Smart Schools (ict)

© 2004 UICEE

4th Global Congress on Engineering Education Bangkok, Thailand, 5 - 9 July, 2004

How Smart Are Malaysia’s Smart Schools? M. Puteh & A.M. Vicziany Monash Asia Institute, Monash University Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT: This paper evaluates the Malaysian government’s experiment with the ‘Smart Schools Project’ that began in 1999 with 90 schools. The project was part of the Malaysian government’s response to the pressures of globalisation and the belief that an Information Technology Revolution in Malaysia would help to maintain the momentum of economic growth by producing a technologically literate workforce. The paper discusses the origins of that policy, the application of ICT in ‘Smart Schools’ and the results of that experiment. This assessment is based on a comparison with the experience of Australian schools in the state of Victoria during the last ten years. The Victorian comparison is introduced as a way of providing a benchmark against which the Malaysian applications and outcomes can be compared. A key conclusion of this research is that Malaysian government needs to evaluate its ‘Smart Schools’ strategy before extending the program to the remaining 8962 schools in the country.

INTRODUCTION The Malaysian government is preparing to meet the challenges of globalisation as part of its strategy of becoming a developed country as envisaged in the national agenda, Vision 2020. Vision 2020 was introduced in 1991 and summarised the essence of Malaysia’s plans for economic transformation. Vision 2020 emphasised that Malaysia had to embrace the knowledge economy in order to become globally competitive. Creating an Information Communication Technology (hereafter ICT) literate society was a central platform in achieving that transformation. Thus, the National Information Technology Council was established three years late to advise the government on ICT policies as well as provide assistance with implementing them [1]. The Council included representatives from the public and the private sectors and fostered the idea that knowledge and information are the assets of the future Malaysian economy. The Council launched the National IT Agenda in December 1996 to promote the wider application of ICT across many economic sectors. Thus the concepts of E-community, E-public services, E-learning, Eeconomy and E-sovereignty emerged. E-learning included the Smart Schools Project, the subject of this paper.

THE SMART SCHOOLS POLICY The SSP is one of the Flagship Applications of the Multimedia Super Corridor (hereafter MSC). This signals that primary and secondary education is regarded by the Malaysian government as a critical long term building block for its post-industrial strategy. The MSC was initiated in 1996 by Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, the Malaysian Prime Minister, as a way of replicating the successes of silicon valley. The idea was to create within Malaysia a geographic hub that provided local and foreign companies with the essential infrastructure needed for modern production, in particular ICT facilities and services. [3] On the ground, the MSC takes the form of numerous highways that span the distance from Kuala Lumpur’s new airport to the city. Dug into the side of the roads are the electrical and communication cables needed for the kind of late industrial, value-added production that the Vision 2020 strategy had in mind. Beyond this geographic space there is a much wider notional corridor that extends to companies and associations that have special relationships with the MSC. These organizations are said to have ‘MSC status’ that gives them access to government privileges and incentives.

Given that most world governments are addressing the issues of globalisation and how to harness the capacities of the ICT revolution to achieve world competitiveness, what makes the Malaysian government’s efforts different from others? Certainly the Malaysian effort has attracted attention in Asia with at least one recent paper suggesting that Taiwan could learn from the Malaysian experiment [2]. This paper analyses the Malaysian Smart Schools Project’s (SSP) attempt to enhance the teaching and learning processes at the primary and secondary schools level. Our comparative framework includes references to the Australian experience as a way of highlighting the unique nature of the Malaysian approach.

The Smart Schools Integrated Solutions (hereafter SSIS) was rolled out 1998 at the cost of US$78 million (RM 300 millions) to be spent on a pilot project up to December 2002. Of this RM183,573,737 was for Capital Expenditure and RM116,426,263 for Operating Expenditure[4]. Table 1 gives a more detailed breakdown of the budget.

