2021.07.

28
GHEF 2021

Research on the factors of academic professions’

satisfaction with current overall professional environment:
by comparing Malaysia with Japan

Tsukasa DAIZEN
(Hiroshima University)
tdaizen@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
1
 Table 1 Satisfaction with overall professional
According to Survey “Academic Profession in the Knowledge- environment by country
Based Society（APIKS)" in which 20 nations have participated, the Satisfaction with
mean of academic professions’ satisfaction with current overall your current overall
professional
professional environment is 3.42 by five-point full marks.
environment
The academic professions in the world are comparatively satisfied (B)

with their own professional environment. However, the highest Kazakhstan 4.02 High
Mexico 4.00 High
degree of satisfaction country is 4.02 and the lowest degree of Chile 3.78 High
satisfaction country is 2.89. It became clear that there is a significant Russian Federation 3.69 High
Malaysia 3.63 High
difference of the academic professions’ satisfaction with current
Argentina 3.60 High
overall professional environment between nations. Finland 3.49 High
Sweden 3.44 High
The purpose of this research is to find the significant factors of
Switzerland 3.42 Low
academic professions’ satisfaction with current overall professional Korea, Republic of 3.33 Low
environment and to explain the relationship between the significant Croatia 3.32 Low
Canada 3.32 Low
factors and the academic professions’ satisfaction with current overall Portugal 3.24 Low
professional environment. Japan 3.18 Low
Estonia 3.16 Low
In this research, the factors of academic professions’ satisfaction
Germany 3.13 Low
with current overall professional environment were clarified by Slovenia 3.12 Low

comparing Malaysia of a high satisfactory country(3.63) and Japan of Taiwan 3.11 Low
Turkey 2.99 Low
a low satisfactory country(3.18). Lithuania 2.89 Low
2
Total 3.42
Research review
Cecilia Albert et. al.(2018)
This article analyses the determinants of job satisfaction among Spanish academics, paying particular attention to the
impact of research productivity and differences across graduation cohorts. Research productivity is a very relevant
factor in explaining job satisfaction in academics in different stages of their career. Interesting differences across
graduation cohorts are found as regards the impact of research productivity and other satisfaction drivers, such as other
research outcomes - research stays abroad and cooperation with teams abroad - and load, marital status and young
children.

Jung Cheol Shin & Jisun Jung(2014)

This study examined job satisfaction and job stress across 19 higher education systems. We classified the 19
countries according to their job satisfaction and job stress and applied regression analysis to test whether new public
management has impacts on either or both job satisfaction and job stress. According to this study, strong market driven
countries are in the high stress group and European countries are in the high satisfaction group. The classification
implies that market oriented managerial reforms are the main source of academic stress while the high social
reputation of academics in their society and academic autonomy are the source of job satisfaction. Our regression
analysis also shows that the new public management which is measured by the performance-based management in this
study is the main source of academic job stress.
3
Ong Choon Hee, et.al.(2020)
The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between pay and benefits, work environment, top
management leadership, workload and job satisfaction among academic staffs in a private academic institution in
Malaysia.
All study variables were found to have significant positive relationships with job satisfaction among academic
staffs in the selected institution. Top management leadership was discovered to have the most significant
relationship with job satisfaction.

Nick Fredman • James Doughney(2011)

This paper examines perceptions by academics of their work in the Australian state of Victoria, and places such
perceptions within the context of international and Australian debates on the academic profession. A 2010 survey
conducted by the National Tertiary Education Union in Victoria was analysed in light of the literature on academic
work satisfaction and on corporatised managerial practice (‘‘managerialism’’). The analysis is also placed in the
context of neo-liberalism, defined as a more marketised provision combined with increased pro-market state regulation.
Factor analysis was used to reduce 18 items we hypothesised as drivers of work satisfaction to four factors:
managerial culture, workloads, work status and self-perceived productivity. Regression models show the relative
effects of these factors on two items measuring work satisfaction. This analysis is complemented by discursive
analysis of open-ended responses. They found that management culture was the most important driver.
4
Josep-Oriol Escardibul & Sergio Afcha(2017)
They analyze the determinants of job satisfaction of PhD holders in Spain. Specifically, they consider overall job
satisfaction as well as basic and motivational satisfaction, following Herzberg's typology. Using representative data for
Spain's PhD poplation—collected from the Spanish Survey on Human Resources in Science and Technology (2009)—they
report an analysis by gender and the institutional sector (university and non-university) in which employees work. They
employ Ordinary Least Squares regressions to identify the determinants of basic and motivational satisfaction in the
workplace and an ordered logit model for overall job satisfaction. Results do not allow us to confirm Herzberg's factor
differentiation for Spanish PhD holders since the factors of basic motivation (including salary or working conditions—
needs of “safety”) have a bearing on all types of job satisfaction. Their results do not show any significant differences
by gender.

