Malaysian Qualifications Framework

(MQF)

By Lan Joo
 Malaysian Qualifications Framework
(MQF)

by Lan Joo
Consultant, WBI

1. Initial Setting
During the 1980s and 1990s, Malaysia’s economy grew rapidly based on low-wage and low-skilled
labor practices in light manufacturing: textiles, footwear, etc. However, as seen in other countries, this
type of economic growth lost its competitive edge in the global market as competition increased. Soon,
Malaysia’s government realized that in order to see continued economic growth, Malaysia would have
to change its economic policies from a low-waged industry to a value-added economy that requires
highly skilled labor. As a response, Malaysia claimed to enter a new era of knowledge economy with
a focus on investing in human capital and, especially, higher education. According to Keating, the
percentage of the government’s budget that is devoted to education has consistently been over 20
percent (27 percent in 2000). In particular, the percentage of educational spending that is directed
towards higher education, 32 percent in 2000, is quite high by international standards (Keating, p.7).
In combination with increased investments in higher education, the liberation of the private sector’s
participation in education and the training market led to a rapid increase in the number of institutions.
However, despite heavy investments in education and training, industry representatives indicated that
the quality of education and training varied, and many graduates still lacked relevant skills.

CHAPTER 3. Human Development: Education and Health Policy

Simultaneously, the proliferation of qualifications from various types of providers only bewildered
both trainees and employees, and the transparency of qualifications1 became an issue.

1.1. Identified Issues:

First, the highly centralized Malaysian TVET system consists of three separate sub-sectors; but the
transition of qualifications between them was non-existent. The three sub-sectors are: (1) skills; (2)
technical vocational education; and (3) higher education. They are managed by different agencies.
Polytechnics and colleges are publicly owned and managed by The Ministry for Higher Education
(MHE), and a different division of the MHE oversees public universities and a large number of private
universities and colleges. On the other hand, the skills sector is under The Ministry of Human Resource
Development (MHRD). These three sub-sectors, under the management of different ministries, were
highly separated, and the transition of qualifications between them did not occur.

The second problem identified in the Malaysian TVET system was a lack of articulation between
vocational and academic-oriented qualifications; this is mostly recognizable between the skills sector
and the other two sectors. In Malaysia, the skills sector consists of five vocational levels, but most
trainees obtained qualifications below level 3, which contains more job-specific skills rather than
theoretical knowledge. Unfortunately, this theoretical knowledge was unable to be wholly articulated by
these low, job-specific qualifications.

Third, the Malaysian qualifications system was known as a highly complex and contested system.
The number of institutions rapidly increased during the 1980s and 1990s because of public investment
in polytechnics/community colleges and the liberalization of private sector participation in the training
market; subsequently, these institutions developed their own standards and qualifications. As a result,
various qualifications were offered by an increased number of providers in the training market and this
proliferation of qualifications caused a complex and contested qualification system in Malaysia.

Lastly, the fragmented responsibility of various agencies in issuing qualifications/certificates

created overlapping, uncoordinated work. For example, there are four main ministries responsible for
pre-employment skills training: The Ministry of Human Resource Development, The Ministry of

1 Qualifications are all formal ‘awards’ which signify that the bearer has some knowledge or competency, or that they have
successfully completed a learning program (ILO, 2010).

Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF)

 Education (Technical Education Department), The Ministry of Entrepreneur Development, and The
Ministry of Sport and Youth. In addition, according to The Ministry of Human Resource Development
(MHRD), 1,809 accredited training centers and 6,813 accredited programs were under the responsibility
of ten ministries and six other agencies in 2000. These various agencies managed institutions in their
respective sectors and issued their own qualifications and certificates, which led to a highly fragmented
qualification system. Under the Malaysian political structure, a multi-party legislature and coalition
government, each ministry governs its own legislation and different political parties appoint ministers.
This practice created highly territorial work sectors among ministries; in TVET’s case, the various
agency responsibilities, managed by different ministries, became highly divided and uncoordinated.