223

Table 1 The Budget for the SSP Pilot Project 1999-2002 [4]. SSIS Components Teaching-Learning Materials (in eg CD ROM format) Smart School Management System Technology Infrastructure (IT and non-IT equipment) Training on various components of SSIS Support Services Project Management, Business Process Reengineering, Systems Integration TOTAL

Costs (RM) 92,443,742

% of total 30.8

31,366,872

10.5

65,921,874

22.0

2,113,380

0.7

17,851,177 90,302,955

6.0 30.0

300,000,000

100

consortium. Within the consortium, the level of interest and commitment in the project was divided amongst the various ‘shareholders’ into fixed percentages with Telekom Multimedia Sdn Bhd having a 51 per cent controlling interest [8]. A third distinguishing feature of the SSP is that the provider was asked to develop technologies and services capable of integrating all ICT functions within a school system. In other words, not only did the provider develop new teaching materials in the form of CD ROMS but it also developed software systems for the routine management of the schools. Such an integrated system was regarded as the most efficient way of leapfrogging Malaysian schools into a high technology domain. ICT IN AUSTRALIAN SCHOOLS: A CONRASTING EXAMPLE

Table 2 shows the percentage of government expenditure on education as a proportion of GDP in 1998-2000 for various countries. Relative to others, the Malaysian government is spending more on education. This is partly because in the developed countries the private sector plays an increasingly important role in basic education. At the same time, Table 2 indicates that the Malaysian government is spending much more money on education than its per capita GDP would predict. Such high levels of expenditure require the Malaysian government to deliver good results from its investment in expensive initiatives such as the SSP.

ICT learning strategies have been an integral part of the Australian schools system for some twenty years, but the manner in which ICT learning has been established differs significantly from the Malaysian approach. To begin with, the Australian education system does not seek to provide acrossthe-board solutions for all aspects of teaching, learning and management in schools. Rather there are separate programs and providers for these components. Secondly, the Australian schools system has seen a move towards more private schools in the last few decades. These private schools have developed their own ICT strategies. Some of these do, however, involve private firms as providers of the equipment needed by students. For example, the largest private school in central Melbourne established a program some 15 years ago requiring every student from Grade 5 onwards to have their own laptops. Parents are advised that the laptops could be hired through the school from a preferred private firm that was also responsible for the maintenance of equipment and loading up software compatible with the school’s requirements. Parents had the choice of supplying their children with their own laptops from other vendors, but in that case the parents were also responsible for maintenance and the compatibility of software. Not surprisingly, parents overwhelming chose to hire laptops through the school’s preferred supplier as this was a less risky option and required less input of their own time. At the end of three years, the laptops are returned to the corporation and new laptops and contracts are issued. In other words, the private corporate sector does play a role in the ICT programs of private Australian schools, but there is no central approach to this. Moreover, the private firms only provide equipment; they have no pedagogical role that extends into the production of courseware.

Table 2 The Proportion of Public Expenditure on Education as a Percentage of GDP in 1998-2000: Malaysia compared with others [5] Country

Malaysia Singapore USA UK Australia New Zealand

GDP (US$ Billions) 2001 88.0 85.6 10,065.3 1,424.1 368.7 50.4

GDP/ Capita (US$) 2001 3,699 20,733 35,277 24,219 19,019 13,101

Public Expenditure on education (as % of GDP) 1998-2000 6.2 3.7 4.8 4.5 4.7 6.1

The involvement of private sector companies in the implementation of government policy is a unique feature of Malaysia’s Smart Schools Project. In 1999 the Telekom Smart School corporation (hereafter TSS) was established in response to the Malaysian government’s call for private sector support to the project. That support took the form of a provider charged with implementing the pilot project in the 90 schools that had been selected out of some 9,000 Malaysian schools. The new consortium consisted of seven Malaysian firms and three multinationals including the Malaysian subsidiary of NIIT (National Institute of Information Technology, an Indian IT company), the world’s largest trainer of IT manpower [6]. In effect, TSS became the ‘owner’ of the pilot and it was not until the project was completed at the end of 2002 that ownership reverted to the Ministry of Education in March 2003 [7]. The bulk of the budget set out in Table 1 above, reflected the money spent by the Malaysian government on specific project components and services provided by this

Thirdly, and most important of all, the development of curriculum and the delivery of curriculum in the Australian schools system is left to educational specialists – professional teachers who have made a career choice to become involved in curriculum development. Typically, these professionals work in collaboration with educational specialists in the universities to ensure that the teaching content is of the highest quality and that what is taught in schools ultimately relates to what is expected in the tertiary sector [9].