5
Hypothesis
Hypothesis 1: A number of previous studies found that women faculty report lower satisfaction than
their male peers (e.g., Hagedorn & Karen L. Webber 2000, Rosser 2004; Seifert and Umbach 2008;
Trower and Bleak 2004). The job satisfaction do not show any significant differences by gender (Josep-
Oriol Escardibul & Sergio Afcha 2017).

Hypothesis 2: Senior academics are more satisfied and less stressed with their current job while juniors
are the reverse (Bentley et al. 2013).

Hypothesis 3: Research productivity is a very relevant factor in explaining job satisfaction in academics in
different stages of their career.(Cecilia Alberta et.al. 2018)

Hypothesis 4: The high social reputation of academics in their society and academic autonomy are the
source of job satisfaction (Jung Cheol Shin & Jisun Jung 2014)

Hypothesis 5: Top management leadership have significant positive relationships with job satisfaction
among academic staffs. (Ong Choon Hee et. Al. 2020, Nick Fredman & James Doughney 2011)

Hypothesis 6: The factors of basic motivation (including salary or working conditions—needs of

“safety”) have a bearing on all types of job satisfaction (Josep-Oriol Escardibul & Sergio Afcha 2017)
6
Individual characteristics Academic activities

Gender Professional activities

hours
Age
Numbers of Articles
Familial status published in an
academic book or
Employment status academic journal

Employment contract Satisfaction with your Teaching and research

current overall professional are hardly compatible
environment with each other
Academic status
Environment evaluation
Major
Management style
Highest degree ➔ Table 2

Academic rank Current work situation

➔ Table 3
Preferences
Fig. 1 Analytical Framework 7
 Table 2 The results of Factor analysis of
Management style
Table 1 is the results of factor analysis of
Management style(F3). Factor1 Factor2
Emphasis on the
Collegial
Two kinds of factor were extracted. decision-making
institution's
mission
Collegiality in decision-making
First factor is “Collegial decision –making”. processes
0.782 0.249

Good communication between

0.739 0.461
management and academics
Second factor is “Emphasis on the institution's
A strong teaching performance
mission”. orientation
0.484 0.305

A strong research performance

0.397 0.390
orientation

A cumbersome administrative process -0.391 -0.069

A strong emphasis on the institution's

0.420 0.761
mission

A competent leadership 0.588 0.646

A top-down management style 0.036 0.243

Factor contribution 2.225 1.58

Factor cumulative contribution ratio 27.81 47.566
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization
8
 Table 3 The results of Factor analysis of Current
work situation
Factor1 Factor2 Factor3
Table ２ is the results of factor analysis of Opportunities Career
Academic
Current work situation(G6). to enhance opportunity &
Freedom
competences Salary

Personal independence in research 0.815 0.154 0.208

Three kinds of factor were extracted.
Personal independence in teaching 0.644 0.307 0.227

First factor is “Academic freedom”.

Interesting work 0.632 0.358 0.197

Second factor is “Opportunities to enhance Opportunities to learn and enhance

0.358 0.712 0.286
competences”。 competences

Institutional prestige 0.296 0.639 0.301

Third factor is “Career opportunity & Salary”.
Career opportunities 0.226 0.507 0.646

Job security 0.176 0.125 0.638

Salary 0.194 0.305 0.469

Factor contribution 1.812 1.526 1.349

Factor cumulative contribution ratio 22.653 41.724 58.592

Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization 9
Data＆Analysis

Japan Data 2124cases(APIKS)

Japan & Malaysia Data 6492cases

Malaysia Data 4368cases(APIKS)