In response to these issues, the government and stakeholders agreed to the following: establishng
The National Qualifications Framework (NQF) to ensure the quality of the proliferation of qualifications;
enhancing articulation within and between sectors, particularly between the skills sector and two other
sectors; increasing the parity between the vocational and academic tracks to make the skills sector an
alternative to higher education; and reducing the overlapping responsibilities of different ministries
and agencies for qualification. In addition, the international model of NQF (the countries in the first
phase, New Zealand, Australia, Scotland, England and Wales) was considered.

2. Policy Framework

2.1. Policy-Making Process

Malaysia had an existing qualifications framework within a sub-sector. In regards to higher
education, because of the rapid expansion of private providers, the establishment of mechanisms to
ensure quality and consistency in the qualifications across providers was urgently needed. Accordingly,
the MHE established the LAN system (est. 1996) to control the standard and quality of private higher-
education providers, which was later extended to all higher-education providers. The skills sector also
faced a similar problem of inconsistency across various types of providers owned by different agencies
and managed under different ministries. Accordingly, the NOSS system (est. 1993) was created to
develop standards and an outcome-based framework. However, these LAN and NOSS systems
operated separately; but the government soon acknowledged the importance of an integrated framework

CHAPTER 3. Human Development: Education and Health Policy

that would ensure consistency and comparability of qualifications across the sectors, as well as across
public and private providers. However, when the integrated framework was first introduced by the
MHE, tension increased among different ministries because they did not want to lose ownership of
their respective areas. For example, the tension between the MHE and the MHRD escalated because
the MHRD wanted to maintain the responsibilities for the skills sector. Tension finally eased when the
MHRD received continued ownership of the skills sector, which included full control of its own
standards (NOSS) and the quality assurance system. Also, within the skills sector, a similar challenge
was faced. Under the NOSS system, ten ministries and six other agencies had various training centers
under their personal jurisdiction and they did not want to lose their ownership as well. However, the
process became more consultative and constructive as time passed because all involved parties finally
agreed that it was necessary to have a single large framework across the sector -- in order to increase
the quality, coherence, and transparency of the qualifications.

2.2. Policy Framework

The institutional structure of the Malaysian TVET system is highly centralized, which is also
reflected in the strong ministry ownership of their respective sectors. As the government emphasized
the higher-education sector, in accordance with its new economic policy of a knowledge economy, the
MHE separated from the MoE in 2004 and now oversees universities and colleges in both the public
and private sectors. A different division of the MHE is responsible for polytechnics and community
colleges, while all providers in the skills sector are under the MHRD. Each sector has its own
qualifications framework: the LAN system for higher education qualifications a framework for
vocational and technical qualifications, awarded in the state polytechnics and community colleges for
the technical vocational sector; and a five-level skills framework, NOSS, for the skills sector. The
structure of the TVET system is illustrated in table 1.

Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF)

 Table 1
Structure of the TVET system in Malaysia

University and colleges Colleges Skills training centers

- Public universities - polytechnics (SKM)
- private universities - private colleges
- international universities

Sixth form (2 years)

Pre-university Matriculation
Pre tertiary 1-2 years Malaysian Higher Schools
(1.5 years) (1 year)
Certificate (STPM)

Lower secondary - national schools and Chinese independent high schools.

Academic secondary education or technical/vocational secondary education or religious
5 years (free)
secondary education
Malaysian Certificate of Education

6 years (7-12) (free) Primary - national and national types (Chinese and Tamil)

(4-6) Pre-School - voluntary - limited attendance

Source: ILO (2010).

The LAN system and the NOSS system is the core of the MQF.2 The LAN system formulates,
monitors, and regulates policies for: the standards and quality of courses of study, certificates, and
diplomas and degrees delivered by both public and private higher education institutions. For example,
LAN provides the guidelines on criteria and standards for courses of study. As for the NOSS system,
it provides skills standards and a five-level skills certificate framework for the skills sector. The
standards are competency-based, and unlike the LAN, which focuses on input measures, they are
outcome-based qualifications.

