The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region

Abstract

'The shape of global higher education' considers the policy environment in a total of 43 countries and the extent to which national systems support international collaboration in higher education.

This third volume focuses on ASEAN member states, a region with increasing intra-regional student mobility, several TNE hub countries, and increasing within-region research partnerships and collaboration.

Institutions within the region will be able to find crucial information to support further regional activities; and for institutions outside of the region, this study will provide insight to support interaction with, and profile within the region.

Full text

© Mat Wrig ht
THE SHAPE OF GLOBAL HIGHER
EDUCATION: UNDERSTANDING THE
ASEAN REGION
Volume 3

The ASEAN region has a
strong commitment to
education development
at all levels and to
further social and
economic integration.

Contents
Acknowledgements 2
Foreword 3
Chapter 1: Introduction 4
Chapter 2: Key findings 5
Chapter 3: Aims, objectives and methodology 6
3.1 Aim and objectives of the study 6
3.2 The National Policies Framework 6
3.3 Key findings from The Shape of Global Higher Education
(volumes 1 and 2) 7
Chapter 4: Higher education in the ASEAN region 8
4.1 Higher education participation in the ASEAN region 8
4.2 Higher education provision 9
4.3 The pan-ASEAN infrastructure 10
Chapter 5: Understanding international higher education in the
ASEAN region – findings and discussions 11
5.1 Openness of higher education systems and support
for the international mobility of students, researchers,
academic programmes and university research 13
5.3 Quality assurance of higher education provision
(domestic and overseas) and recognition of
international qualifications 16
5.4 Equitable access and sustainable development policies 20
Chapter 6: Emerging themes 24
6.1 IHE policy commitments are embedded in existing policies 24
6.2 Student mobility is shaped by wider socio-economic forces 24
6.3 Pan-ASEAN collaboration is key – especially in
quality assurance 24
6.4 Addressing ‘potential brain drain’ is a key concern 25
6.5 Commitment to research collaboration is high 25
Conclusion: Is there an ASEAN-centric approach to IHE? 26
Appendix: Structure of the National Policies Framework 27
The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region 1

Acknowledgements
Report authors
Dr Graeme Atherton, Adjunct Professor,
Centre for Higher Education Research,
Sunway University, Malaysia
Siti Norbaya Binti Azizan,
Research Consultant
Associate Professor Dr Munir Shuib,
Deputy Director, National Higher
Education Research Institute,
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Professor Glenda Crosling, Head,
Centre for Higher Education Research,
Sunway University, Malaysia
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the
important support of the following
colleagues from the British Council
who contributed to the report:
• Clare Walker, Director Education
and Society, Malaysia
• Uraiwan Samolee, Head of Business
Development, Education, Thailand
• Lynne Heslop, Director Education,
Myanmar
• Lotus Postrado, Head of Education,
The Philippines
• Hoang Van Anh, Assistant Director,
Education, Vietnam
• Muhaimin Syamsuddin, Senior
Manager, Indonesia
• Shabir Aslam, Director Education,
Singapore
And the following colleagues who
contributed to the report as country-
based experts:
• Sam Rany, Cambodia
• Ali Hamdani Md Diah, Brunei
• Darren McDermott, Singapore
• Sengdeuane Wayakone, Lao PDR
Along with the representatives from
the following organisations:
• Sara Abdullah, ASEAN Secretariat
• Phunyanuch Pattanotai, SEAMEO
• Leonie Nagarajan, Asia Europe
Foundation (ASEF)
• Christopher Tremewan, Association
of Pacific Rim Universities
2 The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region

Foreword
The British Council is very pleased to
be able to present to you the latest in
our ‘Shape of global higher education’
research series.
We initiated this study in 2016, devising
a framework by which the national
higher education policies in various
countries could be assessed and
compared against each other.
Higher education can be a powerful
player in international cultural relations
and diplomacy:
• mobile students, staff and researchers
share their intelligence, talent and
ideas as they move, and develop
deep and wide international networks
• creation and delivery of academic
programmes across two or more
locations relies on, and strengthens,
cross cultural co-operation
• international research collaboration
can fuse the strengths and expertise
of diverse and dispersed researchers
to present global solutions to
global challenges.
And it is our intention that this study
can in some way support the growth
of international higher education.
By building a greater knowledge
and understanding of national higher
education systems, The Shape of
Global Higher Education can benefit
and inform the work of individual
higher education institutions as well
as national policymakers. Indeed the
research series (and the accompanying
online Global Gauge of higher
education policy), has already been
accessed and utilised by national
policymakers in many countries, and
has informed the decision making
and internationalisation strategies of
several higher education institutions.
This latest volume is exciting for a
number of reasons:
a. We have focused on ASEAN
member states. This is a vibrant
and dynamic world region with
increasing intra-regional
student mobility, several TNE
hub countries, and increasing
within-region research partnerships
and collaboration. For institutions
within the region we hope to be
able to provide crucial information
to support further regional
activities; and for institutions
outside of the region, this study
could provide crucial insight to
support interaction with, and
profile within the region.
b. Five of the ASEAN countries
were already included in volume 1
of this study, so we now have an
opportunity to judge how and
whether national systems and
policies have changed at all
over the last two years.
c. This presents an opportunity
to look at the strengths and
challenges of working as a region:
competing and collaborating with
neighbouring states.
d. In a change from previous volumes,
this research was undertaken by
colleagues embedded in the region:
the Centre for Higher Education
Research (CHER) at Sunway
University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
and National Higher Education
Research Institute (IPPTN), hosted
by Universiti Sains Malaysia; and
drew heavily on their network of
experts in the ASEAN region.
We trust that this will prove to be
a valuable resource to support
further international higher education
engagement within and outside
the ASEAN region.
But this is just one approach to
assessing and benchmarking national
higher education systems and policies.
We know that it has already proved
useful, and trust that it will continue
to do so, however, we also know that
this approach is not absolute, and is
not above criticism – it is just one
way to look at the international higher
education world.
Michael Peak, Head of Higher
Education Systems Research,
Education Policy Unit, British Council
The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region 3

1. Altbach, PG and de Wit, H (2018) The challenge to higher education internationalization. University World News 23 February 2018.
Available online at: www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20180220091648602
2. Ibid.
3. C heok, M (2017) Fift y Years On, Southeast Asia Emerges as G lobal Grow th Leader. Bloomberg Politics 6 August 2017.
Available online at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-06/fifty-years-on-southeast-asia-emerges-as-global-growth-leader
4. ht tp://asean.org/higher-education-in-asean-to-enhance-student-mobility-in-the-region/
5. The tool can be found here: www.britishcouncil.org/education/ihe/knowledge-centre/global-landscape/global-gauge
The period since the late 20th century
has been described as the ‘era of
higher education internationalisation’
as global student flows have increased
and cross-border collaborations have
expanded.
1 In the early 21st century,
however, as the political landscape
across the world changes, there
are challenges to international
collaboration across all social and
economic dimensions.
2 Ensuring
that the internationalisation in higher
education can continue to grow and
diversify in this context requires
in-depth understanding of the policy
environment of international higher
education (IHE) in the different regions
of the world.
This study, building on earlier work
by the British Council using its
National Policies Framework, examines
national countries’ policies and how
they relate to IHE in the ten nations
in the ASEAN region. ASEAN is one
of the fastest-growing regions of the
world, with a combined population of
over 620 million and an economy of
over $2.6 trillion.
3 The ASEAN region
also has a strong commitment to
education development at all levels
and to further social and economic
integration.
4 It is a timely point to
explore the prospective future for
IHE in the region.
In undertaking the study, a mixed
methodological approach was
undertaken through engagement
of country experts and consultation
with British Council representatives,
as well as an index-based country
scoring analysis. The British Council
National Policies Framework was used,
which is made up of 37 qualitative
indicators All of the data collected as
part of this study can be viewed via
our online, interactive tool.
5 It builds
on two previous reports produced
by the British Council in the Shape
of Global Higher Education series.
The rationale was to ensure that data
collected is comprehensive, up to date,
consistent with the prior studies and
reflective of the higher education
policy environment in each country.
Notes for readers:
1. Labelling of country
measurements
The research team worked to
ensure that the measurements of
HE policy taken as part of this study
were comparable to previous work
in this series. This includes applying
the same ‘scoring levels’ as used in
earlier volumes, namely that:
• scores from 0 to less than 2.5
are labelled as systems which
offer ‘very low’ levels of support
for engagement
• scores from 2.5 to less than 5.0 are
labelled as systems which offer ‘low’
levels of support for engagement
• scores from 5.0 to less than 7.5
are labelled as systems which
offer ‘high’ levels of support
for engagement
• scores from 7.5 to less than 10
are labelled as systems which
offer ‘very high’ levels of support
for engagement.
In this study of ASEAN member
states it has become apparent that
some country scores in certain
categories are very similar, but fall
on opposite sides of these scoring
boundaries. We’d encourage all
readers and users of this research
to explore the detailed information
and justification of measurements
which can be accessed in the online,
interactive Global Gauge of HE policy
(https://www.britishcouncil.org/
education/ihe/knowledge-centre/
global-landscape/global-gauge)
2. Country information boxes
We have peppered this report with
text boxes highlighting instances
of proactive steps being taken by
governments and policymakers in
each of the ASEAN member states.
Had space permitted we could
have included several examples for
each country. The absence of any
particular example, or absence of
a story from a particular country
should not be interpreted as a lack
of relevant activity in that country.
Chapter 1: Introduction
4 The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region