Fig.2 Analytical Framework

Table 5 Results of Multiple regression analysis

Table 6 The mean of significant variables by countries

Fig. 2 Data＆Analysis
10
Table 4 Used variables(1)
Japan Malaysia
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Dependent variable
Satisfaction with your current overall professional environment 2115 1 5 3.18 1.107 4368 1 5 3.63 0.946 ***
＜

Independent variables
Individual characteristics
Gender Male=1, Female=0 2071 0 1 0.81 0.392 4368 0 1 0.44 0.497 ***
＞
Age AGE2039 39 years of age or younger=1,
2043 0 1 0.21 0.406 4368 0 1 0.51 0.500 ***
Other=0 ＜
AGE4049 40-49 years of age=1, Other=0 2043 0 1 0.31 0.461 4368 0 1 0.36 0.479 ***
＜
AGE5059 50-59 years of age=1, Other=0 2043 0 1 0.30 0.457 4368 0 1 0.13 0.333 ***
AGE6099 60 years of age or older=1,
＞
2043 0 1 0.19 0.392 4368 0 1 0.01 0.101 ***
Other=0 ＞
Familial status Married=1, Single=0 2052 0 1 0.82 0.384 4115 0 1 0.83 0.375
Employment status Full-time=1, Part-time=0 2119 0 1 0.98 0.122 4368 0 1 0.98 0.141
Emplyment contract Permanently=1, Other=0 2070 0 1 0.66 0.474 ＜ 4368 0 1 0.88 0.322 ***
Academic status
Major Humanities Humanities=1, Other=0 2102 0 1 0.11 0.314 4368 0 1 0.11 0.314
SocialSciences SocialSciences=1, Other=0 2102 0 1 0.19 0.391 4368 0 1 0.25 0.431 ***
LifeSciences LifeSciences=1, Other=0 2102 0 1 0.08 0.270 ＜ 4368 0 1 0.05 0.220 ***
NaturalSciences NaturalSciences=1, Other=0 2102 0 1 0.16 0.366 ＜ 4368 0 1 0.11 0.315 ***
Engineering Engineering=1, Other=0 2102 0 1 0.18 0.381 ＞ 4368 0 1 0.26 0.440 ***
Agriculture Agriculture=1, Other=0 2102 0 1 0.06 0.237 ＜ 4368 0 1 0.01 0.120 ***
Highest degree PostDoc=4, Doc=3, Master=2,
2086 1 4 2.80 0.513 ＞ 4368 1 4 2.78 0.571
Bachelor=1
Academic rank Senior=1, Junior=0 2101 0 1 0.68 0.465 ＞ 4368 0 1 0.27 0.444 ***
Preferences Primarily in research Primarily in research=1,
3492 0 1 0.17 0.380 ＜ 4368 0 1 0.38 0.486 ***
Other=0
Leaning towards research Leaning towards research=1,
3492 0 1 0.56 0.497 ＞ 4368 0 1 0.46 0.499 ***
Other=0
Leaning towards teaching Leaning towards teaching=1,
3492 0 1 0.21 0.410 ＞ 4368 0 1 0.05 0.213 ***
Other=0
Primarily in teaching Primarily in teaching=1,
3492 0 1 0.06 0.230 ＜ 4368 0 1 0.11 11
0.310 ***
Other=0
Note: *** p<0.001
Table 4 Used variables(2)
Japan Malaysia
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Academic activities
Professional Teaching hours Real numbers 1524 0 62 15.08 9.887 ＜ 2192 0 64 17.01 8.362 ***
activities hours Research hours Real numbers 1524 0 100 21.84 13.768 ＞ 2192 0 70 14.54 7.745 ***
Externally oriented activities Real numbers
1524 0 65 3.05 6.455 ＜ 2192 0 45 5.38 5.003 ***
hours
Management hours Real numbers 1524 0 51.3 9.35 8.306 ＜ 2192 0 70 10.30 7.498 ***
Number of Articles published in an academic book or Real numbers
academic journal
3339 0 181 8.36 11.805 ＜ 3553 0 730 15.60 29.678 ***

Teaching and research are hardly compatible with Strongly agree=5, Neutral=3,
3479 1 5 3.32 1.249 ＞ 4368 1 5 2.47 1.237 ***
each other Strongly disagree=1