As a statutory body, the MQA is responsible for the quality assurance of higher education and the
vocational/technical sector. Its role is to implement the MQF, which is the reference point for the
criteria and standards for national qualifications, and to accredit the providers of both sectors. Due to
their emphasis on higher education, the MQA is composed of mostly higher education experts. On the
other hand, the skills sector is under the supervision of The National Vocational Training Council
(NVTC), composed of representatives from government, providers, and industry. Chaired by an

2 MQF is an instrument that develops and classifies qualifications based on a set of criteria that is approved nationally and at par
with international practices, and which clarifies the earned academic levels, learning outcomes of study areas and credit
system based on student academic load (MQA).

CHAPTER 3. Human Development: Education and Health Policy

industry representative, NVTC accredits all providers of the skills sector. Therefore, all the qualifications
to be included in the MQF should be accredited by either the MQA or NVTC.

3. Implementation Issues

3.1. Lack of Linkage Between the Three Sectors

Despite the fact that the MQF aims to integrate all qualifications based on a common set of levels
across the sectors, linkage between the qualifications issued by each sub-sector are still weak at the
implementation level. The weakness can be attributed to the origin of development. In Malaysia, the
skills sector established their own qualifications system, NOSS; subsequently, both the vocational and
technical sectors changed their standards and qualifications. The higher-education sector also
established a LAN system for private higher education, which was later on extended to public
providers. Finally, the MQF was established, but it was based on the extension of the LAN and NOSS
and acknowledged the ownership of each agency for their respective areas of responsibility. Therefore,
presently, after the creation of the MQF, quality is assured through different agencies (MQA for the
higher-education sector and NVCT for the skills sector), and there are different processes for developing
the qualifications. In addition, there are different assessment and certification systems. Consequently,
unlike the NQF in other countries, the NQF in Malaysia is composed of a three-parallel form for
qualification systems, and the linkages between them are weak.

3.2. Lack of Articulation Between Vocational-oriented and Academic-

oriented Qualifications
Even under the integrated system, the articulation between vocational-oriented and academic-
oriented qualifications appears to be limited at the implementation level. For example, both the skills
and the technical and vocational sectors have favored a capacity for a large credit transfer from level-3
certificates to the diploma level (up to 70 percent); however, in reality, only 30 percent of credits are
allowed to transfer (Keating, 2010). Also, levels 3, 4, and 5 (skills certificates) of NOSS remain
separate from both vocational and higher education levels. This limitation in articulation is due to the

Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF)

 Malaysian NQF’s composition of academic-oriented qualifications. Since the MQF was initially
driven by the MHE, the MQA is located within higher education, and their staff members are higher
education experts. In this context, the NOSS qualifications are not highly valued within the MQF, and
students, parents, and teachers view them as low-status qualifications. In fact, the NOSS qualifications
are low-level qualifications specifically designed to supply labor to low level occupations. In
combination with their low-level status, these qualifications are also job-specific qualifications
containing less theoretical knowledge, which prevents trainees from ascending to diploma level. The
last reason for the lack of articulation is the perception of providers in different learning practices
occurring in different tracks. Therefore, the lack of articulation between the vocational and academic
track has proven to be another implementation issue.

3.3. Limited Capacity for Offering Alternative Pathways for Graduates

In Malaysia, secondary school graduates have a strong preference for higher education; however, in
reality, the actual number enrolled in universities is limited by either an inability of graduates to support
their education financially or to be accepted to a university. Within this context, the government has been
trying to move these students into the skills sector, expecting the latter to become an alternative pathway
to higher education for these students. However, as indicated above, NOSS qualifications are job-specific
qualifications, set to meet the needs of industry for particular occupations, and cannot offer appropriate
training for these young graduates. Therefore, although the MQF is supposed to provide different
pathways within the system, it actually has little capacity to offer alternative paths to graduates.