1. It is possible to locate IHE in the
strategic planning framework for
higher education in the majority
of ASEAN countries. There are
not, however, separate IHE
strategies in place. More commonly,
the commitment to extending
internationalisation sits within
the broader higher education
planning framework. It sits there
in contrasting positions which also
reflect the different drivers behind
extending IHE within the region.
2. The generation of bilateral
agreements/memorandums
of understanding with foreign
education ministries focusing on
different forms of higher education
collaboration is widespread in
ASEAN, and all countries score
well in this area.
3. Collection and publication of data
on IHE is inconsistent within ASEAN
countries. It is generally better
for students than staff – very little
data appears to be available on the
latter. In some cases where data is
collected, it may not be published
and its use is not clear.
4. Student mobility is important in
ASEAN. It underpins much of the
pan-ASEAN IHE alignment efforts
and nine of the ten countries score
high or very high in this category.
There have been concerted efforts
to streamline visa procedures
across the region to aid student
mobility. But student mobility is also
something that is tied up with the
broader social and political context
of each individual country and can
only be understood fully with
reference to these factors.
5. All of the ASEAN countries already
have, or are trying to develop,
significant levels of inbound
transnational education and are
aiming to grow their HE systems.
Hence, building relationships with
foreign HEIs. But this does not
imply that monitoring systems are
in place to specifically deal with
such providers. For most countries,
monitoring is part of the overall
system of accreditation and quality
assurance that new providers in the
country need to comply with.
6. Differences between countries
in ASEAN in programme and
institutional mobility are significant.
While Malaysia and Singapore
especially are global leaders in
terms of the domestic international
provision, it is at very early stages
in Myanmar, Lao PDR, Vietnam and
Cambodia. With regard to the
entry of foreign higher education
providers, it appears that links with
a domestic partner are important,
and in some cases essential.
7. Support for international students
in the form of scholarships is less
common in the region primarily
because countries do not have the
funding to do this. Interestingly, the
support that does exist tends to
focus more on students from
ASEAN nations.
8. The displacement of home
students by international students
is not a significant issue in ASEAN
countries, with the notable
exception of Singapore. Across
the region, there is evidence
of policies to support equitable
access to higher education from
under-represented groups. In
Indonesia, for example, it is stated
in law that a fifth of the country’s
student population should come
from the lowest socio-economic
groups. Targets for equitable
access to higher education also
exist in Malaysia and Myanmar.
But these commitments are
separate policies and not
connected to any concern
over displacement.
9. While displacement might not be
a problem for most countries in
ASEAN, for some, ‘brain drain’ is an
issue. Malaysia, Cambodia, Brunei,
Indonesia and the Philippines have
all faced challenges in this area.
10. Language is a sensitive political and
cultural issue across ASEAN. The
majority of ASEAN countries have
more than one working language.
Foreign language competence
(in particular, competence in
English) is perceived as important
economically throughout the
region. Hence, in every country, in
some part of the higher education
system elements of educational
instruction are delivered in English,
and efforts are under way to extend
bilingual provision.
Chapter 2: Key findings
The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region 5

3.1 Aim and objectives
of the study
The National Policies Framework
for International Engagement was
developed by the British Council
to advance understanding of how
national governments are supporting
IHE, and where they could improve
such suppor t. It presents a way to
compare the policy environments
of different countries. Previous studies
in this series have attempted to
contextualise these comparisons. This
study places such contextualisation
central to its approach.
The scoring produced by the National
Policies Framework is an important
guide, but if IHE is to move forward in
the ASEAN region, any assessments
of the policy work that is under way
must be understood in the social and
economic context of the nations that
make up the region.
The ASEAN region is made up of
the countries in Table 1.
Tab le 1: ASEAN countries
Countries
Brunei
Cambodia
Indonesia
Lao PDR
Malaysia
Myanmar
The Philippines
Singapore
Thailand
Vietnam
3.2 The National
Policies Framework
This study used a systematic
methodological approach in order
to evaluate the national IHE policies
of the ASEAN countries. The mixed
methodology involved a series of
engagements with country experts
and consultation with British Council
representatives. The engagement with
in-country experts was extremely
important for this research in building
an accurate and contemporary picture
of the policy environment.
The National Policies Framework looks
at IHE across three areas (see Table 2
and appendix for details):
• Openness: government-level
commitment to internationalisation;
environment enabling international
mobility of students, researchers,
academic programmes and university
research
• Quality assurance and recognition: a
regulatory environment to facilitate
the international mobility of students,
education providers and academic
programmes
• Access and sustainability: promoting
student/academic mobility and
international research collaboration;
consideration of possible unintended
consequences of internationalisation.
These three areas are subdivided into
a number of other categories, as shown
in Table 2.
Chapter 3: Aims, objectives
and methodology
6 The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region

Tab le 2: General structure of the National Policies Framework
6
Overview: categories and indicators Weight
1 Openness and mobility 0.33
1.1 IHE strategy 0.25
1.2 Student mobility policies 0.25
1.3 Academic mobility and research policies 0.25
1.4 Programme and provider mobility 0.25
2 Quality assurance and degree recognition 0.33
2.1 International students’ quality assurance and admissions 0.33
2.2 Quality assurance of academic programmes 0.33
2.3 Recognition of overseas qualifications 0.33
3 Access and sustainability 0.33
3.1 Student mobility funding 0.33
3.2 Academic mobility and research funding 0.33
3.3 Sustainable development policies 0.33
Tot al 1. 0
3.3 Key findings from The Shape
of Global Higher Education
(volumes 1 and 2)
The first two reports in the series
have made a significant contribution
to the global knowledge base on IHE.
They draw on information from 38
countries from across the world which
are very diverse in their levels of
economic wealth and their education
systems. A key concern for this study
will be the extent to which the ASEAN
picture, where IHE is concerned, is
reflective of that global picture as
presented in volumes 1 and 2 of the
series. To an extent, this is inevitable
as five ASEAN nations feature in these
reports. In this study, though, by
incorporating the other five ASEAN
countries it will be possible to see
the regional picture and whether an
‘ASEAN-centric’ policy approach to
IHE exists.
In terms of the previous reports, a
positive picture is portrayed of the
extent of ASEAN countries’ commitment
to IHE, as evidenced through national
strategies and reforms to higher
education legislation. It is notable that
Malaysia in particular, but also Vietnam,
the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand
compare favourably with countries
from across the world in these studies
– many of which have significantly
higher levels of GDP. The key findings
from The Shape of Global Higher
Education volume 1 are detailed below.
• Student mobility is the policy area
which attracted the most support
from policymakers.
• Quality assurance of higher education
provision emerges as an area of
weakness for the countries studied.
• The recognition of transnational
education degrees, including those
obtained in third countries, requires
further development.
• Higher education institutions are
the major drivers of IHE in a number
of countries.
• Research is becoming a policy
preoccupation, driven in part by
the growing influence of global
university rankings.
• IHE would benefit from greater
co-ordination and alignment of
national policies.
The 2017 report The Shape of Global
Higher Education: International Mobility
of Students, Research and Educational
Provision volume 2 extended the
country coverage to 38 countries.
But it also turned the focus towards
what the IHE global policy environment
meant for higher education institutions.
The key findings of the volume 2 report
build on volume 1 and highlight again
the importance of student mobility
to IHE.
6. B ased on the British Council’s Repor t The Shape of Global Higher Education: National Policies Framework for International Engagement (2016 ).
The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region 7

