High Educ (2011) 62:593606

DOI 10.1007/s10734-011-9467-2

The complexities and challenges of regional education

hubs: focus on Malaysia

Jane Knight Sirat Morshidi

Published online: 12 August 2011

 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract The race to establish regional education hubs is a recent development in cross-
border higher education. This article briefly examines the rationales and strategies used by
three countries in the Middle East and three in South East Asia which are working towards
positioning themselves as regional education hubs. The different approaches and purposes
among the six countries highlight the need for a typology of education hubs. Three types
are proposed: the student hub, the training and skilled workforce hub, and the knowledge/
innovation hub. The final section of the paper takes a closer look at Malaysias cross-
border education initiatives and its actions to establish itself as a competitive education hub
in a region where Singapore and Hong Kong have similar intentions. Whether Malaysia
has the ability to make a quantum leap from being a student hub to becoming a knowledge/
innovation hub remains to be seen and appears to be an optimistic outlook.

Keywords Cross-border education
Regional
Education hub
International students

Knowledge
Innovation
Skilled workforce
Collaboration
Competition

Internationalization

Introduction

Not only has internationalization transformed higher education in the three decades, it has
undergone major changes itself. This is especially true for cross-border education. Over the
past 15 years, cross-border education has grown in scope and scale with competition and
commercialization being critical drivers. The numbers of branch campuses, joint/double
degrees programs, franchise and twinning arrangements have increased as have the

J. Knight (&)
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West,
Toronto, ON, Canada
e-mail: jane.knight@utoronto.ca

S. Morshidi
National Higher Education Research Institute (IPPTN), Malaysia, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Level 2,
Block C, sains@ usm, No. 10, Persiaran Bukit Jambul, 11900 Bayan Lepas, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

123
594 High Educ (2011) 62:593606

recruitment campaigns for international students and faculty. The most recent development
is the race to create successful and competitive regional education hubs (Knight 2010a).
The recent emergence of regional education hubs is related to three important devel-
opments in the internationalization of higher education. The first is the growth in the scope
and scale of cross-border education (Becker 2009; Vincent-Lancrin 2007; Morshidi
2006Vincent-Lancrin 2007), the second is the new emphasis on regionalization of higher
education (Jayasuriya and Robertson 2010; Kuroda et al. 2009), and the third is the key
role that higher education plays in the knowledge economy (Altbach and Knight 2008).
The concept of hub is currently very popular. Countries are trying to position them-
selves as hubs for finance, communication, transportation, manufacturing, fashion, edu-
cation etc. Cities are doing the same thing. But to date, there is no definition of a regional
education hub, there are no indicators or even characteristics of a regional education hub,
and there is no assessment of what makes a hub successful and sustainable. In short, there
has been little analysis of these new cross-border education developments. It appears that
education hub is a term being used by countries in the Middle East and South East Asia
who are trying to position themselves as regional hubs for networking, student recruitment,
education and training and in some cases research and innovation. The notion of region is
central to these new developments as countries are trying to attract students primarily, but
not exclusively, from the region and secondly working on raising their profile and com-
petitiveness in their region.
The objectives of this paper are threefold. The first is to analyze the different rationales
and approaches being used by six countries who aspire to be an education hub; the second
is to discuss a proposed typology for the different types of education hubs that are
emerging; and the third is to focus on Malaysia and its new initiatives to position itself as a
regional hub in a region where two major countries (Singapore and Hong Kong) have
similar plans.

Current developments in regional education hubs

Six countriesUnited Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Singapore, Hong Kong and
Malaysiaare included in this brief review of regional education hubs. Of interest is that
there are clear commonalities as well as stark differences among them in terms or ratio-
nales, approaches and sponsors. All of these countries are relatively small in size and
population and are in the process of moving from a natural resources based or manufac-
turing dominated economy to a knowledge led economy. A key factor is the desire for the
country to be seen or positioned as a regional education hubnot an education city or zone
within a country. A salient feature is the presence of a national plan and investment to
enable the country to serve as an education hub. It is this feature which distinguishes them
from initiatives in larger countries like China, India or the United States where specific
geographic areas are being promoted as hubs not the country as a whole.

United Arab Emirates

This country of 2.4 million inhabitants, of which 30% are under 18 years of age, is in the
process of moving from an oil based economy to a knowledge/services oriented economy.
This requires major investments to develop the necessary infrastructure and to attract
businesses from the region and beyond. A key priority is having skilled and professional
workers to support the growing knowledge economy. Of the seven emirates making up the