Environment evaluation

Management style Collegiality in decision- Factor score

1997 -2.87 1.60 -0.53 0.714 ＜ 4244 -2.87 1.88 0.25 0.798 ***
making
Emphasis on the institution's Factor score
1997 -3.40 2.03 -0.35 0.919 ＜ 4244 -2.85 2.01 0.17 0.707 ***
mission
Current work Academic Freedom Factor score
situation
1052 -3.48 1.96 -0.07 0.961 ＜ 1925 -4.01 2.02 0.04 0.809 ***

Opportunities to enhance Factor score

1052 -3.31 1.76 -0.41 0.832 ＜ 1925 -3.54 1.88 0.22 0.686 ***
competences
Career opprtunity & Salary Factor score
1052 -3.11 2.01 -0.17 0.788 ＜ 1925 -2.84 1.77 0.10 0.749 ***

Note: *** p<0.001

12
 Standardized Standardized Standardized
t Sig. t Sig. t Sig.
Table 5 Results of Multiple regression Coefficients
Beta
Coefficients
Beta
Coefficients
Beta

analysis (1) Gender -0.012 -0.642 0.019 1.123 0.036 1.569

Age AGE4049 -0.041 -2.036 * -0.020 -1.098 -0.006 -0.258
(Reference: AGE5059 -0.057 -2.712 ** -0.014 -0.711 -0.014 -0.583

The following four points became clear as a Age2029)

Familial status
AGE6099 -0.050 -2.606 ** 0.005 0.306 0.027 1.202

0.081 4.596 *** 0.047 2.891 ** 0.041 1.843

result of analysis in the all variables entered Employment status 0.015 0.887 0.030 1.871 0.017 0.776

model. Emplyment contract

Major Humanities
0.012 0.633 0.002 0.149 -0.034 -1.412

0.014 0.757 0.011 0.679 0.013 0.590

(Reference: LifeSciences -0.057 -3.208 *** -0.027 -1.626 -0.008 -0.348

1. Individual characteristics like Gender, Age, Social sciences) NaturalSciences -0.033 -1.732 -0.010 -0.603 -0.013 -0.526
Engineering 0.006 0.297 0.002 0.130 0.015 0.643
Familial status and Employment status do not Agriculture -0.059 -3.379 *** -0.037 -2.331 * -0.025 -1.129

determine the satisfaction of academic staffs Highest degree -0.003 -0.143 -0.001 -0.068 -0.039 -1.730
Academic rank -0.021 -1.104 0.011 0.632 -0.026 -1.051
at level of significance of 5%. Preferences Primarily in research -0.081 -2.141 * -0.091 -2.636 ** -0.120 -2.323 *

(Reference: Leaning towards research -0.072 -1.906 -0.057 -1.650 -0.087 -1.706
Primarily in
2. Academic status like Major, Highest teaching)
Leaning towards teaching -0.053 -1.885 -0.021 -0.837 -0.033 -0.931

degree, Academic rank, Preferences also do Professional

activities hours
Teaching hous

Research hours
-0.003

0.014
-0.175

0.759
-0.018

0.045
-1.138

2.590 **
-0.032

0.068
-1.444

2.778 **
not determine satisfaction among academic Externally oriented activities
0.023 1.319 0.015 0.933 0.016 0.695
hours
staffs at level of significance of 1%. Management hours -0.057 -3.183 *** -0.054 -3.321 *** -0.046 -2.049 *
Number of articles published in an academic
0.061 3.409 *** 0.023 1.395 0.017 0.743
book or academic journal