224

Thus, the Australian approach to ICT for schools is highly decentralised in contrast to the centralised model of the Malaysian Smart Schools Project. It also recognises that the competencies required by technical and pedagogical specialists are totally different, so that these two functions are not blended into the tasks of a single provider. At the same time, a move has been made in Australia towards a coordinated effort in developing a national online curriculum. This began in 1999 with the Australian Action Plan proposed by the Federal Government. The plan requires federal, state and territory governments to work together, in contrast to the previous model in which state and territory governments developed their own local curricula. Given the history of state governments and territories guarding their control over educational and other policies, their willingness to work together on this initiative represents an important break with tradition.

variety of learning purposes.” For example, the learning object could be a file containing graphics, text, audio or animations. The emphasis of the ‘learning object’ model is to develop standardised and replicable information with broad relevance to schools across Australia. In the schools, however, the teachers have the option of supplementing this information with other materials to meet the specific learning needs of their particular students. IMPLEMENTING MALAYSIA’S STRATEGY The Smart Schools Project began in 1999 with 90 schools representing no more than one percent of Malaysia 9,000 schools. Six different categories of schools were recognised and each identified for particular kinds of ICT strategies: • • •

Specifically, the Australian Government allocated A$34.1 million over five years (2001-2006) to the Schools Online Curriculum Content Initiative [10]. State and territory governments have matched the funding bringing the total budget to A$68.2 million. The project is managed by The Learning Federation which is a joint venture between the Curriculum Corporation and a new company called Education.au limited. Both companies are government sector corporations charged with the responsibility of driving educational changes in Australian schools. The Learning Federation aims to create online curriculum content to be used by all school systems in Australia and New Zealand. The Curriculum Corporation has wider objectives that include the production of learning materials for face-to-face classroom teaching. The online content will be developed in six curriculum priority areas (see Table 3), and the focus is on interactive learning activities.

• • •

On the completion of the pilot project at the end of 2002, three of the new schools had not yet been built so the pilot project ultimately involved only 87 schools. In the next eight years, the remaining Malaysian schools (about 8965) will be upgraded to ‘Smart School status’. The role of ICT in the Smart Schools is to enable and enhance learning; it is not intended to shift learning strategies to a wholly ICT basis. In this it is similar to the Australian approach. The model also sought to test the applicability of ICT strategies in remote areas not yet covered by the electricity grid and where generators provide power for TVs, VCRs and radio sets. Through this means students will be able to access a wide range of educational programmes [11][12].

Table 3 The six priority areas for the development of online, interactive curriculum in Australia schools 2000-2005 [10]. Subjects Innovation, Enterprise and Creativity Languages Other than English Literacy Numeracy and Mathematics Science Studies of Australia

Grades involved All year levels

The one remote secondary school involved in the pilot will also be provided with wireless access to the internet. Much can be achieved by the use of generators to guarantee the supply of electricity to these pilot schools, although whether this model can then be extended to the 2,000 Malaysian schools that are still without electricity remains debatable [13].

All year levels Years 5-9 Years P-9 Years P-6 and years 9-10 All year levels

Another major difference in approaches is that the online curriculum in Australia is intended to focus on learning areas that are conceptually, technically or mathematically difficult to get across in class room situations. The following three areas in particular have been identified as priorities for the development of new courseware: 1. 2. 3.

9 new schools (5 primary and 4 secondary) 36 residential secondary schools 14 Munshi Networked schools (secondary schools currently piloting electronic resource centres) 14 state secondary schools 14 state primary schools 3 remote schools without direct electricity supply (comprising 2 primary schools and 1 secondary school)

Classification of Pilot Schools The pilot schools in the SSP were divided into three types, namely: A, B+ and B schools. There were nine A schools, two B+ schools and 79 B schools. Each type was given different levels of ICT intensity. Type A schools received two computer laboratories and all individual classrooms and science labs were also equipped with computers. The student-computer ratio was targeted at 5:1.

difficult concepts or demonstrations of dangerous processes (i.e. in chemistry); proofs for certain tests and processes; concepts that are beyond a student’s experience.

In the B+ schools, a more limited number of classroom computers was provided plus the science labs received four computers each. Many of the learning activities in the B+ schools were designed to be group-based with 10 or 12 students sharing the use of a single computer and worked together on projects.