3.4. Lack of Stakeholder Involvement

Another implementation bottleneck can be found in a lack of stakeholder involvement in the design
and implementation of the MQF. The MQF, itself, is a product of the government that was initiated by
the MHE to integrate all qualifications. In fact, as indicated above, due to the increase in the number of
providers in the training market, the MHE urgently needed to control the quality of the proliferation of
providers. Also, because the Malaysian TVET system is highly centralized, the ministries directly
oversee all providers for their respective sectors. Consequently, during the process of designing the
MQF, an emphasis was placed on a settlement between the ministries involved over ownership, rather

CHAPTER 3. Human Development: Education and Health Policy

than on soliciting input from various stakeholders. During the implementation stage of the MQF, the role
of the stakeholders was minimal. This is reflected in the composition of the Malaysian Qualifications
Agency Council. The government agencies occupy the largest portion of membership that is followed by
professional groups. Representatives from providers and industry consist of the smallest number. In
addition, even though industry representatives attend other various councils, such as provider councils,
course development committees, and standards committees, their role is limited to consulting and
advising; decisions are still made by their respective ministries.

4. Achievements and Outcomes

4.1. Establishment of a System of National Consensus

The first achievement was the creation of a nationally agreed upon system for the MQF. In spite of
a government-led system, the MQF received support from all stakeholders; they all agreed that there
was a need for a mechanism to improve the quality, clarity, and consistency of qualifications across the
sectors and various types of providers. During the 1980s and 1990s, the numbers of providers rapidly
increased in both higher education and the skills sector, which was due to the government policy on
the liberalization of the training market. However, without a standard guiding mechanism, providers
set their own standards for their training programs, and, as a result, trainees had poor knowledge of
their qualifications and employers were unable to rely upon their employees’ qualifications.
Consequently, a consensus on establishing the NQF within the Malaysian context was made among
stakeholders, who believed that the MQF would assure the quality of qualifications, improve public
understanding of qualifications, and facilitate the evaluation and comparison of qualifications.
Therefore, the MQF is considered to have had a successful impact on the development of a nationally
agreed upon system that received support from all stakeholders.

4.2. The Establishment of an Integrated System

The second achievement was the creation of an integrated Malaysian TVET system. Prior to the
establishment of the MQF, qualifications were segmented, inconsistent, and incomparable. As described

Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF)

 earlier, the Malaysian TVET system consisted of three separate sectors, managed by different agencies,
with control of their own legislation. However, the MQF integrated all qualifications across sectors by
creating eight levels with eight domains. The MQF is illustrated in Table 2. The eight domains indicate
what trainees are supposed to learn in order to qualify for a certain level; and the levels are comparable
across the sectors. For example, under the MQF, level 5 of NOSS (skills advanced diploma), level 5 of
the technical/vocational sector (advanced diploma), and level 5 of higher education (advanced diploma)
are equivalent and comparable. Furthermore, all qualifications are now registered through the
Qualifications Register System, which provides information on accredited programs and qualifications
and facilitates the credit transfer process. This single registration system for national quality assured
qualifications and enabled trainees and employers to make comparisons between various qualifications.
Therefore, by integrating all qualifications, the MQF increased the transparency of qualifications and
improved communication between the different qualifications.

Table 2
Malaysian Qualification Framework

Sectors
Minimum Credit load/
Level Vocational &
student leaning time Skills Academic
Technical

8 - Doctoral

40 Masters
7 30 Postgraduate Dip
20 Postgraduate Cert

120 Bachelor Accredited Prior Experiential Learinig

6 60 Graduate Dip
30 Graduate Cert

5 40 Advanced Diploma Advanced Diploma Advanced Diploma

4 90 Diploma Diploma Diploma

3 60 Certificate 3 Certificate

2 - Certificate 2 Certificate

1 - Certificate 1

ZPV
Accredited Prior Experiential Learning

Source: MQA, 2012.

CHAPTER 3. Human Development: Education and Health Policy

4.3. The Design of the MQF
First, like the other NQFs, the Malaysian NQF is composed of eight vertical levels across the sub-
sector. The eight levels are determined by the degree of knowledge and skill: depth, complexity,
comprehension of knowledge, application of knowledge and skills, degree of autonomy and creativity
in decision making, communication skills, and breadth and application of practice. Horizontally, eight
levels exist across the three sectors, which enable the qualifications to be equivalent across the sector;
and progression can be made between them. However, the eight levels of the MQF do not include
secondary level qualifications.