➔ Teaching and research are hardly compatible with

each other
-0.251 -14.154 *** -0.150 -8.961 *** -0.098 -4.171 ***

Hypothesis1, Hypothesis2 and Hypothesis3 Management Collegiality in decision-

ー ー 0.329 18.917 *** 0.146 5.444 ***

were denied.
style making
Emphasis on the institution's
ー ー 0.204 12.369 *** 0.111 4.639 ***
mission
Current work Academic Freedom ー ー ー ー 0.168 7.363 ***
situation Opportunities to enhance
ー ー ー ー 0.219 8.394 ***
competences
、 Career opprtunity & Salary ー ー ー ー 0.201 8.345 ***
13
Note: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Adjusted R2=0.095 Adjusted R2=0.256 Adjusted R2=0.334
 Standardized Standardized Standardized
t Sig. t Sig. t Sig.
Table 5 Results of Multiple regression Coefficients
Beta
Coefficients
Beta
Coefficients
Beta

analysis (1) Gender -0.012 -0.642 0.019 1.123 0.036 1.569

Age AGE4049 -0.041 -2.036 * -0.020 -1.098 -0.006 -0.258
(Reference: AGE5059 -0.057 -2.712 ** -0.014 -0.711 -0.014 -0.583
3. Research hours among Academic activities Age2029) AGE6099 -0.050 -2.606 ** 0.005 0.306 0.027 1.202

determine the satisfaction of academic staffs Familial status 0.081 4.596 *** 0.047 2.891 ** 0.041 1.843
Employment status 0.015 0.887 0.030 1.871 0.017 0.776
at level of significance of 1%. Emplyment contract 0.012 0.633 0.002 0.149 -0.034 -1.412
Major Humanities 0.014 0.757 0.011 0.679 0.013 0.590
(Reference: LifeSciences -0.057 -3.208 *** -0.027 -1.626 -0.008 -0.348
But, Number of articles published in an Social sciences) NaturalSciences -0.033 -1.732 -0.010 -0.603 -0.013 -0.526

academic book or academic journal determine Engineering 0.006 0.297 0.002 0.130 0.015 0.643
Agriculture -0.059 -3.379 *** -0.037 -2.331 * -0.025 -1.129
the satisfaction of academic staffs at level of Highest degree -0.003 -0.143 -0.001 -0.068 -0.039 -1.730

significance of 0.1% only in the left side model Academic rank -0.021 -1.104 0.011 0.632 -0.026 -1.051
Preferences Primarily in research
which do not include management variables. (Reference: Leaning towards research
-0.081 -2.141 * -0.091 -2.636 ** -0.120 -2.323 *

-0.072 -1.906 -0.057 -1.650 -0.087 -1.706

Primarily in
Leaning towards teaching -0.053 -1.885 -0.021 -0.837 -0.033 -0.931
teaching)
4. Environment evaluation like Management Professional Teaching hous -0.003 -0.175 -0.018 -1.138 -0.032 -1.444
activities hours
style and Current work situation strongly Research hours

Externally oriented activities

0.014 0.759 0.045 2.590 ** 0.068 2.778 **

determine the satisfaction of academic staffs 0.023 1.319 0.015 0.933 0.016 0.695
hours
Management hours -0.057 -3.183 *** -0.054 -3.321 *** -0.046 -2.049 *
at level of significance of 0.1%. Number of articles published in an academic
0.061 3.409 *** 0.023 1.395 0.017 0.743
book or academic journal
Teaching and research are hardly compatible with
-0.251 -14.154 *** -0.150 -8.961 *** -0.098 -4.171 ***
➔ each other

Management Collegiality in decision-

We do not determine to accept or deny style making
ー ー 0.329 18.917 *** 0.146 5.444 ***

Emphasis on the institution's

Hypothesis3 and 4 from this results. mission
ー ー 0.204 12.369 *** 0.111 4.639 ***

Hypothesis5 and 6 were accepted. Current work

situation
Academic Freedom

Opportunities to enhance
ー ー ー ー 0.168 7.363 ***

ー ー ー ー 0.219 8.394 ***

competences
Career opprtunity & Salary ー ー ー ー 0.201 8.345 ***
14
Note: * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 Adjusted R2=0.095 Adjusted R2=0.256 Adjusted R2=0.334
Conclusion & Summary Table 6 The mean of significant variables by countries
Nation N Mean
The factors of academic professions’ Std.
Deviation
satisfaction with current overall professional Professional Teaching hours Japan 1524 15.08 9.887 ***
environment are Research hours, Teaching activities Malaysia 2192 17.01 8.362
hours
and research are hardly compatible with Research hours Japan 1524 21.84 13.768 ***

<
Malaysia 2192 14.54 7.745
each other, Management style, Current work Externally oriented activities hours Japan 1524 3.05 6.455 ***
situation. Malaysia 2192 5.38 5.003
Management hours Japan 1524 9.35 8.306 ***

In Japan, Research hours is bigger than Malaysia 2192 10.30 7.498

Number of articles published in an academic book Japan 3339 8.36 11.805 ***
Malaysia. It means that from the point of or academic journal Malaysia 3553 15.60 29.678
Research hours, Japanese academic Teaching and research are hardly compatible with Japan 3479 3.32 1.249 ***

<
professions has more positive feeing of each other Malaysia 4368 2.47 1.237
Management Collegiality in decision-making Japan 1997 -0.53 0.714 ***
satisfaction than Malaysia.

<
style Malaysia 4244 0.25 0.798
Emphasis on the institution's Japan 1997 -0.35 0.919 ***

<
But, Malaysia academic professions has mission Malaysia 4244 0.17 0.707
Current work Academic Freedom Japan 1052 -0.07 0.961 ***

<
more positive feeing of satisfaction than

<
situation Malaysia 1925 0.04 0.809
Japan from the point of other more effective Opportunities to enhance Japan 1052 -0.41 0.832 ***

<
variables (Teaching and research are competences Malaysia 1925 0.22 0.686
Career opprtunity & Salary Japan 1052 -0.17 0.788 ***
hardly compatible with each other,

<
Malaysia 1925 0.10 0.749
Management style, Current work Note: *** p<0.001

situation) 15
Reference
Tomoko Adachi(1998), Job satisfaction of sales people: A covariance structure analysis of the motivational process, The
Japanese Journal of Psychology, Vol. 69, No. 3, 223-228.
Cecilia Alberta et al.(2018), Job satisfaction amongst academics the role of research, Studies in Higher Education, Vol.
43, No. 8, pp.1362–1377.
Josep-Oriol Escardibul & Sergio Afcha(2017), Determinants of the job satisfaction of PhD holders: an analysis by
gender, employment sector, and type of satisfaction in Spain, Higher Education, 74. pp.855-875.
Alenka Flander, Nena Roncevic and Sebastian Kocar(2020), How Teaching and Research Nexus in Academic Attitudes,
Behaviours and System of Promotion Influences Academic Satisfaction？, Higher Education Forum, Vol. 17, 177-
205.
Nick Fredman & James Doughney(2011), Academic dissatisfaction, managerial change and neo-liberalism, Higher
Education, 64, pp.41–58.
Hagedorn, L. S. (2000). Conceptualizing faculty job satisfaction components, theories and outcomes. New directions for
institutional research, vol. 105, pp.5-20, San Francisco Jossey Bass.
Ong Choon Hee, et.al.(2020), Factors Influencing Job Satisfaction among Academic Staffs, International Journal of
Evaluation and Research in Education, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 285~291.
V. Rosser (2004). Faculty members’ intentions to leave: A national study on their worklife and satisfaction, Research in
Higher Education, 45(7), 285–309.
16
M. Sabharwal & Corley, E. A. (2009). Faculty job satisfaction across gender and discipline. The Social Science Journal,
46, 539–556.
Seifert and Umbach 2008; Seifert, T., & Umbach, P. (2008). The effects of faculty demographic characteristics and
disciplinary context on dimensions of job satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 49, 357–381.
Jung Cheol Shin & Jisun Jung(2014), Academics job satisfaction and job stress across countries in the changing
academic environments, Higher Education, 67, pp.603–620.
Ken Sugimura(1987), Behavioral science of the work organization: Research on the morale and motivation, Zeimu Keiri
Kyokai.
Trower, C. & Bleak, J. (2004). The study of new scholars. Gender: Statistical report. The collaborative on academic
careers in higher education. Cambridge, MA: COACHE, President & Fellows of Harvard College.
Karen L. Webber(2019), Does the environment matter？ Faculty satisfaction at 4-year colleges and universities in the
USA, Higher Education, 78, pp.323–343.
Karen L. Webber(2018), Gender Differences in Faculty Member Job Satisfaction: Equity Forestalled?, Research Higher
Education, 59, pp.1105–1132.

17
 Thank you all for your attention

Cám ơn.
Terima kasih カム オン
トゥリマ カスィ
オークン

감사합니다
カムサハムニダ 謝謝

18
19