In order to facilitate the production of innovative teaching material, the Learning Federation created the ‘learning object’ model that focuses on the digital content of the online material. The ‘object’ is defined as “ a component of online material that can be identified, tracked, referenced, used and reused for a 225

Finally, in the B schools, ICT teaching strategies were introduced through the use of computer laboratories only. Each school was given one laboratory set up with 37 computers. Access to the technology supported learning was only available to the classes of students scheduled to use those laboratories.

the learning objectives were even partially reached. An assessment study has now been commissioned, but unless this reviews the learning outcomes it will not address the urgent needs that Vision 2020 identified. Sporadic feedback from one showcase school suggests that the pilot project may have delivered a chink into the rote learning models. Dr Salbiah Ismail, principal of the Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Putrajaya, has reported that students and teachers took to the new IT technology ‘like a sponge absorbs water’ [15]. Specifically, using the internet the students were able to ‘get information online, faster and more comprehensively’. Above all, the internet ‘teaches them to be more independent’ [authors’ emphasis].

Given the regional complexity of Malaysia, the implementation of the Smart School Project also ensured that there was at least one inspiring Smart School in each of Malaysia’s 13 states [11][12]. Achievements of the Pilot Project In April 2003, the Telekom Smart School (TSS) consortium reported that the pilot project had been successfully completed. It documented its ‘significant achievements’ in the following way manner: • • • • •

If this experience of IT learning is more general throughout the pilot Smart Schools, then there is indeed room for optimism. Final conclusions on this subject, however, must await a proper assessment of the learning outcomes. We certainly need to be cautious in claiming achievements for ICT simply because it represents new technology. Lewis, for example, has warned us that there is nothing inevitable about more ICT in the schools of the world and higher levels of knowledge and achievement [17]. One of the most academically distinguished schools in Australia has achieved remarkable learning results with the introduction of philosophy as a primary school subject. There is nothing unusual about this school’s teaching programs when it comes to ICT - local practice conforms to what happens in other modestly funded government schools. The beneficial results of philosophy have gone well beyond academic criteria and include less schoolyard violence and more responsible citizenship in general.

TSS had produced about 1,500 CD ROMs with new courseware; It had delivered an ‘integrated computerised Smart School Management System for Malaysian Schools’; 87 Malaysian schools now had the ICT infrastructure envisaged in the 1998 plan; 1,000 IT professionals had been involved in developing that infrastructure; 68 staff from the Educational Ministry had been trained by TSS[14].

It is noticeable that the achievement criteria are all technical ones rather than pedagogical. The pedagogical criteria for the Pilot Project are set out clearly by TSS in a section of their website titled: ‘Frequently asked questions regarding the Smart School initiative’ [15]. These criteria include very ambitious objectives such as: • • •

CONCLUSIONS In December 2003, Malaysia’s Ministry of Education decided to extend the Smart Schools strategy to a further 100 schools [17]. Reports by the government and the TSS are highly optimistic about the pilot’s outcomes. At the same time, the Smart Schools Project is widely perceived by the general Malaysian community to have failed. How can this discrepancy be accounted for?

teaching students to their best individual abilities; teachers making the national curriculum relevant to their students’ needs; creating a school environment to encourage students to reach their highest potential with teachers as mentors; ongoing assessment of student learning and motivation; educational leadership by school principals and teachers as role models; strong commitment to school objectives by parents and the wider community, including a wide range of extra curricula activities.

Clearly, this pedagogical approach has moved strongly away from the rote learning methods typical in Asian schools, including Malaysian schools. Whether the Smart Schools will meet these objectives remains to be seen.

One reason is that neither the government nor the ICT provider, TSS, has made a systematic assessment of the pilot project’s learning results. Too much of the information about the SSP sounds like an exercise in mutual self-promotion rather than a realistic assessment of what actually happened in the pilot schools. As already noted above, the TSS measures its successful delivery of ICT using technological criteria. It has now ‘rolled out’ the ICT system in 87 schools and, so ipso facto, it is assumed that the project has been implemented. In fact, the only thing about which we can be certain is that the technological infrastructure now exists in the pilot schools. That is an important achievement, but by itself it is no guarantee that better learning will result.

At this stage, not even the Pilot Project schools have been assessed according to these criteria. This is a concern, because the TSS emphasis on establishing the technological infrastructure in the Smart Schools system included the production of 1,500 CD Roms. What this courseware represented and how close it came to the original objectives of the SSP pilot is not yet known. Nor do we know much about how principals and teachers implemented the pilot and whether

Second, public perception has been negative because from the beginning the Ministry of Education failed to consult the country’s educational experts from within the schools system and Malaysian universities. The Smart School Task Force represented only the different divisions of the Educational Ministry and the private companies that were invited to tender for the project. The Task Force was asked to conduct a feasibility study prior to the production of the Smart School

• • •

226

Project blueprint [18]. The team studied the ‘Smart School’ approach in various foreign countries, but at no time consulted or involved Malaysia’s teaching or academic experts who had studied the problem more systematically.

copyright contract giving it the right to commercialise any aspect of the software materials it developed during the first pilot project in 1999-2002 [14]. The contract includes the right to export to foreign countries.

Third, teachers have also resisted the Smart Schools model. A study by Mei & Kin’s showed that teachers were not prepared to teach in the Smart School environment [20]. They were concerned that the new emphasis on using ICT in their teaching would increase rather than reduce their workload. They realised that in addition to familiarising themselves with the new technologies, they would be required to prepare for their classes in new ways that would be time consuming.

It is understandable why the Malaysian government called upon TSS in the first place. Creating a new corporate entity to deliver educational ICT products to Malaysian schools does help to overcome the technical barriers to introducing ICT into the educational system. Whether the cost of doing it in this way was cheaper than other alternatives remains to be assessed. Converting the remaining 9,000 Malaysian schools into ‘smart’ schools is not impossible. What is in question is the possibility of achieving this objective by 2010, even when we confine ourselves to the technological issues that need to be solved to make this feasible. But the far more important question is whether the Smart Schools Project will actually produce ‘smarter’ students and teachers. The answer to this question requires the SSP pilot project to be reviewed by an independent assessor capable of analysing the pedagogical results of the new ICT approaches.

Teachers were also acutely aware of the insufficient number of computers in most Malaysian schools. Their own personal access to computers was limited. Hence they feared that if the SSP guidelines became generalised throughout the schools system, they would not be able to meet the new requirements expected of them. How could the sharing of IT knowledge become generalised in the Smart Schools when the teachers themselves were uncertain of their competence? According to the government about 1000 teachers have been trained in the new Smart School teaching approach. The Teacher Training Division has conducted training for various components of the SSIS, in particular the “smart” teachinglearning strategies, classroom management and technology management. This 14-week program represented a good beginning but there is no indication that the teachers received on-location support to practice what they had learnt after the course had finished. Moreover, there has been no follow-up to monitor the progress that the teachers may have made. TSS itself does not report any training of teachers: its only reference to training outcomes as noted above is to their training of some‘ 68 staff from the Educational Ministry’.

Notably, an assessment has been commissioned, but its independence of government and TSS and its educational credentials need to be studied before its final report can be validated. Unless an independent review, with input from educational specialists, is conducted, the lack of systematic and hard-headed feedback will continue to hamper the success of the SSP strategy because teachers, parents, students and the general community will remain sceptical about the benefits of allocating so much money to an ICT learning strategy that has not been proven to deliver more smartness. Placed into the context of the international debate about how and whether ICT can deliver ‘smarter’ students and teachers, there is also the issue of whether the same investment in alternative teaching approaches could have delivered better and more relevant results for Malaysia. The role of philosophy, for example, in the study by Lewis, suggests that ICT by itself does not automatically produce imaginative, curious, questioning and productive learners.

Dr Ismail’s report on her school refers to the training of her teachers, but it needs to be stressed that her school is amongst the most privileged in Malaysia: it is located in Putrajaya, the heart of the Malaysian government. The school has nine servers and more than 500 computers, and the principal herself has a doctorate. This constitutes an ideal environment for the Smart School Pilot project, but it does not reflect the typical situation in the majority of the 79 pilot Smart Schools level B which depend on computer labs housing no more than two servers and 37 computers for the entire student population . Given the differences between the pilot schools themselves, this also raises the danger that the SSP will be seen as a project that promotes elitism rather than a more equitable access to modern learning possibilities.

Finally, it hardly needs to be stressed that the competence and learning capacities of school children will affect their performance in universities, regardless of whether they are studying engineering or philosophy. This gives the Smart Schools Project in Malaysia particular interest to educational policy makers globally. REFERENCES

Finally, the dependence of the SSP project on corporate delivery raises some concerns. The greater part of the budget in Table 1 covered the costs of employing TSS as the provider of the technological infrastructure. It is noticeable, that the smallest component of the budget was the training program – this represented a mere 0.7 per cent of the total and it is not clear whether this was all intended for teachers rather than government administrators charged with administering the program after TSS had installed the infrastructure.

[1] Mohamed, M. (1998). Multimedia Super Corridor. Subang Jaya, Pelanduk Publications (M) Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur, p. 9. [2] Chin I Jen, Chia-Sen Jimmy Huang [nd), ‘Application of the Concepts of the Smart Schools of Malaysia to Taiwan’s Technology Education’, www.iteawww.org/PATT10/Jen.pdt Accessed March 2004. [3] Ariff, I & Chuan, G.C. (2000). Multimedia Super Corridor. Kuala Lumpur, Leeds Publications.

When TSS handed over the ‘ownership’ of the SSP to the Malaysian government, it only did so after signing a licensing agreement in July 2002 whereby TSS received a 50 year

227

[4] Ministry of Education Malaysia (2004), Smart School Pilot Project Information, Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education (2004), http://www.moe.edu.my/BestariNET/bestarinet2004.htm accessed March 2004.

[13] Lim K.S (1999), ‘If Malaysia’s smart school concept does not require computers, then it should not be one of the MSC flagship applications’, Speech, Committee Stage of the 2nd 1999 Supplementary Estimates, Ministry of Education, http://www.malaysia.net/dap/sg1824.htm Accessed March 2004.

[5] World Bank (2003). Human Development Report: Human Development Indicators 2003. Washington DC: World Bank, pp.266-281. http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/indicator Accessed March 2004.

[14] Telekom Smart School (TSS) Corporation, TSS Update (2003), http://tss.tmsasia.com Accessed March 2004. [15] Telekom Smart School (TSS) Corporation, Frequently Asked Questions, http://tss.tmsasia.com Accessed March 2004.

[6] Telekom Smart School (TSS) Corporation, Partners and Affiliates (2004), http://tss.tmsasia.com Accessed March 2004.

[16] A Smart School in Action (2002), MSC Success Stories, www.mdc.com.my/today/html/2003-sstory_04.asp?story=381169

[7] Telekom Smart School (TSS) Corporation, Telekom Smart School Passes Ownership of Smart School Pilot Project to Ministry of Education. TSS website News, 31 March 2003, http://tss.tmsasia.com Accessed March 2004.

Accessed March 2004.

[8] Telekom Smart School (TSS) Corporation, Corporate Structure, http://tss.tmsasia.com Accessed March 2004.

[18] Abas, Z. W. (2003). ‘For Success of Smart School Project, New Straits Times. 8 December 2003 http://www.emedia.com.my/Services/database/htm Accessed March 2004.

[17] Cathi Lewis (2004), ‘Putting IT in its Place (in the Classroom)’ in Marika Vicziany (ed.), Cultures and Technologies in Asia, Monash Asia Institute, Melbourne.

[9] The preceding paragraphs are based on Professor Vicziany’s experience of working with curriculum providers in Victorian schools since 1993.

[19] Mohd Zain, M.Z. (2002), ‘The Role of Information and Communication Technology in the Development of the Malaysian Smart School Concept: A Qualitative Analysis’, Malaysian Journal of Educational Technology 2 (No. 2), 2941.

[10] Le@rning Federation (2002). Schools Online Curriculum Content Initiative - Phase Two Plan 2002-2006; Le@rning Federation (2004). Schools Online Curriculum Content Initiative, www.thelearningfederation.edu.au Accessed March 2004.

[20] Mei, H.J & Kin, C.C. (2000). Smart School Implementation in the State of Johore – An Observation. Proc. 13th Educational Technology Convention, Ipoh, Perak, Malaysia. 19-21 September 2000, 209-216.

[11] Government of Malaysia (1997). The Malaysian Smart School Implementation Plan, Kuala Lumpur: Government of Malaysia. [12] Government of Malaysia (1997). Smart School Flagship Application: The Malaysian Smart School - A Conceptual Blueprint, Kuala Lumpur: Government of Malaysia.

228