Second, the MQF also includes eight learning outcome domains that explain what students should
know, understand, and can perform upon completion of a study period. The eight domains are:
knowledge; practical skills; social skills and responsibilities; values, attitudes and professionalism;
communication, leadership and team skills; problem solving and scientific skills; information
management and lifelong learning skills; and managerial and entrepreneurial skills. They are also
shown in Diagram 1. These domains are utilized to develop more specific learning outcomes for: fields
of study as a reference point for standards and quality, a curriculum for teaching and learning, and for
the assessment of students (MQA).

Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF)

 Figure1
Eight Domains of the MQF

4. Values, 1. Knowledge
attitudes and of discipline
professional areas

5. Communications, 6. Problem
leadership and solving and
team skills scientific skills

7. Managerial and 8. Information

Entrepreneurial Management
skills and life long
learning skills
3. Social skills 2. Practical skills
and responsibility

Source: Zita, MQA, 2012.

The third feature of the MQF is the nine areas of criteria that are the basis for assessing providers,
if they design and deliver the programs to be accredited by the MQA. The nine areas of this quality
assurance mechanism are: learning outcomes, curriculum design and delivery, assessment of students,
student selection and support services, academic staff, educational resources, program monitoring and
review, governance program leadership and administration, and continual quality improvement.

4.4. An Increase in the Number of Skills Certificates/Diplomas

The last achievement of the implementation of the MQF is the increase in the number of skills
certificates, diploma registrations, and awards in the skills sector. These numbers continue to increase
as illustrated in Table 4. The total number of all levels of SKM certificates (skills sector under NOSS)
increased from 90,163 in 2004, to 104,104 in 2008. The most prominent increase occurred at the
diploma levels (Levels 4 and 5). The number of skills certificates for Level 4 increased from 898 in
2004, to 2,041 in 2008, and those of level 5 increased from 0 in 2004, to 27 in 2008.

CHAPTER 3. Human Development: Education and Health Policy

Table 3

Skills 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

levels Reg Quals Reg Quals Reg Quals Reg Quals Reg Quals

SKM 1 36,023 34,867 42,869 41,332 29,364 39,311 45,692 40,906 38,163 49,438

SKM 2 40,405 39,175 38,855 37,737 24,928 32,863 33,087 32,078 32,741 40,934

SKM 3 12,837 11,407 17,247 14,958 7,627 8,255 11,800 9,124 11,789 11,664

Dip 898 898 1,386 1,386 1,149 2,133 1,611 2,789 2,244 2,041

Ad. Dip 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 5 21 27

Total 90,163 86,347 100,357 95,413 63,068 82,562 92,208 84,904 84,953 104,104

Source: Min of Human Recource Development (2008) Labour and Human Recource Statistics.
Source Keating, 2010.

5. Lessons Learned/Policy Implications

To summarize the MQF, it is useful to see ILO’s three typologies of the NQFs across the countries.
ILO conducted extensive country cases on the NQF in 18 countries, finding that there are three types
of NQFs based on their respective objectives/goals for designing a qualifications framework. According
to ILO, the first type includes the countries that developed the NQF to make the relationships between
existing qualifications more explicit. These countries developed the framework to clarify: which types
of college-based qualifications can lead to which types of higher education institutions. They had the
intention to develop a qualification system, as a whole, that was easier for students, teachers, and
employers to understand. In this type of framework, the main actors are educational institutions:
universities and colleges, awarding or examination bodies for qualifications, and government
organizations (ILO, p. 111).

The MQF fits into the first example of typology. In Malaysia’s case, like other countries within this
type, the MQF was the extension of an existing framework, managed by the existing institution. The
ILO indicated that it was an “incremental reform.” Also, driven heavily by the higher-education sector
to assure the quality of higher-education providers, the main actors are the government organizations
and educational institutions; and the involvement of industry is minimal. Another characteristic shared

Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF)

 with other countries in this type is that the goal in designing the MQF was to clarify various
qualifications, particularly for the higher-education sector, aiming to enhance the understanding of the
qualifications among both students and employers.

