, the policy report aims to strengthen Tier I research universities and to nurture them to enhance the international ranking.  Investment in overseas and indigenous Faculty Development Programs to increase the qualification and skills of teaching faculty. 500 post-doc scholarships to be given for research projects. 3000 Ph.D. programs to be allocated to lecturer in all disciplines. 




In Malaysia 




The following analysis is based on Malaysian HE Policies in the context of quality:

• National HE Action Plan (NHEAP) 2007-2010 is the first phase of transforming the Malaysian HE system. This policy aims for urgent reform of HE in Malaysia. It was observed that South Korea, Singapore, and China are progressing towards a knowledge-based economy and boosting up there HE learning institutions in general. Malaysia aims to compete with these powerful education systems. Reforms were initiated to revise national HE, and key emphasis was made on quality education. The Action Plan recommends developing a scientific society based on innovation and technological progress. Back in the last three decades, Malaysia got quite successful in creating graduates and increased manpower. Unemployment is an issue in many countries as well as in Malaysia which is slowing the economic growth in the country. HE Institutions (HEIs) are responsible for the reason and are unable to create a knowledge-based product. Hence, the recommendation was made to emphasize language fluency and critical thinking among graduates (it is the main reason for unemployed graduates). Malaysia’s vision to make education an international hub of study where overseas students will be attracted and invited to the sharing of culture, knowledge, and innovation. Recommended establishing universities and community colleges for creating a lifelong learning hub. HE system to be reformed with the development of quality human capita along with the development of knowledge, skills, and intellect in the field of Science, Technology, and Entrepreneurship. Based on the leveling up approach, all HEIs leaders were given the responsibility of enhancing the quality HE.  Statistically, it was found in 2006 that there was a total of 20,000 lecturers in public HEIs and a total of 25% having Ph.D. qualification. Target was set to increase Ph.D. qualification from 25% to 60% by 2010. Emphasis was made to strengthen staff development programs to benefit both public and private HEIs. The Ministry of HE (MOHE) introduced a holistic program in all disciplines to build a balanced perception among students. For example, a student is studying Science, medicine, and engineering besides they should be taught literature and philosophy related subjects. Also, inter-culture relationships and diversity of students are focused on fostering national unity besides any prejudices and differences. Dynamism in curriculum and pedagogy was emphasized to strengthen the institutions and to reform the curriculum by re-constructing the curriculum to remove irrelevant courses. To maintain the quality of HE, the Action Plan recommends creating 21,000 Ph.D. holders by 2010, among which 60% doctoral degree from Science and Technology, 20% from Humanities or Applied Literature, and 20% from rest of Professional fields. To maintain the quality of HE, the MOHE recommends in the Action Plan that an audit unit be set for assessment of Public and Private HEIs. The main mission of MOHE through NHEAP 2007-10 is to develop human capita through HE and educate a new generation of Malaysia who must be capable of actively engaged in the global world. 