123
High Educ (2011) 62:593606 595

United Arab Emirates (UAE), three-Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Ras al Khaimahare currently
active in recruiting international universities, faculty, students and knowledge industries.
This analysis focuses on only one of the Emirates, that of Dubai.
Dubai sees higher education as a critical sector to developing brain power for their new
knowledge based economy. Fundamental to their strategy is the recruitment of reputable
international higher education institutions that can lend their brand equity, offer their
already established academic programs, and provide experienced faculty to teach national
and international students. It is somewhat surprising that higher education institutions are
being primarily recruited as business partners to educate and train future knowledge
workers and less for their research and innovation expertise.
The Dubai International Academic City (DIAC) is being developed by TECOM
Investments, a leading investment and holding company in UAE. DIAC was formally
launched in 2007 and builds on the successful creation of the Dubai Knowledge Village
(KV), established in 2003 (Dubai Holding 2008). Together they house over 25 interna-
tional universities of higher learning. The universities come from different parts of the
world including the US, Australia, India, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, Belgium, and the UK.
Examples of higher education institutions include the University of Wollongong, Michigan
State University, St Petersburg State University of Engineering and Economic, Harvard
Universitys Medical School Branch, Boston University, London Business School, Uni-
versity Lyon 2, Rochester Institute of Technology and Murdoch University. Total enrol-
ment in 2008 was estimated at 11,000 students representing 102 nationalities, thus
indicating small enrolment rates for most DIAC tenant universities (Bardsley 2008).
Academic programs range from 1 to 4 years and include engineering, computer science,
finance, media, fashion and design, biotechnology, environmental studies, quality man-
agement and business management programs. The plans for the future include expanding
to 40 universities which will cater to students from the Middle East, North Africa and Asia.
The 2008 world economic crisis put the aspirations of UAE to be a regional education hub
in question, but it appears not in jeopardy, as the number of foreign universities estab-
lishing branch campuses and offering foreign programs is steadily growing in spite of the
struggles to attract sizeable numbers of students (Lewin 2009). At greater risk, is recruiting
a continuously increasing number of foreign students from the region and training them as
skilled labour for the service and knowledge industries that Dubai is building.

Qatar

More than a decade ago Qatar developed its strategy for Qatar Education City (QEC). The
idea originated with the Emir and the Qatar Foundation was mandated to implement the
ambitious plan. As of 2009, QEC is a 2500 acre well-equipped complex fully functioning
with seven foreign universities offering a variety of undergraduate and graduate programs.
The institutions are co-located each with their own state of the art building but sharing
some common facilities thus creating a campus like setting for the students.
Six American Universities have established their operations in Qatar Education City,
and as of late 2008, the Imperial College of London has plans to set up a branch campus
(OBHE 2008). The critical factor for selection is an internationally recognized curriculum
and expertise in disciplines which are central to broadening Qatars range of higher edu-
cation programs. Given that each university has a niche area of curriculum, there is no
overlap or competition in academic programs among the international higher education
institutions (HEIs) operating in Qatar Education city. It operates on a differentiated aca-
demic model which is responsive to the clearly articulated Qatar priority to develop human

123
596 High Educ (2011) 62:593606

resource requirements for the twenty first century knowledge economy. The American
universities currently operating in Education City include Virginia Commonwealth Uni-
versity, Weill Cornell Medical College, Texas A&M University, Carnegie Mellon Uni-
versity, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, Northwestern University. All
institutions maintain admission standards equal to their home campus which has presented
some challenges to enrolling qualified Qatari students, especially males. At the current
time, enrolments are half domestic students and half regional/international (Bains 2009).
In 2009, The Qatar Science and Technology Park (QSTP) was launched as a comple-
mentary initiative to Qatar Education City. It is anticipated that by 2012 it will be fully
operational with the tenant international companies such as Microsoft, General Electric and
Shell conducting commercially oriented research and development in collaboration with
the academic institutions and researchers from QEC. It is estimated Qatar has invested
more than 800 million US dollars to date in the QSTP and over 2 billion US dollars in QEC
(Witte 2010). This illustrates the sizable investment Qatar is making to transform itself into
a regional education hub and grow the knowledge economy. Whether it is a sustainable
model is yet to be seen but it is doubtful that it is an approach that can be replicated by
other countries given the enormous investment made to date.

Bahrain

In late 2006, Bahrain announced its intention to establish a world class higher education
city at a total cost of $1 billion. The Bahrain Executive Development Board (BEDB) made
the announcement after agreeing to jointly undertake this major initiative with the Kuwait
Finance and Investment Company. It has a projected enrolment by 2015 of 25,000 students
(BEDB 2008). These are ambitious plans and high expectations for a small state like
Bahrain and for a Kuwaiti multinational company. An announcement in late 2008 that
Sorbonne University of Paris would be the first tenant of Higher Education City indicates
that it is en route to attracting respected institutions.
The drivers and anticipated benefits of the Higher Education City include: (1) to provide
a technologically skilled workforce for the current and future labour market in Bahrain and
the region, (2) to encourage innovation; (3) to leverage increased direct investments into
the Kingdom, and (4) to reposition the Kingdom as a regional specialist centre in higher
education. Plans include the establishment of laboratories, an international centre for
research, a branch of a US based university and a specialist academy. The courses offered
will focus on three areas of study: engineering, business and science disciplines.
To date, Bahrain has three branch campuses offering medicine from the Royal College
of Surgeons in Ireland, technology from the New York Institute of Technology, and
computer science from Philippines AMA Computer University. As of 2008 Bahrain has
less than 800 international students enrolled in domestic or foreign institutions located in
Bahrain. It has a steep challenge ahead to compete with its neighbouring countries which
started their regional education hub initiatives more than 6 years ago.
Bahrain has also launched a Science and Technology Park to attract regional and
international businesses working on new technologies such as renewable energy, envi-
ronment, information and communication, and clean technology (Munden 2009). It is
intended that the Higher Education City will complement and contribute to the work of the
Park by training the necessary skilled and professional knowledge workers as well as
providing ongoing professional development opportunities (Sawahel 2007). Bahrain
Education City and the related Science and Technology Park are not fully operational yet.
The plans are ambitious but whether they are achievable is yet to be determined.

123
High Educ (2011) 62:593606 597

Singapore

The Global Schoolhouse is the official name of the Singapore initiative to develop a
regional educational hub of students, scholars and research expertise. Plans to attract
foreign institutions to Singapore started in 1997 with Singapores goal of attracting 10
world class universities by 2007. In fact, they surpassed their expectations. In 2003 Sin-
gapore Education was launched as the umbrella brand to lead developments toward
establishing Singapore as a premier education hub. In the following year, 2004, the Global
Schoolhouse project was announced by the Singapore Economic Development Board and
promoted by the Singapore Tourism Board (Mok 2008). Edu-tourism and edu-nomics
appear to be a high priority for this small nation state void of natural resources or a vibrant
manufacturing sector. It is thus committed to become a world player in the knowledge
economy, and the Global Schoolhouse project is a part of the overall strategy. As of 2008,
the education sector (all levels) contributed about 2% of Singapores GDP and is fore-
casted to reach 5% by 2015 (MTI 2003).
The major objectives and expected benefits driving this project include first, recruitment
of foreign talent, secondly, economic development through foreign investment and
thirdly, attracting research and development firms as well as multinational companies
specializing in the knowledge economy and service industries (Gribble and McBurnie
2007).
The Global Schoolhouse is a multi-faceted and ambitious project. It includes providing
secondary and university level education, corporate training, e-learning opportunities, and
education services such as the preparation of standardized tests for the region. The focus on
tertiary education is clear as it aims to improve the quality and capacity of Singapores
higher education sector by (1) inviting and providing financial support for world class
universities to establish programs, research partnerships and a branch campus in Singa-
pore, (2) recruiting 150,000 international students from Asia and beyond by 2015, and (3)
modernization of the domestic higher education institutions through international part-
nerships with elite universities from the around world. These are ambitious targets but
Singapore seems to be on a clear path to achieve them. As of 2007 Singapore is estimated
to have 86, 000 international students (Lasanowski 2009) and in 2010 there are approxi-
mately 1,120 cross-border education program arrangements operational in Singapore
(Ministry of Education 2010a).
It is worth noting that the Global Schoolhouse initiative is focused on supporting both
teaching and research at higher education institutions. This distinguishes it from other
regional hubs which are mainly oriented to the recruitment of international students and
foreign universities for training, profit and profile purposes. In fact, the 20062010 national
research and development agenda for Singapore is supported by a US $8 billion fund. The
establishment of a US $600 million Campus for Research Excellence and Technological
Enterprise is part of Singapores long term approach to create sustainable research
expertise rather than relying on short-term commercially driven research and development
projects (Sidhu 2008).
To achieve the objectives and targets for the Global Schoolhouse, reputable universities
have been invited from China, USA, Australia, France, India, Germany and the Nether-
lands to offer niche programs according to their individual strengths. The higher education
institutions include: Stanford, INSEAD, MIT, University of Chicago Graduate School of
Business, Wharton Business School, Indian Jain School of Management, New York
University School of Arts and the DigiPen Institute of Technology. Two well-known
institutions have withdrawn from the Global Schoolhouse Project in the last 2 years: the

123
598 High Educ (2011) 62:593606

Bio-Medical Research facility of John Hopkins University from the USA and New South
Wales University from Australia. The reasons are varied but the latter institution cites low
enrolments, high start up costs and the need for high faculty commitment as major issues.
The most recent developments include the establishment of Singapore University of
Technology and Design in collaboration with Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
Zhejiang University from China. It is to be operational in 2011. By offering an interdis-
ciplinary program based on a tripartite model with its American and Chinese partners
Singapore demonstrates it agility to creatively build education and research partnerships
with international universities and further its progress to becoming a regional education
hub.