Although the Malaysian NQF fit into the first type of typology, the MQF also has unique features
from which lessons can be drawn.

The first lesson is that the NQF is not a panacea for every matter that government considers.
Initially, the Malaysian government proposed the MQF with several goals in mind, including: ensuring
quality, easing credit-transfer, enhancing transparency and consistency, and improving clarification.
Whether or not the MQF serves all the objectives of the MQF is questionable. For example, on the one
hand, it can be said that the MQF successfully serves the purpose of quality assurance. The reason for
this success is founded in the origin of the MQF’s development. It was initially a regulatory measure
set to meet the expansion of education and the training market; this was due to heavy public investment
in public polytechnics and community colleges and the liberalization of the training market. Therefore,
the MQF was highly utilized to serve the purpose of quality assurance for institutions. On the other
hand, the MQF could not serve the purpose of improving the articulation between sectors. Although
the government envisioned that the MQF would improve the relationships between sub-sectors and
increase credit-transfer, there are still remaining issues under the integrated framework. This is due in
part to the MQF serving as an incremental reform that was extended from the sub-sector’s previous
framework under existing institutions. So, in this context, three sub-sectors remain separated and
credit-transfer between the sectors is still an issue. Oftentimes, many countries regard the NQF as a
panacea for all issues arising in the TVET system, believing that it serves various purposes: from the
increasing relevance of TVET programs and promoting of various pathways, to developing quality
assurance systems. However, as the MQF illustrates, the NQF cannot be a solution for all the challenges
a country may encounter.

The second lesson from the MQF is that the government-led NQF system can lead to a lack of
industry involvement at the implementation level. The Malaysian TVET system is highly centralized
and managed by different ministries under their respective strong ownership. It was initiated by the
MHE, and the main actors designing the NQF were government officials with input from professional
groups. Although the government claimed that the NQF possesses outcome/competency-based
qualifications that were designed by industry, the actual standards were designed by professional
groups. The role of industry in the design of the MQF was consultative and advisory. This government-

CHAPTER 3. Human Development: Education and Health Policy

led system leads to a lack of industry involvement at the implementation level as well. At the
implementation level, the government makes effort to build partnerships with industry by involving
their representatives in various committees; however, as their role is just consultative, industry does
not want to lead the sector. Also, because a few technical experts created the standards, employers
hardly recognized the qualifications, feeling that graduates lacked relevant skills. Therefore, in order
to achieve success in implementation, it is important to involve the industry in designing the standards
as well as conferring a leading role in executing the system.

The third lesson is that the extension of previous frameworks may disenable the NQF to serve
nationally envisioned objectives. For example, even after the creation of the NQF, the transition
between sub-sectors in Malaysia is still problematic. The MQF was originally developed from the
LAN for the higher-education sector, and the NOSS for the skills sector, which were under separate
ownership, the MHE and the MHRD respectively. This separation could not be overcome, even after
the agreement on the establishment of the integrated framework, because the MQF was not something
-- as ILO pointed out -- that was a ‘break with the past’. According to ILO, “Some countries, like the
New Zealand and South African NQFs, the English NVQs, were attempts to make, and were therefore
designed to be implemented as entirely new systems. However, Malaysia did not break with the past,
but rather continued to acknowledge the old system and ownership.” (ILO, p.89) As indicated above,
when the MQF was proposed, there was increased tension among different ministries and even
different departments under the same ministry. Tension finally eased via acknowledgement of their
continued authority over their respective sectors. For example, the higher education sector continues
to belong to the MHE and the skills sector continues to be under the MHRD, even after the creation of
the MQF. The MQA can only oversee the higher-education sector and technical vocational sector, not
the skills sector. In this sense, the MQF is not a new framework, but rather is an extension of an old
system that acknowledges agencies’ continued ownership. Therefore, the Malaysian NQF continues to
have a parallel form for its framework and the objective of integrating the qualification system has not
been fully realized.

Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF)