The race to establish regional education hubs is a recent development in crossborder 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 Malaysia's crossborder 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.

In Malaysia, the national government has seen fit to steer higher education policy in a direction that is in the 'national interest'. This notion of 'national interest' is best exemplified by the changing relationship between the State, higher education institutions and the market. Since the late 1960s, we saw the gradual but steady erosion of university autonomy with the increasing dominance of the State. The recently launched National Higher Education Strategic Plan 2020 and the National Higher Education Action Plan, 2007-2010, which operationalised the Strategic Plan, promises greater autonomy for the universities. While this increased autonomy for universities could be regarded as Malaysia's response to deal with emerging issues in higher education management and governance, the amendments to the University and University Colleges Act, 1995 have not resolved the issue of wider autonomy from the Malaysian treasury regulations for public universities. For the State, in the present climate of political and economic uncertainty, giving full autonomy to the public universities is seen to be inappropriate and untimely. The State considers public universities as still heavily dependent on the State for resources, and thus the need for regulation and supervision.

No abstract

University-Industry Collaboration (UIC) has been identified as an essential item on Malaysia's agenda for transforming itself intoknowledge and innovation-based economy. However, despite the efforts, most initiatives have had limited results. This paper reports on an explorative study that sought to understand the contemporary realities of UIC in the Malaysian context. In particular, the study identified the expectations and impediments to UIC, from the perspectives of three groups of stakeholders-the academics, the industry players and policymakers. The findings reveala number of barriers, including cultural differences, perceived lack of academic expertise and reputation, an inadequacy of institutional policies and regulations, lack of trust, issues of intellectual property rights, and the lack of an appropriate reward system. Thispaper concludes by proposing policy recommendations and strategiesthat could be used by the government, university, and the industry to promote further and foster university-industry collaborativeopportunities and initiatives.

This article explores the idea of a university with a specific focus in the Malaysian context. We begin the article guided by these questions-"What is a university?" and "What are universities for?"-in examining the historical and conceptual development of universities. This is followed by asking a more specific question-"What are Malaysian universities for?"-in which we discussed the overarching roles of public and private universities in this developing country. Having examined the roles of public and private universities, and taken into context the complexity and challenges surrounding these important societal institutions, we discuss two "experimental" initiatives in Malaysia: the APEX University (Accelerated Program for Excellence) focusing on sustainability and the "humaniversity". On the one hand, these initiatives are intended to prepare and transform Malaysian universities to address not only the needs of society today, but critically, of tomorrow. On the other hand, they have implications and contributions to frame our thinking about the future ideas of a university not only in Malaysia, but regionally and globally.

In the context of the international economy of the late 1970s, the Kuala Lumpur Structure Plan (1984) noted that the city's role as the commercial and financial centre of Malaysia would be maintained and enhanced. With intensifying globalisation processes in the 1990s and the coming of the new millennium, fresh approaches and innovative strategies relating to further tertiarisation in the urban economy have to be instituted. The paper argues that this sector has not yet distinctly disarticulated from that of goods production in or beyond the city limits. This raises a serious question whether producer services could support Kuala Lumpur's quest for 'world city' status by the year 2020.

No abstract

The future of Malaysia as a high-income and competitive nation largely depends on its pool of highly skilled human capital. Hence, the issue of human capital development has taken centre stage in numerous reform agendas of Malaysia. This paper seeks to provide examples of policy initiatives aimed at facilitating the management of highly educated talent in Malaysia. It subsequently considers the role of higher education institutions, particularly the universities, as attractors, educators and retainers of intellectuals, in shaping talent. In conclusion, we argue that more significant underlying shortcomings of talent development are derived from the still transitional nature of the reforms and incomplete structural changes occurring in the national system, and that a change in mindset is the first necessary step towards nurturing and developing a human resource talent pool.