• National HE Strategic Plan (NHESP) 2011-2015 mentions that HE has been given due attention to the establishment of the Ministry of HE (MOHE) in 2004. Ministry has put efforts into introducing various policies to develop national HE by creating an effective system in the country, leading to knowledge excellence. The main effort was to make Malaysia a regional hub of HE where Malaysia’s HE to be a choice of career for overseas students. NHEAP Phase II came with the vision of empowering the national HE system, along with considering the 10th Malaysia Plan (10MP). Online and Distance learning was given special emphasis along with educational infrastructure, student character, curriculum, and use of technology in the process of teaching and learning. To make Malaysia a developed nation with an innovation-based economy based on knowledge and creativity. To develop public and private HEIs based on an innovative approach. It is emphasized to make quality human capita that is the only tool in transforming the nation. This Action Plan again aspires to make Malaysia an international hub for HE by 2020. It further aspires to make Malaysia HE according to the world benchmark by providing quality HE. Measures were made to upgrade HE Institution Centre of Excellence (HEI COE) into Centre of Excellence (COE) to attain recognition at regional and international levels.  The Phase II Action Plan put measures to empower leadership in HEIs in Malaysia to boost up the system towards effective management. It recommends improving academic institutions and academic staff to form a world-class university. The outstanding production of academics may contribute towards the attainment of the state vision of becoming an education hub for HE in the Asian region. The Phase II Action Plan focuses on quality-based teaching and learning to develop knowledge and innovation to make leading mindsets of youth. Curriculum to be made up to date restructured according to market demands, innovative and dynamic that leads towards intellectual development and creativity in the system. The Action Plan recommends good teaching and learning infrastructure, effective methods of teaching, and well-qualified teaching staff for the betterment of the system. Private HEIs are in the rapid growth of offering programs in various disciplines without compromising quality due to which 05 International University Campuses are running in Malaysia privately that is benefiting economic growth of the country as well as the proper expansion of HE in the country and gaining a good repute in the international market. This Strategic Policy considers knowledge is the focus of Science and Technology in this information and global era to compete internationally. Quality assurance is formulated to check and balance scholarship standards and learning of students’ experiences, whether achieved or maintained. It assures the quality of academic programs, institutions of HE, accreditation programs, and institutions rating of all HEIs. Through the MyBrain15 Critical Agenda Project (CAP) to produce several Ph.D. holders leading Malaysia’s HE towards innovation and creativity. Target has been set to produce 60.000 Ph.D. qualification in Malaysia by 2020. Based on Apex policy, it was aimed to make HE moving towards a world-class research university hub with sustainability. This research university helps the country led to a world of excellence and innovation. Nonetheless, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is recommended to be imposed in teaching and learning processes along with e-learning methods to boost up the quality of HE among universities in Malaysia. 

Malaysia Education Blueprint (Higher Education) MEBHE 2015-2025 mentions that Malaysia’s HE improved over some past decades. In the last ten years, the HE system gained good student enrolment; global recognition has significantly strengthened, enhancement in research publication and quality-based institutions to make Malaysia becoming the choice of career for international students. According to Universities report 2014, Malaysia’s HE was ranked 28th among 50 countries in the field of resources, environment, and connectivity, and output. Malaysia was ranked 12th among 50 concerning the investment of resources and 44th concerning outputs. Ministry vision to further bring improvement in all categories. It was realized that graduates in Malaysia are not good at critical thinking, communication abilities, and language fluency in English which is the modern world needs to compete globally. Hence, the Ministry has set 03 aspirations, i.e., quality of a) graduates b) institutions c) overall system. In respect to graduates, the Ministry aimed to increase 75% of graduates’ employment rate up to 80 by 2025.  Concerning the quality of institutions, recommendations were made to improve universities ranking worldwide to be among the top 100 in QS global ranking by 2025. While in respect to the quality of the overall system, the blueprint recommends raising ranking concerning research and output among 36th to top 25th worldwide among 50 countries. Also, to increase the number of international students from 108000 to 250000 in his by 2025. Also, vision to bring Malaysia among top 3rd in an international assessment like PISA and TIMSS. Initiates an education system giving children shared values and experiences to balance ethnicity and diversity. Such an education system free from urban and rural gaps of socio-economic and gender by 2020. The blueprint recommends six primary attributes in the HE system to develop a healthy lifestyle by dent of moral and ethical standards. To develop leadership skills among teachers, making such an education system full of pride for Malaysians in connection with the world. Recommended making Malaysians proficient in Bahasa Malay and English along with one additional global language. Such an education system to be designed to encourage critical and innovative mindsets. To boost up knowledge and skills among graduates. The blueprint recommends that graduates enjoy high quality-based programs with innovative learning patterns. Developing knowledge and skills to generate employability among graduates. A new model of learning is suggested based on creativity like Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Recommendations are made to let the academic community having decisions on curriculum, financial management, and talent management. Empowering HLIs leaders deciding for the betterment of public academics and institutions. To achieve students’ aspirations and suggested the education system. The blueprint suggests 10 shifts for developing value-driven talent and bringing excellence in HE. Recommends transforming from the world of job seekers to the world of job creator system. To enable graduates to have basic ilmu (knowledge and skills) and akhlak (morality) along with good behavior, literacy of masses, and developed mindsets. To boost up the quality of HE, which is important to improve the quality of the academic community with the help of researchers, educational leaders, supporting staff, and educators. To meet a high-income economy, blueprint suggests life-long learning (LLL) in Malaysian HE Institutions. This blueprint aims to transform the HE system of Malaysia by merging the Ministry of HE with the Ministry of Education to link with Blueprint of Education (pre-school level to post-secondary level).

The following analysis (of research papers/scholarly articles) is based on adopted strategies of Malaysian HE Policies:

• Malaysia has successfully transformed from a production-based to a knowledge-based economy in competing globally in all fields, especially in education. Malaysia has made significant progress in the education system to help in developing the nation towards a developed nation by 2020 

(Grapragasem, Krishna, & Mansor, 2014).




• Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Bin Mohamad wrote a paper “Malaysia: The Way Forward”, and it was given to the Malaysian Business Council in 1991. This paper guided to make Malaysia a fully industrialized state by 2020. Later the vision 2020 introduced nine strategic challenges towards the way. After that, a transformation era was introduced in Malaysia were to change the map of HE was one of the visions. To make HE an international hub by 2020. With this vision during the 1990s, it was observed by the Government of Malaysia to reshape and transform the HE system in the country. It was noticed to introduce private HE institutions in developing tertiary education and corporatization of public universities in the country. With the execution of the New Economic Policy in the 1970s, the Government of Malaysia measured HE as a means to transform an economic state and bring growth to society. In 1996 the National Council on HE Act was passed to formulate National Policies on HE in the country. The Universities and University Colleges Act was amended in 1995 to corporatize public universities. The Private HEIs Act was passed in 1996 to deal with all private HE institutions in Malaysia. Also, the National Accreditation Board Act was passed in 1996 to monitor the Private HEIs (PHEL). All these legislative Acts are made to restructure the HE in Malaysia (Lee C., 2016).

Conclusion

Pakistan has initiated after the National Education Policy 1998-2010, emergency in the education system of the country. The emergency and reformed plan was initiated from 2000 to 2010.  In 2002 Ministry of Education through the recommendation of the government established the HE Commission (HEC) which replaced just the University Grants Commission (UGC) as an autonomous body to deal with the HE of Pakistan. Higher Education Commission (HEC) developed various reforms to mainstream universities and Higher Education Institutions with the vision of 1998-2010 Education Policy. At the same duration Perspective Development Plan, 2001-2010 and National Plan of Action 2010-2015 was proposed to reform the education system of Pakistan. Before 1998-2010 Education Policy was to be executed in accordance to its proper time framework, the National Education Policy 2009 replaced it with the vision of reviewing the weaknesses of 1998-2010 Education Policy along with target achievement of Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015) and EFA Education for All 2001-2015. As the 2009 Education Policy launched, so after some time, the 18th Amendment of the Constitution was passed in parliament to decentralized the education system from a federating body to provincial autonomy. Every province was given authority to deal education system separately with the collaboration of a federating governed body. However, the Ministry of Education was replaced with the Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training to deal with the Education of Pakistan with the collaboration of Inter-Provincial Education Ministers (IPEM). After the 18th amendment, it was observed that National Education Policy 2009 was framed with centralized authority and things have been decentralized; therefore, there was a need to frame another Education Policy Draft to suggest the best policy to overcome the challenges of the Education System of Pakistan especially HE. Even the 2009 Education Policy, after being implemented, was not result-oriented concerning the International framework of MDGs and the new framework of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2015-2030 agenda. Along with research and innovation and a globalized system of HE. Thus, a Draft Policy was proposed as National Education Policy 2017 to meet the international standards as well as the required challenges of the HE system of Pakistan. However, the overall framework for the last three policies seems not sustainable. With the change of political parties and government, policies to change with no proper execution and implementation. There are many fluctuations in the policymaking and implementation of Pakistan. Concerning the allocation of budget, all last three policies suggested good provision of budget, when it comes to implementation time, just 2% of GDP was allocated. In respect to Research & Development, the focus was given to quality research work and unfortunately, absence of financial assistance. Pakistan has fewer Ph.D. degree holders; as a result research work in Pakistan is poor. In respect to quality, targets were made to meet global standards, develop qualified graduates, and development of infrastructure of universities and Higher Education Institutions. However, the absence of financial assistance, poor implementation of policies, and political instability affected the quality of HE and the failure of education policies. Concerning governance structure, HE policies want proper planning, management, and execution of the recommendations. Concerning global and international standards of HE, Pakistan accepted the international frameworks like MDGs and SDGs to compete internationally. Concerning the accessibility of HE, several scholarships were provided to graduates to study free of cost in indigenous institutions and even overseas institutions. Also, efforts were made to provide equal opportunities to both genders free from biases and prejudices. Still, the participation ratio in universities of Pakistan is a question mark, and equitable access to HE is a big gap. Thus, many reforms and policies were framed to develop the HE of Pakistan but could not achieve the targeted objectives because of the absence of implementation, poor governance, low allocation of budget, and unclear targets; all became the root causes. 