Hong Kong

Hong Kong has also signalled its intention to become a regional education hub. The Chief
Executives 2004 Policy Address announced a plan to promote Hong Kong as Asias
world city which includes building Hong Kongs capacity to serve as a regional higher
education hub. The University Grants Commission (UGC) supported the vision of Hong
Kong as the education hub of the region because of its strong links with Mainland China,
its geographical location, its internationalized and vibrant higher education sector, and its
very cosmopolitan outlook (UGC 2004). A key theme in the UGC policy paper, which has
relevance for their hub model, is the development of an interlocking system where the
whole higher education sector is viewed as one force, with each institution fulfilling a
unique role, based on its individual mission and particular strengths. Differentiation of role
and international competitiveness of each institutions teaching and research strength are
identified as the backbone for domestic reform and an important feature for the hub.
Attracting international students for study and work in Hong Kong is the main engine
driving the development of the hub. There is no major plan to invite foreign institutions to
establish branch campuses, instead foreign students will be accommodated by increasing
the admission quotas assigned to domestic institutions. The impact on the enrolment of
domestic enrolments is unknown. Since the announcements in 2004 and 2007, more
scholarships have been provided for international students and the Immigration policies
have been liberalized. Changes have focused on relaxing employment restrictions for non-
local students both during and after their study programs. New graduates are able to stay on
for 12 months as locally engaged employees. (Immigration Dept Hong Kong 2007) A
particularly interesting aspect of the immigration reform has been a change in regulations
for international graduates who left Hong Kong after their studies but who wish to return
for employment purposes. This has major implications for the multitudes of Mainland
Chinese graduates. The aim of these changes is to strengthen Hong Kongs human capital
and competitiveness, enhance the quality of the workforce and of course, make Hong Kong
more attractive to international students.
Have these policy announcements and reforms made a difference? A recent study
indicates that the vast majority of estimated 9,900 non-local students come from the
mainland (Cheng, 2009). For example, 92.6% of the University Grants Committee funding
for international students went to Mainland Chinese students. With less than 8% coming
from other countries in the region one can question whether Hong Kong is serving as a
regional hub or perhaps better described as a gateway for students from the mainland.
As of 2010, there were 1,120 different programs being offered by foreign universities
mainly from Australia and the United Kingdom but Hong Kong has less experience in
establishing branch campuses which recruit international students in addition to domestic

123
High Educ (2011) 62:593606 599

students. Overall, Hong Kong is still in the early stages of taking the necessary steps and
investments to position itself as a regional education hub. Furthermore, Hong Kong is
operating within a region where there is strong competition from neighbouring countries to
be seen as a regional education hub for research excellence, recruitment of bright inter-
national students and faculty, development of successful partnerships with foreign uni-
versities, and an overall strong profile as a centre of education activity (Hackett 2006).

Malaysia

Two new initiatives in Malaysia indicate the seriousness with which Malaysia is working
towards establishing itself as a regional education hub. The first is the development of
Educity in Iskandar Malaysia, a major new multi-dimensional development next to Sin-
gapore and the second is Kuala Lumpur Education City (KLEC), another strategic edu-
cation initiative incorporated into a new commercial and residential project in the Klang
Valley south of Kuala Lumpur.
Iskandar Malaysia is an economic free zone being established in south Malaysia next to
Singapore and will include industries, residential areas, port facilities, medical park,
national and state government area, tourist attractions and Educity (Iskandar Malaysia,
2010). Iskandar Investment Bhd (IIB), backed by the governments investment organiza-
tion (National Kazanah Bhd) is responsible for developing Educity. IIB plans to have eight
international universities offer programs in selected fields such as business/financial
studies, creative multimedia, engineering, logistics, hospitality and medicine. Students
from the region who see Malaysia as a low cost destination to get an internationally
recognized degree will be recruited. The foreign higher education institutions and students
will be co-located and share common teaching, research, administration, sport facilities
(Sawahel 2009).
Newcastle University in UK is the first foreign institution signed on to be part of
Educity. It is scheduled to open its branch campus in 2011 and will offer medical degrees
that are recognized by the British Medical Council. The Dutch Maritime Institute will be
the second foreign university to offer its program and foreign qualification. Educity will
also have international primary and secondary schools such as Britains Marlborough
College to attract international students especially those from its neighbour Singapore
(Pekwan 2009).
Educity aims to provide high quality education and produce a skilled workforce to
support foreign companies located in commercial zones of Iskandar Malaysia. It also plans
to support academic-industry collaboration through joint research laboratories and design
centres. These are impressive intentions but the challenges of recruiting the right mix of
foreign universities, researchers, and R and D companies to work in a new cross-cultural
environment should not be underestimated.
Both social and economic motives drive the new KLEC enterprise. On one hand, there
is a pressing need to invest more into developing the human capital necessary for
Malaysias knowledge economy and on the other hand, KLEC aims to showcase Malaysia
as an environment-friendly, energy efficient and networked knowledge based regional
centre. The plan is to gain greater access to the regional education market especially from
the three Asian population giants, India, China, and Indonesia. Secondly, the strategy
includes the development of the necessary research infrastructure to position Malaysia as a
regional centre of excellence and the central node for an international network of academic
institutions, companies and services (Financial Express 2007).

123
600 High Educ (2011) 62:593606

KLEC Ventures, a private investment firm is managing this initiative and expects to
attract 8 foreign universities and several local higher education institutions. Research will
have a central place in KLEC as plans include a research park involving independent or
university-affiliated international research institutes in the areas of life sciences, biomed-
ical engineering, educational and media technologies (KLEC 2009).
KLEC is an example of an ambitious multi-use commercial, academic, residential
complex. It is a sign of the times that education institutions are becoming anchors in these
profit making ventures that seek to position a country regionally in the twenty first century
knowledge economy. But can these ambitious plans be realized especially in light of the
fact that Educity has similar plans and nearby neighbours like Singapore and Hong Kong,
are all working towards increasing the numbers of international students in their country.

Comparative analysis and typology of regional education hubs

The review of these six regional education hubs confirms the diversity of models and
different stages of planning and development, but it also reveals a lack of information on
several important elements. This includes policies and regulations related to registration
and accreditation of the foreign institutions, working visa or immigration laws for foreign
students and professionals, funding and collaborative research arrangements between
universities and private sector firms, foreign investment conditions, intellectual property
rights and patent law. These examples serve to illustrate the multi-sector nature of the
issues and the complexity of the regulatory environment related to education hubs.
Table 1 provides a comparative analysis of the six countries efforts in terms of
announcement date, the sponsor or implementing body, current status of activities, and the
driving rationales. It is clear that, while there are some commonalities, there are major
differences in who is funding and overseeing these new developments and the emphasis
that is placed on driving rationales.

Proposed typology

A pertinent question arising from the analysis is whether the concept and term regional
education hub adequately captures and recognizes the individualities of the various hub
initiatives. The answer is probably no. A more discerning nomenclature is needed to
acknowledge the different motivations, priorities, and expected outcomes. It is clear that
some countries see hubs as a means to build a critical mass of international students for
income generation, internationalization and modernization purposes; others want to be a
hub in order to attract both students and foreign higher education institutions in order to
provide a skilled labour force for a service or knowledge oriented economy; while other
countries focus on attracting foreign students, institutions and companies to build a vibrant
research, knowledge and innovation sector to lead them into the next decade. In order to
capture these differences and allow for a more nuanced understanding and exploration of
regional education hubs, a typology of three categories of hubs is suggested (Knight
2010b). The three types of hubs include (1) student hub, (2) skilled workforce training hub,
and (3) knowledge and innovation hub.
The Student Hub is the most focused and probably most prevalent type of education
hub. The key aspect is the recruitment of international students to the country for the
purposes of (1) internationalization and modernization of domestic higher education

123
 Table 1 Comparison of country approaches to regional education hubs
Bahrain Qatar UAE Hong Kong Singapore Malaysia

Name Higher Education Education City Dubai International Regional Global School house Regional Education
City Education City Education Hub Hub
Announce date 2007 1998 2003 2004 2004 2007
2007
High Educ (2011) 62:593606

Sponsor/organizer Bahrain Economic Qatar Foundation Dubai Holdings/TECOM Hong Kong Trade Singapore Economic KLEC Ventures;
Devt Board Investments Devt Council Devt Board Iskandar Investments
Status* Planning stage-3 Operating with 7 Operating with more than Very few branch Operating with more than Not fully operational-5
branch campus branch campus 25 branch campus campus 12 branch campus branch campus
Est 800 Int Est 3000 Int Est 12,000 Int students Est 10,000 Int Est 86,000 Int students Est 70,000 Int students
students students students
Rationales
Skilled workforce
Grow knowledge
economy
Foreign direct
investment
Improve domestic
HE
Regional status/
competitiveness
Very important, medium importance, low importance
Updated from Knight (2010a)
* Estimated numbers of students as of 2009 is for illustrative purposes only. Because a variety of sources were used the consistency of definitions for international students is
not verified
601

123
602 High Educ (2011) 62:593606

institutions (2) revenue generation (3) building international profile. In this scenario it is
primarily local higher education institutions that are recruiting the students to their indi-
vidual campus, although in some cases foreign branch campuses are involved. A national
recruitment strategy and requisite policies are in place, but for the most part individual
institutions are recruiting students to their own campus and programs. The goal is to reach
a national targeted number of international students and to build a reputation as an
attractive place for international students to get a high quality education.
The Skilled Workforce Training Hub differs from a student hub in that international
students are being recruited and foreign universities are invited to set up branch campuses
in order to develop a skilled work force of both domestic and foreign students. Interna-
tional private training/education companies are also encouraged to offer academic pro-
grams and professional development opportunities aimed at international and national
students. The driving key objectives are to (1) educate and train students to be skilled
labour/knowledge workers for a knowledge and service led economy, (2) provide increased
access to education and professional development for both international and domestic
students as well as locally based employees, and (3) establish geo-political status in the
region. In many cases, the majority of education/training institutions and companies are co-
located in one zone in order to share facilities and promote collaboration amongst them-
selves and with industry.
The Knowledge/Innovation Hub broadens its mandate beyond education and training to
include the production and distribution of knowledge and innovation. Foreign universities,
research institutes, companies with major research and development activities are attracted
through favourable financial incentives to establish a base in the country and to collaborate
with universities and training/education companies to develop applied research, knowledge
and innovation. The primary objectives are to (1) help build a knowledge and service based
economy (2) educate and train skilled labour for knowledge/innovation (3) attract foreign
direct investment, and (4) increase regional economic competitiveness. Collaboration
among the key playersforeign and local education institutions, industries, research
centres, and companiesis a key factor to building a knowledge and innovation hub.
The proposed typology is a work in progress. It raises new questions and issues to be
examined. Does this typology assume that there is a progressive development from student
hubto skilled workforce training hubto knowledge/innovation hub? Or, is it possible to
make a quantum leap from student hub to knowledge hub? Furthermore, is it feasible to
develop from the get go a regional education hub which is focused on knowledge/
innovation development? How would the current six initiatives be categorized in terms of
their current status and ultimate aspirations to be a regional education hub?
It is a challenge to categorize the existing initiatives as important information on policy
readiness, status of infrastructure etc. is missing and secondly, there are no solid indicators
that can be used to undertake an objective assessment. Without reliable and comparative
data the analysis would be subjective and opinion based at best. Therefore, the next task is
to find existing indicators and available information that are appropriate to determining a
countrys status or readiness to become a student hub, skilled workforce training hub, or
knowledge/innovation hub.

Focus on Malaysiagrowth in internationalization and cross-border education

The Ninth Malaysia Plan, 20062010 and the Tenth Malaysia Plan, 20112015, spell out
strategies to realize Malaysias ambition to become a high income economy driven by

123
High Educ (2011) 62:593606 603

knowledge and innovation. The role of higher education is acknowledged and the need for
Malaysia to become a regional education hub is highlighted. The purpose of this section is
to examine a number of factors and indicators which shed light on Malaysias current
engagement in international education and its potential competitiveness to become the
regional education hub that it aspires to be.
A key development was the introduction of the Private Higher Education Institutions
(PHEI) Act in 1996. The act clearly outlined the requirements for establishing private
institutions and paved the way for the government to invite reputable foreign universities to
establish branches in Malaysia. As a result Malaysian higher education became more
diversified in terms of providers of education and modes of delivery. Appropriate legal and
regulatory changes have been introduced since which have facilitated the establishment of
various forms of collaborative arrangements between foreign and local providers,
including the development of twinning, franchising and double/joint degree arrangements
(Sarjit et al. 2008).
These developments were based on the objective of increasing access to higher education
for Malaysian students without having to invest in new public universities or increasing the
number of available degree programs. Instead, a local non-degree granting private college
established a twinning program agreement with a foreign university whereby the curriculum
and qualification was provided by the international partner. Malaysian students studied two
or three years at the local college and then went abroad to the partner campus for the final
year/s of study. The twinning programs started as two plus two programs (2 years in
Malaysia and 2 years abroad) then progressed to three plus one, and finally four plus zero
arrangements were made so that Malaysian students took a complete foreign degree without
ever leaving the country. These innovative and successful twinning programs lead the way
for franchise programs and eventually double/joint degree arrangements. Quality assurance
and recognition of the qualification awarded were major issues and the Malaysian Quali-
fications Framework (formerly National Accreditation Board) established policies and
procedures for regulating these types of programs. Table 2 shows the breakdown by type of
institution and level of accreditation of 3,218 programs being offered by foreign higher
educations institutions in Malaysia in 2008. This staggering number of collaborative pro-
grams illustrates how program mobility is an effective strategy to increase access to higher
education for domestic students and foreign students as well.
The late 1990s also saw the establishment of a number of branch campuses in Malaysia.
Australia was the most active with Monash opening its campus in 1998, followed by Curtin
University of Technology in 1999 and Swinburne University of Technology in 2004. From
the UK, the University of Nottingham started its branch campus operations in 2000. These
four initiatives are located in various parts of Malaysia and use different approaches to
establishing roles and responsibilities between home and satellite campus. They collec-
tively offer a diverse array of programs, and illustrate the successful sustainability of a

Table 2 Total of joint/double/

Provisional Approved Accredited Totals
franchise programs for private
level level level
HEIs in Malaysia
College 418 2,028 469 2,915
University College 33 165 77 275
University 4 19 5 28
Totals 455 2,212 551 3,218
MQA (2010)

123
604 High Educ (2011) 62:593606

branch campus. For the most part, they are oriented to teaching, and do not directly
collaborate with Malaysian institutions or companies on joint research initiatives.
With the goal of establishing Malaysia as a regional hub new efforts are underway to
recruit more international students and more foreign institutions to set up branch campuses
in Iskandar Educity and KLEC. In 2011, Newcastle University will be the first tenant
university at Educity and seven foreign higher education institutions are in the process of
being recruited. KLECs plans include a resident local university which has been con-
firmed as Universiti Sains Malaysia plus the branch campuses of about seven other
international institutions one of which is Royal Holloway from the UK. KLEC is paying
particular attention to developing joint venture research and innovation initiatives between
institutions in its University Park and research/development companies and service
industries in the nearby Klang Valley and Multimedia Corridor.
In terms of international student recruitment, Table 3 indicates that from 2003 to 2008
the number of international students in Malaysia has doubled and surpassed 70,000.
This dramatic increase is a result of a new strategy to recruit international students from
the region and other Islamic countries (Morshidi 2008). Students come from more than 80
countries but the 10 most active sending countries are listed in Table 4 and contribute 67%
(47,022 students) of the total number of international students in Malaysia.
Malaysias growing numbers of international students, its extensive history of collab-
oration with foreign institutions, and its plans to develop two new education cities point to
its potential to serve as a regional student hub. But does it have the potential to be a skilled
workforce training hub. This depends on a host of factors most of which deal with the
current unemployment rate of tertiary educated Malaysian students, the brain drain rate of
professionals, the ability of foreign/domestic HEIs to produce employable knowledge

Table 3 Total of International students in Malaysia 20032008

Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Total 30,397 31,674 46,006 44,390 47,928 70,423

Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (2010b)

Table 4 International Students-Ten Top Sending Countries in 2008

Sending Public higher Private higher Total %
countries education institutions education institutions

1 China 2,385 7,970 10,355 22.02

2 Indonesia 3,828 6,192 10,020 21.31
3 Iran 2,998 3,247 6,245 13.28
4 Nigeria 538 5,516 6,054 12.87
5 Bangladesh 418 3,168 3,586 7.62
6 Yemen 1,212 1,846 3,058 6.50
7 Botswana 4 2,358 2,362 5.02
8 Sudan 632 1,407 2,039 4.34
9 Iraq 1,186 467 1,653 3.51
10 Pakistan 175 1,475 1,650 3.51
47,022 100
Ministry of Higher Education (2010c)

123
High Educ (2011) 62:593606 605

workers, immigration/visa policies which allow students to stay in the country after
graduation and others.
The New Economic Model for Malaysia released in early 2010 focuses on Malaysia
moving to a knowledge and service oriented economy to achieve high income country
status. Can Malaysia move from being a student recruitment oriented hub to a regional hub
which focuses on the production and commercialization of knowledge and innovation?
Does the development of Iskandar Educity and KLEC provide the necessary technological,
human and physical infrastructure to enable co-location and close collaboration between
foreign/domestic universities and international/local R and D companies/service indus-
tries? Will the requisite policies and regulations be in place? Is the perception of Malaysia
as an economically, politically, culturally and socially stable country strong enough to
sustain itself as a vibrant regional knowledge/innovation education hub? Will Malaysia
continue to be attractive to international students from Indonesia and the Middle East only?
Will Malaysia be competitive with Singapore and Hong Kong to attract the requisite
students, institutions, foreign investment and companies? Or is Malaysia, and for that
matter its nearby competitors, more interested in the rhetoric of being branded a regional
education hub than the reality of operating as a regional education hub. These are key
questions that are yet to be answered for any country aiming to position itself as a hub
especially Malaysia.

Acknowledgments Grateful appreciation is extended to Poh Ling Ooi, Research Officer at the National
Higher Education Research Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia, for her assistance and cooperation in the
preparation of this paper.

References

Bahrain Economic Development Board. (2008). Education and training. www.baharainedb.com/

education.aspx.
Bains, E. (2009, September 21). Education citys key institutions Meed SupplementsSeptember 21.
Retrieved January 15, 2010, from http://www.meed.com/supplements/education-citys-key-institutions/
3000797.article.
Bardsley, D. (2008). Dubai plans education hub of 40 universities. The National. Retrieved February 7,
2010, from http://www.thenational.ae/article/20080813/NATIONAL/889022104/1010.
Becker, R. (2009). International branch campuses: Markets and strategies. London: UK: The Observatory
on Borderless Higher Education.
Cheng, Y. C. (2009). A technical research report on the development of Hong Kong as a regional education
hub. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Institute of Education.
Dubai Holdings. (2008). Personal correspondence with Dubai Holding regarding Dubai International
Academic City and Knowledge Village.
Financial Express. (2007). Strategies towards a global education hub. Retrieved March 4, 2010, from
www.thefinancialexpress-bc.com/.
Gribble, C., & McBurnie, G. (2007). Problems within Singapores Global Schoolhouse. International
Higher Education. No. 48 Summer 2007.
Hackett, J. (2006). Hong KongThe Regional Education Hub: New Kid on the Block. Address to 4th Asia-
Pacific Conference on Continuing Education and Lifelong Learning. Hong Kong. Retrieved March 15,
2010 from www.hkupace.hku.hk/apcell/PPT_files&papers/Jeanette-_hacket_Paper.pdf.
Immigration Department of Hong Kong SAR Government. (2007). Developing Hong Kong as a regional
education hub: ImmigrationRelated policies. Retrieved March 4, 2010, from www.studyinhk.net/
Public/Files/3957412291.pdf.
Iskandar Malaysia. (2010). Comprehensive development plan 20062025 for South Johor Economic Region.
Retrieved February 17, 2010 from http://www.iskandarmalaysia.com.my/comprehensive-development-
plan-cdp.

123
606 High Educ (2011) 62:593606

Jayasuriya, K., & Robertson, S. (2010). Regulatory regionalism and the governance of higher education.
Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8(1), 16.
Knight, J. (2008). Higher education in turmoil: The changing world of internationalization. Rotterdam,
Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Knight, J. (2010a). Quality dilemmas with regional education hubs and cities. In S. Kaur, M. Sirat, & W.
Tierney (Eds.), Quality assurance and university rankings in higher education in the asia pacific:
Challenges for universities and nations. Penang, Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia Press.
Knight, J. (2010b). Regional education hubs: Rhetoric or reality? International Higher Education.
Kuala Lumpur Education City Sdn. Bhd. (2009). Development Masterplan: KLEC Developments. Retrieved
February 7, 2010, from http://www.kualalumpureducationcity.com/klec-main/02-Masterplan-11-
DevStrt.html.
Kuroda, K., Kamikubo, K., Passarelli, D. (Eds). (2009). Formulating an international higher education
framework for Regional Cooperation and Integration in Asia. Waseda Graduate Institute for Asian
Regional Integration, 2009.
Lasanowski, V. (2009). International student mobility: Status report. London: UK: The Observatory on
Borderless Higher Education.
Lewin, T. (2009). University branches in Dubai are struggling. The New York TimesDecember 27.
Retrieved February 7, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/education/28dubai.html.
Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia. (2010a). Kajian Pelajar Antarabangsa di Malaysia. http://
www.portal.mohe.gov.my/portal/page/portal/ExtPortal/MOHE_MAIN_PAGE/NEWSEVENTS/
ANNOUNCEMENT/list_announcement_eng/Lap_akhir_KajPeljAntrbgsa.pdf.
Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia. (2010b). Statistics on International Students, Malaysia Govern-
ment. Retrieved March 15, 2010 from http://www.mohe.gov.my/web_statistik/statistik_pdf_2008_05/
msd_5-1.pdf.
Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia. (2010c). International Students, Malaysia Government. Retrieved
August 26, 2010 from http://www.portal.mohe.gov.my/portal/page/portal/ExtPortal/STUDENT/
INTERNATIONAL_STUDENT/Student_International_Bilangan.
Ministry of Trade and Industry, Singapore. (2003). Growing our Economy. Singapore Government.
Retrieved March 15, 2010 from http://app.mti.gov.sg/data/pages/507/doc/DSE_recommend.pdf.
Mok, K. H. (2008). Singapores global education hub ambitions: University Governance change and
transnational higher education. International Journal of Education Management, 22(6), 527546.
Morshidi, S. (2006). Transnational higher education in Malaysia: Balancing benefits and concerns through
regulations. RIHE International Publication Series 10, March, Hiroshima University, Japan.
Morshidi, S. (2008). The impact of September 11 on international student flow into Malaysia: Lessons
learned. International Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, 4(1), 7995.
MQA. (2010). Data from Malaysian Qualifications Agency. http://www.mqa.gov.my/.
Munden, D. (2009). Bahrain top research hub. Gulf Daily News-September 29. Retrieved December 20,
2009, from http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/september-2009/bahrain-top-research-hub/.
OBHE. (2008). Onto something good? Dubais Knowledge and Human Development Authority launches an
international quality-monitoring board. April 2008 article. Observatory for Borderless Higher Edu-
cation. London, United Kingdom.
Pekwan. (2009, October 30). Global education hub in Johor: Marlborough College campus opens in 2012.
The Malay Mail. Retrieved February 25, 2010, from http://www.mmail.com.my/content/17504-global-
education-hub-johor.
Sarjit, K., Morshidi, S., & Norzaini, A. (Eds.). (2008). Globalization and internationalization of higher
education in Malaysia. Penang, Malaysia: Universiti Sains Malaysia Press.
Sawahel, W. (2007, January 3). Higher education city to boost Middle East science. Science and Development
NetworkJanuary. Retrieved December 20, 2009, from http://www.scidev.net/en/news/higher-
education-city-to-boost-middle-east-scien.html.
Sawahel, W. (2009). Knowledge hub in progress. University World NewsSeptember 27). Retrieved
February 25, 2010, from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20090925024920661.
Sidhu, R. (2008). Knowledge Economies: The Singapore Example. International Higher Education. No. 52,
Summer 2008.
University Grants Commission. (2004). Hong Kong Higher EducationTo make a differenceTo move
with the Times Report. University Grants Commission. Hong Kong.
Vincent-Lancrin, S. (Ed.). (2007). Cross-border tertiary education: A way towards capacity development.
Paris, France: OECD, World Bank and NUFFIC.
Witte, S. (2010). Inside education city: The persistent demographic and gender imbalance in Qatar.
London: UK: The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education.

123
Copyright of Higher Education is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.