In contrary to that, Malaysia developed a vision in the 1990s to make such an education system to develop a knowledge economy in the country to make Malaysia a developed nation by 2020. It was observed Ministry of Education alone is not able enough to look after pre-primary to higher secondary and tertiary level. However, in 2004 a vision was made to transform the HE of Malaysia; therefore, the Ministry of HE was developed as a separate Ministry with the development of separate Blueprints and Policies. However, MOHE started a transformation target in four phases where in the first phase National HE Action Plan (NHEAP) 2007-2010 was framed, which took its proposed time framework. Right after that National HE Strategic Plan (NHESA) 2011-2015 was framed in a review of the previous blueprint; linking this policy with other proposed five-year plans of Malaysia. The phases by time framework were implemented and revised. In respect to the third and fourth phase, a full-fledged Blueprint was proposed by the Ministry of HE that is Malaysia Education Blueprint (Higher Education) MEBHE 2015-2025. Hence all these Blueprints were according to time and proper implementation and target revision to successfully transform HE of Malaysia with the vision of making Malaysia an international hub of HE in South East Asia. The policies of Malaysia are sustainable and according to the time framework, along with proper execution and implementation. Moreover, concerning quality, the Malaysian government, through the Ministry of HE emphasized knowledge economy to compete with powerful education systems like Singapore, China, and South Korea and also with ASEAN countries. Concerning globalization and internationalization, the Ministry focused on making Malaysia an international hub of HE by establishing five foreign university campuses. Concerning the allocation of budget, Malaysia is spending more than 4% of GDP on the education system, which is above UNESCO’s set standards. Concerning accessibility of HE, good progress has been experienced in Bachelor programs. Among ASEAN countries Malaysia is 3rd in ranking about enrolment of Master and Ph.D. programs. Research and Development Malaysia emphasizes research and innovation in Science and Technology. Mainly successful in publication of high impact journals with effective research culture. Also, the development of skilled scholars who can work on innovative ideas and works to lead Malaysia among developed nations. However, concerning governance structure Ministry is directly related to public universities and public HEIs. But reforms were made to include both private and public institutions under the governance of the Ministry. The governance system is centralized to the Ministry in Malaysia that is responsible for framing policies and implementing them too. Hence, the overall Malaysian HE Policies are according to time framework and sustainable concerning target achievement and review policies. Every policy is a review of the previous one with some effective additions.

References

• Abdullah, A. (2013). Malaysian Higher Education and The United States As A Model: Policy Borrowing or Policy Learning? Melbourne: The University of Melbourne
• Ahsan, M. (2010). An Analytical Review of Pakistan's Educational Policies and Plans. Research Papers in Education, 259-280.
• Ali, S. (2017). The Sphere of Authority: Governing Education Policy in Pakistan Amidst Global Pressures. Globalization, Societies, and Education, 217-237.
• Aziz, M. A. (1986). Review of Education Policies and Corresponding Five Years Plans (1947-86). Islamabad: Ministry of Education, Planning Wing Pakistan.
• Bengali, K. (1999). History of Educational Policy Making and Planning in Pakistan. Islamabad Pakistan: The Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI)
• Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research Planning, COnducting, & Evaluating Quantitative & Qualitative Research. New Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited.
• Dildar, S. M., Saif, N. N., & Naz, D. (2016). Review of Educational Policies of Pakistan: Planning and Implication flows. The University of Sargodha. Sargodha: ResearchGate
• Government of Pakistan. (2008-09). Economic Survey of Pakistan. Islamabad: Finance Division.
• Government of Pakistan. (2017). Draft National Education Policy 2017. Islamabad: Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training.
• Grapragasem, S., Krishna, A., & Mansor, A. N. (2014). Current trends in Malaysian Higher Education and the Effect on Education Policy and Practice: An Overview. International Journal of Higher Education, 80-85.
• Haider, S. Z., & Dilshad, M. (2015). Higher Education and Global Development: A Cross-Cultural Qualitative Study in Pakistan. Higher Education for the Future, 175-193
• Ibad, F. (2017). Analysis of Pakistan's Educational Policy in Terms of Higher Education. Pakistan Business Review, 273-278.
• Iqbal. (2006). A Nationwide Plan and a Public-Private Partnership to help Improve Higher Education in Pakistan. Leaping forward: A Report on Higher Education in Pakistan. United Nation, New York: The Promotion of Education in Pakistan Foundation.
• Iqbal, H. M. (2011). Education in Pakistan Developmental Milestones. Karachi: Paramount Publishing Enterprise.
• Jahangir, K. (2008). Management of Higher Education Reforms in Pakistan: An Implementation Perspective. Islamabad: National University of Modern Languages Press.
• Kerio, G. (2018). The Role of Educational Leadership in Promoting Reflective Practices among Secondary School Teachers of Sindh: A Research Thesis. Karachi: Department of Education at SMI University.
• Lee. (2004). Restructuring Higher Education in Malaysia, School of Educational Studies. Penang: University Sains Malaysia.
• Lee, C. (2016). The Changing Landscape of Higher Education in Malaysia and China. IKMAS Working Paper Series, 2-33.
• Mehmood, K. (2016). Overall Assessment of the Higher Education Sector. Islamabad: Higher Education Commission of Pakistan.
• Ministry of Education. (1998). National Education Policy 1998-2010. Islamabad: Ministry of Education Government of Pakistan.
• Ministry of Education. (2009). National Education Policy 2009. Islamabad: Ministry of Education Government of Pakistan.
• Ministry of Education. (2013). Malaysian Education Blueprint 2013-2025 (Preschool to Post-Secondary School Education). Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.
• Ministry of Education. (2014). National Education Statistic: Higher education sector. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
• Ministry of Education. (2016). Eleventh Malaysia Plan 2016-2020. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
• Ministry of Higher Education. (2011). National Higher Education Strategic Plan (NHESP) Behind 2020. Perpustakaan Bergara: Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia.
• Ministry of Higher Education. (2007). National Higher Education Action Plan 2007-2010. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia.
• Ministry of Higher Education. (2009). Malaysian Education: Malaysia Centre Of Educational Excellence. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia.
• OECD. (2011). Higher Education in Regional and City Development. Penang: State of Penang, Malaysia. Oxford Dictionary. (2019, January 19). English Oxford Living Dictionaries. www.en.oxforddictionaries.com:https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/policy
• Pakistan Ministry of Education. (1959). Report of the Commission on National Education. Karachi: Ministry of Education Government of Pakistan.
• Pakistan, Ministry of Education. (2008-9). Pakistan Education Statistics 2008-09. Islamabad: NEMIS, AEPAM, Government of Pakistan.
• Pakistan, National Assembly. (2012). The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Islamabad: National Assembly.
• Siddiqui, S. (2016). Education Policies in Pakistan Politics, Projections, and Practices. Karachi: Oxford University Press.
• Tilak, J. B. (2015). Higher Education in South Asia: Crisis and Challenges. Social Scientist, 43-59
• University Grants Commission. (2000). The budget of the University Grants Commission 2000-
• Wan, C. D., Sirat, M., & Razak, D. A. (2018). Education in Malaysia Towards a Developed Nation. ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute, 1-19.
• White, S. R. (2016). Theodore Brameld’s Thought Infused in Higher Education Global Studies Curriculum. Journal of Education and Learning, 278-287.
• Zam, N. M., Aspah, V., Mohmud, N. A., Abdullah, N., & Ebrahimi, M. (2017). Challenges and Evolution of Higher Education in Malaysia. International Journal of Islamic and Civilizational Studies, 78- 87.