Higher education, and specifically
IHE, is perceived as having a major
role to play in the formation of a
more integrated and aligned ASEAN
community.
7 The ASEAN Socio-Cultural
Community Blueprint 2025, launched in
March 2016, advocated the promotion
of ‘an innovative ASEAN approach to
higher education’ which will ‘promote
greater people-to-people interaction
and mobility within and outside
AS EA N’.
8 Pan-regional bodies such
as the ASEAN Directorate, the
ASEAN University Network and the
Southeast Asian Ministers of Education
Organization (SEAMEO) is active in
building an infrastructure to enable
greater integration and alignment.
But the countries across the region
are in quite contrasting stages in terms
of the development of their higher
education systems. Before the results
of the study are described in detail,
it is important to outline some of
these differences.
4.1 Higher education
participation in the
ASEAN region
The growth of the higher education
sector in South-East Asia has been
rapid in recent decades. Table 3 shows
the growth in overall student numbers
together with increases in inbound
and outbound students. Five ASEAN
countries have gross enrolment ratios
of over 30 per cent. This places them
close to or above the global average of
32 per cent and in the top 20 per cent
of countries in the world.
9 There are
contrasts, however, as several of the
countries are placed well below the
global average. The distinctions
between countries become even more
pronounced where student mobility is
concerned. There are nearly 20 times
more students studying abroad from
Vietnam than from Brunei. Data on
numbers of students studying in ASEAN
nations from other countries is not
universally available. However, the
data available shows that Malaysia
dwarfs the majority of the other nations
– having over 100,000 international
students, whereas Brunei and Lao
PDR have less than 1,000 combined.
Tab le 3: Number of local and international students in South-East Asian countries
10
Countries Number of local
students abroad
Number of
international students
Gross enrolment ratio
Until 2012
11 Present Until 2012 Present Until 2005
12 2016
13
Brunei –3,698 372 (2011)
14 349 15 % 32%
Cambodia –5, 561 – – 3% 16%
Indonesia 43,000 (2011) 46,232 7, 079 (2 010) –17% 31%
Lao PDR 1,101 (1999) 6,129 827 (2011)
15 451 8% 17%
Malaysia
16 61,000 (2011) 64,655 86,923 124,133 32% 30%
Myanmar 1,600
17 7,58 2 65 (2010)
18 –11%
19 14%
The Philippines 8,443 (2008) 16, 308 2,665 (2008) –28% 28%
Singapore 21,000 (2011) 25,057 84,000 80,000 (2014) 20 – –
Thailand 28,000 (2011) 29,768 10,967 (2007) 12,274 43% 53%
Vietnam 61,000 (2011) 70,328 500 (2011)
21 5,624 16% 30%
Chapter 4: Higher education
in the ASEAN region
7. McDermott, D (2017) Towards an ASEAN Higher Education Area . Higher Education in Southeast Asia and Beyond 2: 5– 7.
8. Ibid.
9. More information is available at: https://data.worldbank.org
10. The statistics are available at: http://uis.unesco.org/en/uis-student-flow
11. OECD (2013) Education Indicators in Focus, 2013/05 (July). Available online at: https://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/EDIF%20
2013--N%C2%B014%20(eng)-Final.pdf
12. UNESCO EFA Global Monitoring Report (2008) Regional overview: East Asia. Available online at: https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/sites/gem-report/
file s/157 274E .p df
13. Republic of the Philippines Comm ission on Higher Education (2017) Higher Education Facts and Figures. Available online at: h ttp://ched.g ov.ph/2017-
higher-education-facts-figures
14. SHARE (2016) Degree Struc tures in the A SEAN Region: State of Play Report Febr uary 2016. Available o nline at: ht tp://share-asean.eu /sites/default/files/
Degree-Structures-in-the-ASEAN-Region-.pdf
8 The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region

15. Ibid.
16. https://www.iie.org/Research-and-Insights/Project-Atlas/Explore-Data/Malaysia
17. British Council (2014) Burmese Days: Managing risk and preparing for opportunity in the last education frontier. SIEM Conference. 10 Decemb er 2014.
Available online at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0HnfraDPo3RSzhOdkttSGFqSmd0ZW1MLUdmMzdQVXFNWnNV/view
18. SH ARE (2016) Op. cit.
19. O ECD (2007) Cross-border Tertiary Education: A way towards capacity development. Available online at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/
Resources/cross_border_tertiary_education_Eng.pdf
20. Available online at: www.worldcitiescultureforum.com/data/number-of-international-students-studying-in-the-city
21. Pham, H (2011) VIETN AM: Struggling to attr act international students. University World News 18 December 2011. Available online at:
www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=2011121617161637
22. Yonezawa, A, K itamura , Y, Meerman, A and Kuroda, K (eds) (2014) Emerging International Dimensions in East Asian Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer.
23. Bothwell, E (2018) One in three students globally now in private higher education. Times Higher Education 1 March 2018. Available online at: https://www.
timeshighereducation.com/news/one-three-students-globally-now-private-higher-education
24. Republic of the Philippines Commission on Higher Education (2017). Available online at: http://ched.gov.ph/2017-higher-education-facts-f igures/
25. For 2012: https://www.cdri.org.kh/publication-page-old/pub/wp/wp86e.pdf; for 2016: Education and Sustainability: Paradigms, Policies and Practices in
Asia, Merrill et al. (2017).
26. http://ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/6.-ASEAN-Status-of-Gender-Mainstreaming-Lao-PDR.pdf
27. Page 10 National Education Strategic Plan 2016–21. Available online at: www.moe-st.gov.mm/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/NESP_20Summary_20-
_20English_20 -_20Final_20-_20Feb_2023.pdf
28. Private training centres. Source: https://www.export.gov/apex/article2?id=Burma-Education
29. Ibid.
4.2. Higher education provision
As higher education participation has
expanded throughout the region, so
the higher education sector in each
ASEAN nation has increased in size.
By 2014, there were approximately
7,000 higher education institutions
in South-East Asia, with Indonesia,
the Philippines and Vietnam being
the three countries with the highest
numbers.
22 A particular feature of this
expansion has been the growth in
private provision. Important as this is in
understanding ASEAN higher education
per se, it has specific resonance in the
IHE context. In several of the countries
studied, regulatory frameworks treat in
a similar way those offering higher
education in the country from abroad
and private providers. Asia overall
has over 40 per cent of its students
enrolled in private institutions.
Indonesia and the Philippines feature in
the top ten countries globally in terms
of private enrolments.
23 Table 4 shows
that while the numbers of providers
naturally differ greatly across the
region, private providers have a
presence in all ASEAN nations.
Tab le 4: Number of public and private higher education institutions in South-East Asian countries
24
Countries Number of public higher
education institutions
Number of private higher
education institutions
20 10 –12 20 15 –17 20 10 –12 20 15 –17
Brunei
25 4 6 – 6
Cambodia 38 54 46 72
Indonesia 83 81 2, 818 2,431
Lao PDR
26 22 85 31 83
Malaysia 20 20 500 599
Myanmar 171
27 169 –35
28
The Philippines
29 220 231 1,636 1,712
Singapore 5 9 47 30
Thailand 98 66 73 455
Vietnam 187 64 29 305
Note: Branch campuses of foreign universities were grouped under private higher education institutions.
The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region 9

4.3. The pan-ASEAN
infrastructure
There are a number of agencies active
in the development of the pan-ASEAN
higher education community, of
which several were consulted in the
production of this research. The two
organisations with the greatest direct
responsibility for IHE are the ASEAN
Secretariat
30 and SEAMEO (although
UNESCO is active as well in fostering
the environment in which educational
collaboration can occur).
SEAMEO Regional Centre for Higher
Education (RIHED) operates the ASEAN
International Mobility for Students
(AIMS) programme, which co-ordinates
student exchange among universities
in ASEAN. This programme has been
running since 2011 and involves nearly
70 universities across the region in
over ten study fields. It has supported
over 2,000 students. The programme
includes Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia,
Brunei and Singapore, and is hoping to
extend to the other ASEAN nations.
31
Key to the AIMS programme is
the concept of ‘balanced mobility’.
Participating governments identify
appropriate higher education
institutions under defined fields of
study. Then, the number of inbound
and outbound exchange students
is mutually agreed on so as to
determine a balance.
32
Also active in enabling internationalisation
of higher education in the region are
networks of higher education providers
– in particular the ASEAN University
Network (AUN) and Association of
Pacific Rim Universities, as well as
the Asia–Europe Foundation, which is
building links between higher education
in ASEAN and Europe. The AUN has
developed an ASEAN Credit Transfer
System, which is a common framework
for assessing applications for student
exchange among member universities.
33
This structure, however, is applicable
only to the 30 member universities
which are mainly large and relatively
research-intensive.
ASEAN as a community has been
working with other regions across
the world in the development of IHE.
The most notable example is with the
European Community via the SHARE
project.
34 SHARE aims to strengthen
regional co-operation and enhance the
quality, regional competitiveness and
internationalisation of ASEAN higher
education institutions and students.
It is running from 2015 to 2018. It
includes actions to inform student
mobility, policy dialogues and work in
quality assurance and credit transfer.
The ASEAN Secretariat itself is a key
strategic enabler of cross-region
collaboration, and this includes the
area of IHE. Since the early 2010s,
the ASEAN Secretariat have been
taking forward the goal of creating a
‘common space for higher education’ in
ASEAN, modelled on the alignments in
European higher education developed
via the Bologna Process.
35
30. More information on the work of the Secreta riat is available online at: http: //asean.org/asean /asean-secretariat
31. More info rmation on the work of SEA MEO is available online at: www.seameo.org/SEAMEOWeb2
32. McDermott, D (2017) Op. cit.
33. More information on the AUN AC TS is available online at: www.aun sec.org/aunacts.php
34. More information on the EU Share Project is available online at: www. share-asean.eu
35. Sirat, M, Azman, N and Abu Bakar, A (2014) Towards harmonization of higher education in Southeas t Asia. Inside Higher Ed 13 April 2014.
Available online at: https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/globalhighered/towards-harmonization-higher-education-southeast-asia
10 The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region

Across all ASEAN countries, there is
evidence of policy commitment in
the area of IHE. ASEAN nations also
compare favourably overall to other
countries from across the world where
data is available. Table 5 includes the
ten ASEAN countries alongside the
other 21 who have been assessed in
the previous reports in the series.
It is important to emphasise that in
Table 5 and those which follow, a low
score does not mean this country does
not want to engage with IHE. It reflects
the stage at which they are in the
development of this work at that point
in time.
Given what was found in these reports
it is not surprising to see Malaysia and
Singapore in particular, and then
Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand and the
Philippines scoring well across all the
three categories in the National Policies
Framework. There is also a robust
commitment to IHE in Singapore.
These countries, while not all being the
ones with the largest higher education
systems in ASEAN, are those whose
systems are generally the most
developed across the core domains in
higher education of learning/teaching
and research. They also benefit from
governments who, in relative terms, are
most able to invest in higher education.
Tab le 5: Overview of the National Policies Framework and countries’ scores (rating indicates the
level of support for IHE engagement provided by national systems)
Countries Overall score Openness Quality
assurance and
recognition
Access and
sustainability
Australia Very high Very high Very high High
Bangladesh Low Low Ver y low Low
Botswana Low High Low Low
Brazil Low High Ver y low High
Brunei High High High High
Cambodia Low High High Low
Chile Low Low Ver y low High
China High Very high Low Very high
Colombia Low Low Ver y low Very high
Egypt Low Low Low High
Ethiopia Very low Low Very low Very low
France Very high Very high High Very high
Germany Very high Very high Very high Very high
Ghana Low Low Low Low
Greece High High Low Very high
Hong Kong Very high Very high Very high Very high
India High High Low High
Indonesia High High Low Very high
Iran Low Low Ver y low High
Israel High Very high High High
Chapter 5: Understanding international
higher education in the ASEAN region –
findings and discussions
The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region 11

Countries Overall score Openness Quality
assurance and
recognition
Access and
sustainability
Kazakhstan High Low Low High
Kenya Low High Low Low
Lao PDR Low High Low Low
Malaysia Very high Very high Very high Very high
Mexico Low Very low Very low High
Myanmar Low Low Low Low
Netherlands Very high Very high Very high Very high
Nigeria Low Low Ver y low Low
Oman High Very high High High
Pakistan High High Low High
Peru Low High Very low High
The Philippines High High High High
Russia High High Low High
Saudi Arabia High High High High
Singapore High High High Very high
South Africa Low High High Low
Sri Lanka High High Low High
Thailand High Very high High Very high
Tur key High High Low Very high
United Arab Emirates Very high Very high Very high High
United Kingdom Very high Very high Very high High
United States High High Low High
Vietnam High High Very high High
Scores for non-ASEAN countries have been taken from volumes 1 and 2 of the British Council report series The shape of
global higher education (2016, 2017)
Tab le 5: continued
12 The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region

5.1 Openness of higher
education systems and support
for the international mobility
of students, researchers,
academic programmes
and university research
This section considers national
strategies on IHE and suppor t for the
inbound and outbound mobility of
students, academics, academic
programmes and collaborative
research. It consists of four
sub-categories:
• presence of international
education strategy
• student mobility
• academic mobility
• institutional and programme mobility.
Table 6 presents the results overall in
this category.
Tab le 6: Government systems supporting openness for IHE in ASEAN countries
02.5 7.5510
Countries Score Rating
Brunei High
Cambodia High
Indonesia High
Lao PDR High
Malaysia Very high
Myanmar Low
The Philippines High
Singapore High
Thailand Very high
Vietnam High
Key:
Average scores for all categories are
graded on a scale of 0 to 10. Maximum
score of 10 indicates criteria are fully
met and a minimum score of 0
indicates criteria are not met.
The scores are labelled in four levels:
Very high: for a weighted average
score from 7.5 to 10
High: for a weighted average score
from 5.0 to less than 7.5
Low: for a weighted average score from
2.5 to less than 5.0
Very low: for a weighted average score
from 0 to less than 2.5
The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region 13

5.1.1 The presence of
an IHE strategy
Criteria used in this section include:
• national IHE strategy
• a dedicated body tasked with
promotion of IHE
• an overseas presence
• bilateral and multilateral agreements
over the past five years
• data collection and monitoring
of internationalisation.
It is possible to locate IHE in the
strategic planning framework for higher
education in the majority of ASEAN
countries. There is not a separate
IHE strategy, though. More commonly,
the commitment to extending
internationalisation sits within the
broader HE planning framework.
It sits there in contrasting ways though,
also reflecting the different drivers
behind extending IHE within the region.
For example, in Brunei and Malaysia,
government has played a strong role
in grounding the IHE agenda in their
broader foreign policy ambitions.
The Malaysian government has
formulated three well-planned
education blueprints in order to pursue
the idea of becoming an ‘education
hub’ in the region: Malaysian Education
Blueprint 2013–2025; the National
Higher Education Action Plan (NHEAP)
2007–2010 and the National Higher
Education Strategic Plan (NHESP)
Beyond 2020. The plans were
specifically developed to position
Malaysia as a hub for higher education
in the region and worldwide, and to
accelerate the inflow of international
students into the country.
IHE and the Cambodia Higher
Education Road Map 2030
The IHE strategy for Cambodia
is embedded in the Cambodian
Higher Education Road Map 2030
and Beyond, produced by the
Ministry of Education, Youth and
Sport (MoEYS). This enables IHE
to be linked with other policy
areas and strategies including the
Rectangular Strategy for Growth,
Employment, Equity and Efficiency
Phase III (2013–18), Cambodia
National Strategic Development
Plans 2014–2018, the country’s
National Socio-Economic
Development Plan (2014–18)
and Industrial Development
Policy (2015–30), and MoEYS’s
five-year Educational Strategic
Pl an 2014–18.
By contrast, in Thailand, Indonesia
and the Philippines, although the
presence of IHE strategy is clear, it
is seen more as a means to increase
national competitiveness, rather than
to achieve specific targets. For
example, Indonesia’s National Education
Strategic Plan and the Higher Education
Long Term Strategic 2003–2010 aims
to contribute to national competiveness
as well as to counter possible negative
effects of globalisation. In Cambodia,
Lao PDR, Malaysia and Brunei the
commitment to IHE is becoming
stronger as their higher education
planning frameworks evolve, as in
the case of Cambodia (see box above).
The Myanmar government are very
encouraging of, and open to suppor ting
IHE. In Myanmar’s National Education
Strategic Plan (2016–21), there are
explicit targets related to:
• faculty training including reference
to work overseas
• rectors attending overseas
study tours
• alignment with international
standards.
In terms of bodies to support IHE
in ASEAN, in all countries it is the
responsibility of a relevant education
ministry to take IHE forward. Within
these ministries, separate entities do
exist in the majority of countries who
have a remit for IHE. For example, in
Thailand, the Bureau of International
Cooperation operates under the
Office of the Commission for
Higher Education. It is tasked with
co-ordination of bilateral and
multilateral cooperation in IHE.
The Accreditation Committee of
Cambodia and Directorate General
of Higher Education (Higher Education
Department), under the supervision
of the Ministry of Education, Youth
and Sport (MoEYS), have played
very significant roles in promoting
the internationalisation of higher
education in Cambodia. The work
of the International Affairs Staff (IAS)
in the Philippines is described in the
box opposite.
14 The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region

The International Affairs
Staff in the Philippines
Within the Commission on Higher
Education (CHED) the International
Affairs Staff (IAS) has an overall
responsibility for co-ordinating and
harmonising all the international
dimensions of CHED’s work. IAS
is organised into three units: the
Educational Agreements and
International Recognition Unit; the
Trade in Education Services Unit;
and the Protocol Affairs Unit. In
collaboration with the Department
of Foreign Affairs, IAS strengthens
international co-operation by
joining international and regional
bodies/networks, negotiating and
facilitating bilateral/multilateral
agreements on academic
collaboration and linkages of
local higher education institutions
(HEIs) with their counterparts in
other countries as well as with
international organisations.
Where there is greater variability
across the region is in overseas
presence. Malaysia and Singapore
are very proactive in this area, and
Vietnam is in the process of placing
dedicated staff with an IHE remit in
embassies in a number of countries.
In the remaining countries, there is
less systematic overseas presence at
present. However, such variability does
not suggest insularity. The generation
of bilateral agreements/MoUs with
foreign education ministries which
aim to enhance collaboration in IHE is
pervasive in ASEAN, and all countries
score highly here. The box above
right illustrates the work of Lao PDR
in this area.
International partnership
making in Lao PDR
MOES is very proactive in the
development of international
partnerships – often via the
Department of External Relations.
The Ministry has signed various
types of bilateral agreements/
MoUs with 20 countries, including
Australia, China, US, Switzerland,
Hungary, Korea, Vietnam and
Thailand. The MOES also
encourages public HEIs to sign
MoU/MoA with universities abroad.
According to the External Relations
Department’s Report, as of 2017,
a total of 211 MoU/MoA were in
place at four universities and
around 20 MoU/MoA for the
government colleges.
Finally for this section, the collection
and publication of data on IHE is
inconsistent within ASEAN countries.
It is generally better for students
than staf f – very little data appears
to be available on the latter. In some
cases, data may be collected but not
published, and its use is not clear. For
example, in the Philippines there is a
dedicated space on the website for
collaborative provision between local
HEIs and overseas institutions, however
the data is not yet publicly available
through this portal.
5.2.2 Student mobility
The first Shape of Global Higher
Education report found that student
mobility was ‘the key component of
most countries’ national strategies’.
It is undoubtedly the case that student
mobility is important in ASEAN. As
illustrated above, it underpins much
of the pan-ASEAN IHE alignment efforts,
with nine of the ten countries scoring
in the high or very high category.
There have been concerted efforts
to streamline visa procedures across
the region. But student mobility is also
something that is tied up with broader
social and political contexts and thus
each country places their own
distinctive view on it. Singapore,
for instance, had a very-high-profile
public policy commitment to increase
international students to 150,000
foreign students by 2015 via its Global
Schoolhouse Project.
36 They stepped
away from this target in 2011 and
restricted international students as the
issue of achieving the right balance
between international and home
students became a more pronounced
political issue. In Vietnam, Lao PDR and
Cambodia, the common values of their
political regimes are shaping polices
on student mobility. While in Myanmar,
bolstering the procedures to
encourage student mobility is part of
the broader process of opening up the
country to the international community.
36. Tan, E (2016) ‘Singapore as a Glob al Schoolhouse: A Critical Review’, In Mok, K (ed) Managing International Connectivity, Diversity of Learning and
Changing Labour Markets: East Asian Perspectives, Spring er.
The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region 15

5.2.3 Academic mobility and
research collaboration
This category draws on the following
criteria: (i) streamlined academic visas;
(ii) visa procedures for academics; (iii)
the living and working environment
for academics; and (iv) the inclusion
of international research in national
research assessment for the purpose
of funding.
The majority of ASEAN countries have
some form of proactive approach to
engendering international research
collaborations. The box below describes
the work of NAFOSTED in Vietnam.
National Foundation for
Science and Technology
Development (NAFOSTED)
in Vietnam
37
NAFOSTED funds basic research
carried out by Vietnamese
universities in social sciences and
humanities and natural sciences.
In addition, NAFOSTED has a strong
focus on supporting international
engagement of Vietnamese
institutions and researchers,
including hosting and participation
in international conferences and
training of researchers overseas.
IHE only features in a minority of
national research assessment reviews.
However, there is clear evidence of
policy action in Indonesia. While no
policy is without cost or barriers to
implementation, it does appear that
what Indonesia is doing is potentially
replicable across ASEAN countries.
As yet, less evidence of policies to
actively support academic mobility
through preferential visa policies
or working opportunities exist in the
ASEAN region. The paucity of activity
here was also found across the
wider group of countries featured in
the first Shape of Global Higher
Education report.
Recognising IHE research
in Indonesia
38
This is a part of the greater
effort from the government
to support research capacity
building and international research
collaborations. Greater weight is
allocated on academics publishing
in international journals (40 points)
compared with domestically
published research (10 points).
International research collaboration
is strongly encouraged and there
is a comprehensive list of recent
initiatives on the State Ministry of
Research and Technology website.
5.2.4 Programme and
institutional mobility
The criteria considered in this category
are: (i) scope for foreign education
institutions to set up teaching and
research entities; (ii) provision of cross-
border programmes; (iii) clarity and
application of regulations for foreign
institutions; and (iv) scope for domestic
higher education institutions to set up
independent teaching and research
entities overseas.
This is one of the areas of the study
where the differences between
countries in ASEAN are the greatest.
While Malaysia and Singapore
especially are global leaders in terms
of domestic international provision, it
is at very early stages of development
in Myanmar and Lao PDR. With regard
to the entry of foreign higher education
providers, it appears that linkages with
a domestic partner are important, and
in some cases essential. Foreign higher
education providers can establish
a commercial presence in the
Philippines, but only in par tnership
with a local institution. In Malaysia
and Singapore, the creation of any
new entities is regulated under
private higher education laws.
5.3 Quality assurance of
higher education provision
(domestic and overseas) and
recognition of international
qualifications
This section studies the regulatory
environment and its relationship to
countries’ IHE strategies. It considers
the following categories:
• quality assurance of international
students
• quality assurance of programme
and provider mobility
• recognition of international
qualifications.
The development of improved quality
assurance frameworks for higher
education is a priority in the ASEAN
region. The ASEAN Quality Assurance
Network (AQAN) came into being
in 2007 and is a network of quality
assurance authorities in the ten ASEAN
nations which shares good practice
and collaborates on capacity building
aspiring to develop a regional quality
assurance framework for South-East
Asia. It has produced the ASEAN Quality
Assurance Framework (ASQAF) to try
and develop better practice in quality
assurance across the region.
39
The extent to which quality assurance
(QA) structures are tailored to account
for IHE, though, is quite variable.
The findings echo to an extent the
conclusion reached from the first
Shape of Global Higher Education
37. For mo re information on the work of NAFOSTED please go to: w ww.nafosted.gov.vn/en/
38. For more information please go to: https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/building-indonesian-research-capacity-aust-universities.pdf
39. For more information please go to: http://share-asean.eu/sites/default/files/AQAF.pdf
16 The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region

report, i.e. that those countries with
a significant amount of transnational
activity have better developed
approaches in this regard. This rather
suggests that specific QA for IHE
is something that follows the
development of a significant amount
of activity, rather than preceding it.
The policy challenge in this regard
is knowing how to place QA in a
more proactive rather than reactive
position in the trajectory of IHE policy
development. Table 7 shows
that of the three categories used
in the National Policy Framework,
the greatest variation between
countries is found in this area.
Tab le 7: National quality assurance frameworks, and degree recognition policies in ASEAN countries,
in support of international engagement
02.5 7.5510
Countries Score Rating
Brunei High
Cambodia High
Indonesia Low
Lao PDR Low
Malaysia Very high
Myanmar Very low
The Philippines High
Singapore High
Thailand High
Vietnam Very high
Key:
Average scores for all categories are
graded on a scale between 0 and 10.
Maximum score of 10 indicates criteria
is fully met and a minimum score of 0
indicates criteria is not met.
The scores are labelled in four levels:
Very high: for a weighted average
score from 7.5 to 10
High: for a weighted average score
from 5.0 to less than 7.5
Low: for a weighted average score from
2.5 to less than 5.0
Very low: for a weighted average score
from 0 to less than 2.5
The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region 17

5.3.1 Quality assurance of
international students
This sub-category uses the following
criteria: (i) entry and selection criteria
for international students; (ii) code of
practice for teaching and assessing
international students; and (iii) policies
and guidelines for engaging with
recruitment agents.
The approaches taken by ASEAN
nations to quality assurance will
inevitably be contrasting as the
numbers of inbound and outbound
students vary so greatly across the
region. However, this is not to say that
the systems in place here and their
strength at this point in time are a
function only of student numbers.
Despite Brunei, Cambodia and
Vietnam all having relatively low
numbers of international students,
there is evidence of efforts being
made to develop clarity in the entry
and selection criteria for international
students. Much of this work is being
undertaken at the level of higher
education institutions themselves
in developing their own policies,
rather than at the sector-wide level.
In terms of teaching and assessment,
with the exception of Malaysia and
Vietnam, there is not significant
evidence of bespoke guidance focused
on international students. The majority
of countries in ASEAN are developing
their overall QA frameworks and in this
process, there are attempts to build in
references to international students.
This process needs to be informed by
the higher education sector itself and
not just led by policymakers. Myanmar
may be the country in ASEAN at the
earliest stage in its development of an
IHE policy and regulatory framework,
but is an interesting example of how
the higher education sector is working
collaboratively to build its approach
to international student support and
IHE work. The box below describes
the work of the Myanmar Higher
Education Association.
Myanmar Higher Education
Association (MHEA)
40
The MHEA was formed in Myanmar
in 2017–18 to support those
working on international higher
education in Myanmar universities.
It is bringing together those from
across institutions to develop and
share practice in the international
education field. It is the product of
a training course in international
higher education work delivered to
representatives of 20 universities
over 2016 by the Institute of
International Education.
Finally in this sub-section, most
countries in ASEAN do not have
policies or procedures in place to
advise local institutions on how best
to engage with international agents
for the recruitment of international
students. It appears that international
agents are not especially active in most
countries in the region. In Malaysia
though, there is more activity with over
50 per cent of local students studying
overseas being recruited through
education agents.
5.3.2 Quality assurance of
programme and provider mobility
This category draws on the following
indicators: (i) monitoring of foreign
institutions; (ii) monitoring of domestic
institutions overseas; (iii) enforcement
action; and (iv) collaboration with
regional and international quality
assurance agencies.
All ASEAN countries already have
developed, or are in the process
of developing, significant levels of
inbound transnational education
(TNE) to help them grow their higher
education systems. Hence, they
are looking to develop the regulatory
infrastructure where foreign higher
education institutions are concerned.
But this does not imply that monitoring
systems are in place to specifically
deal with such providers. For most
countries monitoring is part of the
overall system of accreditation and QA
that new providers need to comply
with. In Lao PDR for example, there is a
set of national QA regulations designed
for whole institutions and programmes
delivered by both public and private
providers, which includes foreign
institutions.
40. For more information please go to: https://www.iie.org/Programs/Myanmar-Higher-Education-Initiative
18 The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region

At this point in time, there are no
plans to set up any specific regulation
to monitor the foreign invested
institutions/programmes in Lao PDR.
There is a recognition though in some
ASEAN nations of the need to deal
with distance and online learning and
the implications of such work for the
education of home students. Thailand
has been particularly proactive
on this point (see box below).
Monitoring distance
learning in Thailand
41
The ministry has developed a
number of criteria in order to
regulate the offer of degree
programmes using distance
education systems. These are
detailed and deal with programme
management and staffing,
resources, student support,
monitoring of student involvement
and student identity checks in
tests and examinations. There
must be adequate provision of
learning resources, preparation
and orientation of students, and
provision of services. The criteria
deal with three different delivery
modes: use of print media,
broadcast and e-learning.
Programmes must follow the
standard time schedule for higher
education programmes and meet
the structural requirements of
the standard criteria. Details of
requirements are included in an
Announcement of the Ministry of
Education on Criteria for Asking
Permission to Offer and Manage
Degree programmes in the
Distance Education System.
When it comes to domestic institutions
working abroad, there is less evidence
of policies in place to monitor such
activity as ASEAN higher education
institutions are not overall working
abroad to a large degree. Finally, in this
sub-section, across all ASEAN countries
there is evidence of collaboration with
regional and sub-regional agencies
in the field of quality assurance. As an
example, the QA agency in Indonesia,
the BAN-PT, is a full member of the
International Network for Quality
Assurance Agencies in Higher
Education (INQAAHE), a member
of the ASEAN Quality Assurance
Network, the Association of the
Quality Assurance Agencies of the
Islamic World and the Asia-Pacific
Quality Network.
5.3.3 Recognition of
international qualifications
This section considers national
qualification frameworks and
practices which streamline international
students’ access to the country’s
higher education system by mapping
their previous qualifications against
local equivalents. The following
criteria are considered as part of
this sub-category: (i) foreign degree
recognition; (ii) recognition of TNE
qualifications; (iii) communication
with the labour market; and (iv)
collaboration with regional and
international recognition agencies.
Consistent with the commitment
to extending openness to foreign
collaboration prevalent in the ASEAN
region, there is evidence of efforts
to make the recognition of foreign
qualifications transparent. Cambodia,
Malaysia, Brunei and the Philippines
score well here. Interestingly, the
recognition of TNE qualifications
is not as advanced as that of foreign
qualifications, although work is under
way to improve this across the region.
In common with the findings of the
first Shape of Global Higher Education
report, efforts to provide clear and
timely information to the labour
market and other professional bodies
on the comparability of foreign/TNE
qualifications are less well developed,
and no countries score in the very
high category here. In Malaysia,
however, details on foreign
undergraduate and postgraduate
degrees which are recognised for
the purpose of appointment in the
Malaysian public sector are available
on the government website.
As with collaboration with regional/
international QA agencies, there is also
extensive collaboration with regional/
international recognition agencies in
the ASEAN region.
41. More information is available online at: w ww.mua.go.th
The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region 19

5.4 Equitable access
and sustainable
development policies
This section considers some of
the unintended consequences of
internationalisation, such as ‘brain
drain’ and displacement of students
from disadvantaged and vulnerable
backgrounds by international students.
It also studies policies for sustainable
development, such as funding for
inbound and outbound students and
academic mobility, and support for
international research collaboration.
The following categories are
considered:
• funding of inbound and outbound
student mobility
• funding of inbound and outbound
academic mobility and international
research collaborations
• sustainable development policies.
Table 8 indicates the extent of policy
focus across the region with regard to
this theme. Even more so than the
previous themes, deeper analysis
deconstructing the theme is essential.
Most of the questions in this category
relate in some way to funding, which is
a function of the economic position of
the particular country. There is large
variation in terms of economic strength
across ASEAN, and this shapes how
countries engage with this theme.
Tab le 8: Equitable access and sustainable development of IHE in ASEAN countries
02.5 7.5510
Countries Score Rating
Brunei High
Cambodia Low
Indonesia Very high
Lao PDR High
Malaysia Very high
Myanmar Low
The Philippines High
Singapore Very high
Thailand Very high
Vietnam High
Key:
Average scores for all categories are
graded on a scale between 0 and 10.
Maximum score of 10 indicates criteria
is fully met and a minimum score of 0
indicates criteria is not met.
The scores are labelled in four levels:
Very high: for a weighted average
score from 7.5 to 10
High: for a weighted average score
from 5.0 to less than 7.5
Low: for a weighted average score from
2.5 to less than 5.0
Very low: for a weighted average score
from 0 to less than 2.5
20 The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region

5.4.1 Funding of inbound and
outbound student mobility
and international research
collaborations
This sub-category adopts a balanced
approach towards student mobility
in that it places equal importance
on inbound and outbound student
mobility. It considers the following
criteria: (i) outbound scholarships and
student loans for study abroad; and
(ii) inbound scholarships or loans for
international students.
Despite the varying stages of progress
in their IHE work, all ASEAN nations
have some form of study abroad
scholarship programmes, but they vary
greatly in size and extent. In Malaysia,
Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, the
government leads the way in terms
of scholarships offered. In the other
countries, the government has less
of an ability to lead and foreign aid
plays a bigger role with the aid offered
by the state being more targeted at
strategic needs. Brunei, for example,
has a system of scholarships for local
undergraduate and postgraduate
students to study at universities
overseas, with priority given to
programmes that are not available
locally such as forestry, agriculture,
psychology, law and forensic science.
Support for international students
studying in ASEAN countries in the
form of scholarships is less widespread.
Interestingly, the support that does
exist tends to focus more on students
from ASEAN nations. In Malaysia, for
example, the Malaysian Technical
Co-operation Programme (MCTP)
ASEAN master’s scholarship is aimed
at citizens of ASEAN member states.
The Cambodian government offers
scholarship for Vietnamese and
Laotian students to study Khmer
language and engineering. Singapore
is very active in this regard via its
ASEAN Scholarship Scheme. The
ministry provides scholarships for
ASEAN and Indian nationals to study
at Singaporean institutions, and
publicises these on its website.
The ASEAN Scholarship in
Singapore
42
The ASEAN Scholarships are
currently open for applications
from the following countries:
• Brunei
• Malaysia
• Thailand
• the Philippines
• Vietnam.
Applications from the following
ASEAN countries will open shortly:
• Myanmar
• Cambodia
• Indonesia
• Lao PDR.
As part of the ASEAN community
studying in Singapore, they will be
given opportunities to broaden
their horizons and develop
important skills such as leadership,
communication and life skills to
equip them for the 21st century.
5.4.2 Funding of inbound and
outbound academic mobility
and international research
This sub-category considers the
following indicators: (i) outbound
academic programmes; (ii) inbound
academic programmes; and (iii) funding
of international research collaboration.
As with support for students to study
abroad, the support available for
academic mobility varies over the
region. However, there is a desire to
improve the academic capacity of the
domestic HE system, and academic
staff working abroad is perceived
as a mechanism to achieve this –
with safeguards in place as described
below to ensure that academics
return to the home nation. The
majority of countries have some
form of programme in place to enable
academic mobility, or in the case of
Myanmar, are working towards such
a programme.
Where inbound academic mobility is
concerned, there is less activity
evident. Again, economic capacity
is an issue. Limitations in the ability
of ASEAN nations to fund academic
mobility does not imply, though, that
they are not willing partners in working
with each other and those outside the
region on international research
collaboration. They are not positioned
in these relationships as significant
funders, with the exception of Malaysia
to some extent. But they are devoting
resources within their capabilities, and
some countries – Malaysia again,
Thailand and Vietnam – are taking a
strategic approach to partnership
development. Singapore is again active
in this regard. A-STAR, the national
agency for science, technology and
research, funds scholarships for post-
doctoral training at leading overseas
laboratories.
42. For more information please go to: https://www.moe.gov.sg/admissions/scholarships/asean
The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region 21

5.4.3 Sustainable
development policies
The following criteria are considered
in this section: (i) anti-displacement
policies; (ii) anti-‘brain drain’ policies;
(iii) aid to developing countries and
regions; and (iv) foreign language and
intercultural competence policies.
The area of sustainable development
within the National Policies Framework
contains within it some related, but also
quite distinct, policy areas. Caution is
encouraged when interpreting any form
of overall scoring on this item. Across
the distinct areas, the engagement
of ASEAN countries varies in relation,
predictably, to their broader social
and economic position.
The displacement of home students
by international students is not a
significant issue in ASEAN countries,
with the notable exception of Singapore
where as noted earlier in the report, it
has been a significant political issue.
Across the region, there is evidence
of policies to support equitable
access to higher education from under-
represented groups, e.g. in Indonesia
it is stated in law that a fifth of the
country’s student population should
come from the lowest socio-economic
groups. Equitable access to higher
education is a priority in the National
Education Strategic Plan (NESP)
2016–2021 in Myanmar. But these
commitments are separate policies
and are not connected to any concern
over displacement.
While anti-displacement might not
be a problem for most countries in
ASEAN, for some, ‘brain drain’ is an
issue. Malaysia, Cambodia, Brunei,
Indonesia and the Philippines have all
had challenges in this regard. It is also
a concern for Myanmar and anti-‘brain
drain’ policies feature heavily in the
NESP. Malaysia has been attempting
to address this issue since the
early 2010s, and its approach is
described in the box below.
Malaysia and TalentCorp
43
In 2011, the Malaysian government
established TalentCorp, an agency
working to formulate and facilitate
initiatives to address the availability
of talent in line with the needs
of the country’s economic
transformation. Among other
things, TalentCorp engages with
Malaysians abroad and partners
with local employers to raise
awareness on the professional
opportunities available in the
country with a view to facilitate the
return of highly skilled Malaysian
professionals into Malaysia’s key
economic sectors. It does so,
for example, by running the
Global Malaysians Job Board, a
platform for Malaysian diaspora
professionals looking for jobs in
Malaysia. TalentCorp also manages
the Returning Expert Programme, a
scheme offering attractive living
and financial incentives as an effort
to support the creation of the ‘right
setting’ for returning Malaysians
wishing to settle back in the country.
The issue of aid and sustainability in
the context of IHE takes on a particular
meaning in ASEAN. Some countries are
developing their roles as donors as well
as recipients of aid, while for others,
they are the beneficiaries of support.
Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia
and to an extent Brunei, are all moving
to becoming donor countries.
Singapore via its work with ASEAN
partners offers technical assistance
to other countries related to IHE.
Finally, language is a sensitive political
and cultural issue across ASEAN. The
majority of ASEAN countries have more
than one working language. Foreign
language competence, in particular
competence in English, is perceived as
important economically. Hence, in every
country’s activities to some extent,
educational instruction is delivered in
English, and efforts are under way to
extend bilingual provision. The work in
Brunei is described in the box opposite.
43. For more information please go to: https://www.talentcorp.com.my/our-work/student-graduate
22 The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region

Promoting second language
competence and intercultural
awareness in Brunei
Brunei remains strongly committed
to its bilingual policy whereby the
country has adopted an education
system that uses two languages,
neither of which is indigenous to
Brunei – Standard Malay and English.
Brunei is developing its education
sector through global co-operation
for promoting English language
competence and intercultural
awareness. As an example, the
Brunei–US English Language
Enrichment Programme for ASEAN
was initiated between Brunei and
the US. It is co-operatively
administered by UBD and the East-
West Centre in Hawaii, aiming to
strengthen ASEAN integration
through building English language
capacity, promoting greater
awareness of the rich cultural
diversity, and facilitating
communication between teacher
trainers, officers and diplomats of
the region.
IHE is at an exciting point
in the ASEAN region.
There are opportunities
for IHE to make a tangible
contribution to both the
development of higher
education systems and
to ASEAN itself.
The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region 23

This section outlines five themes
emerging from the study. While they
relate to specific parts of the national
policy framework study, they also cut
across the separate sections.
6.1 IHE policy commitments
are embedded in existing
policies
There is an ongoing debate around
how to develop more autonomy for
higher education providers in the
ASEAN context.
44 The variations in
autonomy imply that government policy
frameworks and strategies take on an
important role. Hence, understanding
how IHE is positioned in the education
policy framework of an individual
ASEAN nation is crucial. The survey
suggests that separate IHE strategies
are not common. Rather, strategies are
embedded within existing frameworks
and linked to a country’s socio-
economic priorities. However, this
should not necessarily be seen as
disadvantageous for IHE, in comparison
to a scenario where a separate IHE
strategy in each country exists. The
integration of IHE into a system-wide
approach can enable the establishment
of linkages to other streams of work,
securing IHE within broader strategies
related to education on the one hand,
and international relations on the other.
6.2 Student mobility is shaped
by wider socio-economic forces
The first Shape of Higher Education
report emphasised the key role that
student mobility plays in underpinning
IHE policies. Student mobility is
extremely important as well in ASEAN,
but it does not underpin IHE in every
country (at least not yet), and the
nature of student mobility is shaped by
broader forces. Malaysia and Singapore
are in the top 20 countries in the world
for incoming international students,
with students entering from across
the region and outside. Education
and specifically IHE is tied closely with
how these countries see themselves.
But for Cambodia, Vietnam and
Lao PDR, the priority is to construct
relationships within ASEAN, and
with countries with which they share
values and customs. Enhancing the
visa process to enable freer flow of
students and creating opportunities
for post-study employment are
the mechanics of student mobility.
It is important to understand such
processes. But such mobility
is also part of a broader process of
cultural development as ASEAN seeks
to define and identity itself in the
early 21st century.
6.3 Pan-ASEAN collaboration
is key – especially in
quality assurance
The differences between the countries
does not mean that they are not
engaged in extensive collaboration
with other ASEAN nations, especially in
the area of quality assurance. This is as
an area where exchange of knowledge
and practice is relatively prevalent,
and ASEAN benefits from organisations
such as the ASEAN Secretariat,
SEAMEO and AUN who are actively
promoting regional collaboration and
alignment in this area.
The primary challenge in this regard
though, for all countries with the
probable exception of Singapore, is
the development of quality assurance
systems that can enable expansion of
their whole system. Quality assurance
is a common challenge when countries
are trying to expand their systems
within resource constraints.
Chapter 6: Emerging themes
44. Ratanawijitrasin, S (2015) ‘The Evolv ing Landsc ape of South-East A sian Higher Education and the Challenges of Govern ance’, in Curaj , A, Matei, L ,
Pricop ie, R, Salmi, J and Scott, P (eds) The European Higher Education Area. Sp rin ger.
24 The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region

6.4 Addressing ‘potential
brain drain’ is a key concern
IHE is not a neutral space. There
are differences in capacity, size and
power across higher education
systems. As a region, ASEAN is
attempting to grow and develop higher
education individually and collectively.
Understandably, there are anxieties
from ASEAN nations regarding the
impact of expansion of IHE on their
internal capacities if it leads to more
academic staff moving abroad and
not returning. Such anxieties have
been identified in other areas of
the world where growth of higher
education systems is occurring.
45
Liberalisation of visa and other policies
to attract other academics into the
country to counterbalance the outward
mobility may only have limited impact
when institutions in the country do not
yet have the capacity (or ‘prestige’) to
attract such staff. Moreover, the
development of capacity and prestige
takes time. Hence, the efforts that
countries across the region are making
to ensure well-qualified nationals return
home is noticeable. Alongside such
efforts however, international research
collaborations can have a role.
6.5 Commitment to research
collaboration is high
The desire to develop higher education
systems across the ASEAN region is
evident in the commitment throughout
the region to building research
collaboration with those outside and
within ASEAN. But the ability to do this
effectively is not distributed equally
both between and within countries.
Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, the
Philippines and Singapore have
dedicated units to further such
collaborations, while in the other
ASEAN countries, such infrastructures
are not yet in place. It is the case in all
the countries though, that research
collaborations tend to be led by
particular institutions which have the
necessary capacity originating from
their histories and/or size. The leading
role these relatively more prestigious
universities play is usually supported
by policymakers. The importance of
having one or more world-class
universities in a country appears to
be an idea that has been bought into
by ASEAN education policymakers,
along with the importance of university
rankings.
46 The implications for IHE
need to be considered carefully. An
approach to international research
collaboration that prioritises the
development of a small number of
universities that will rank highly in
particular global ranking systems may
inevitably come at the expense of the
development of international research
collaborations across the whole of the
higher education system.
45. Jowi, J, Knight, J and Sehoole, C (2013) ‘Internationalisation of African Higher Education: Status, Challenges and Issues’, in Sehoole, C and Knight, J (eds)
Internationalisation of African Higher Education. Available online at: https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/1739-internationalisation-of-africanhigher-
education.pdf
46. QS Asia New Net work (2018) New initiative for Indonesian higher education toward world- class status. QS WOWNEWS 1 January 2018. Available on line at:
http://qswownews.com/new-initiative-indonesian-higher-education-toward-world-class-status/
The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region 25

This study has shown that to a
significant extent, policy approaches
to IHE in ASEAN are characterised by
diversity as much as commonality. It is
possible, though, in the midst of this
diversity, to discern an ASEAN-centric
approach to IHE that is distinctive to
the region. The five themes described
above form the basis of such an
approach. They are not unique, but
taken together, they cast ASEAN in
its own distinctive light where IHE
policy is concerned.
This ASEAN-centric approach places
academic capacity building as central
to IHE policy as student mobility.
While student mobility may be the
building block of IHE across the world,
as argued in the first Shape of Global
Higher Education report, in the ASEAN
region it has to share this foundational
role with academic capacity building.
It could even be argued that to a
considerable extent, it is the building
of this capacity which will unlock
greater student mobility. Policymakers
in ASEAN can and are taking steps to
introduce more student-friendly visa
policies. But these will not necessarily
translate into greater mobility until
there is the physical and human
infrastructure in place to both allow
more students to enter and prepare
more suitably qualified students
to leave.
Acknowledging that there is a
distinctive ASEAN-centric approach
has implications for how understanding
IHE across the world should evolve.
The logical future step for global
research utilising the National Policy
Framework is to continue to build a
more nuanced picture of IHE by region.
In so doing though, the global gauge
tool may have to evolve. One could
argue that measuring ‘access and
sustainability’ in particular in a
region like ASEAN requires a greater
appreciation of the realities regarding
supporting inbound mobility and
providing scholarships than the present
framework allows.
In understanding this ASEAN-centric
approach, future research will be
needed. Such work must include
improving the collection, dissemination
and analysis of data on international
student and faculty mobility,
programme and provider mobility,
and research collaboration at the
national level. It is essential that future
policy developments in IHE globally
are data-driven, and the initial report in
this series suggested that there is room
for improvement in this regard. ASEAN
nations working through the pan-
regional bodies in the region could
take a global lead in this area.
The second area of research required
is on the nature and extent of
memoranda of understanding and
bilateral agreements within and outside
the region. A complex map of such
collaborations is developing. Knowing
the patterns of these relationships
could be hugely beneficial in showing
ASEAN nations how to develop the
partnerships which are vital to
international higher education.
This study suggests that IHE is at an
exciting point in the ASEAN region.
There are opportunities for IHE to
make a tangible contribution to both
the development of higher education
systems in the region and to ASEAN
itself. The challenge now is to realise
these opportunities.
Conclusion: Is there an
ASEAN-centric approach to IHE?
26 The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region

Appendix: Structure of the
National Policies Framework
1 Openness and mobility
1.1 IHE strategy
Internationalisation strategy Has the ministry of education (or equivalent) produced a detailed international
higher education strategy (e.g. covering student mobility, research collaboration,
development goals)?
Dedicated body Is there a dedicated body (or bodies) promoting the internationalisation
of higher education?
Overseas presence Does the ministry of education or dedicated internationalisation body have a significant
overseas presence, e.g. by way of overseas representative offices or participation in
conferences, trade fairs and marketing events?
Bilateral agreements Over the past five years, has the government made efforts to sustain or increase the
number of bilateral agreements/memoranda of understanding signed between itself
and foreign education ministries on the topic of collaboration in higher education?
Data collection and monitoring
of internationalisation
Does the government monitor and produce data on the internationalisation of its higher
education system, e.g. by producing data on international student and faculty mobility,
programme and provider mobility, and research collaboration?
1.2 Student mobility policies
Student visas Do restrictions exist on foreign students and researchers to obtaining entry visas,
e.g. depending on country of origin?
Visa procedures for
international students
Are procedures for foreign students to obtain visas clear, transparent and consistent?
Living/working environment
for international students
Do policies exist to make it easier for foreign students to come and live in the country,
such as concerning employment (including post-study employment opportunities) or
bringing spouses?
Fees for foreign students Do public institutions have the authority to charge different fees to foreign students?
1.3 Academic mobility and research policies
Academic visas Are there any special regulations in place to make it easier for foreign teaching faculty
and researchers to gain employment?
Visa procedures for academics Are procedures for foreign teaching faculty and researchers to obtain visas clear,
transparent and consistent?
Living/working environment
for academics
Do policies exist to make it easier for foreign faculty and researchers to come and live
in the country, such as concerning employment or bringing spouses?
Inclusion of international research
in national assessment/review
Is research produced via international collaboration included in the national research
assessment/review?
1.4 Programme and provider mobility
Setting up operations by
foreign institutions
Can foreign institutions set up their own legally recognised teaching/research entities?
Cross border programme
provision
Do regulations exist to allow for the provision of cross-border programmes by foreign
providers, e.g. by way of twinning, programme articulations and distance learning?
Clarity and application of
regulations for foreign institutions
Are legal regulations for foreign institutions clear, transparent and evenly enforced?
Domestic institutions abroad Are public domestic institutions permitted to set up legally recognised teaching/
research entities abroad?
The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region 27

2 Quality assurance and degree recognition
2.1 International students’ quality assurance and admissions
Entry/selection criteria
for international students
Are education institutions provided with timely information, support and guidance by
academic recognition bodies (or other bodies) to help select appropriately qualified
foreign students for entry?
Code of practice for teaching/
assessing international students
Are there national bodies or other systems in place to monitor, revise and
advise on institutions’ procedures for teaching and assessing foreign students,
e.g. by way of best practice surveys, advisory bodies or networks?
Policies/guidelines for
engagement with recruitment
agents: at home and overseas
Are there policies or procedures in place to advise local institutions on how best
to engage with international agents for the recruitment of international students?
This area includes framework of engagement, guidelines and code of conduct
related to the country’s HEIs engagement with agents based overseas and/or,
equally, national-level oversight of education agents active in the respective country.
2.2 Quality assurance of academic programmes
Monitoring of foreign institutions Do national quality assurance agencies regularly monitor, and if appropriate, accredit
the cross-border activities of foreign institutions (e.g. distance learning, programme
collaboration, branch campuses) in the home country of the quality assurance agency?
Monitoring of domestic
institutions overseas
Do national quality assurance agencies advise, monitor and accredit the cross-border
activities of domestic institutions (e.g. distance learning, programme collaboration,
branch campuses)?
Enforcement action Are national quality assurance agencies active at enforcing their standards
and requirements, either for foreign institutions, domestic institutions overseas,
or both if appropriate?
Collaboration with regional/
international QA agencies
Do national quality assurance agencies take an active part in international collaboration
on quality assurance standards, e.g. by adopting the UNESCO/Council of Europe Code
of Good Practice in the Provision of Transnational Education and by taking part in
regional and international networks?
2.3 Recognition of overseas qualifications
Foreign degree recognition Is the process taken by national academic recognition bodies in recognising foreign
qualifications clear, transparent, and consistent?
Recognition of TNE qualifications Do national academic recognition bodies make efforts to recognise TNE qualifications,
e.g. by way of guidelines or TNE code of good practice?
Communication with
labour market
Do national academic recognition bodies work to provide clear and timely information
to the labour market and other professional bodies on the comparability of foreign/TNE
qualifications?
Collaboration with regional/
international recognition
agencies
Do national academic recognition bodies take an active part in attempts to improve
recognition procedures across borders, e.g. by signing up to UNESCO regional
conventions; the Bologna Process, and, where appropriate, by establishing bilateral
agreements on degree recognition?
28 The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region

3 Access and sustainability
3.1 Student mobility funding
Outbound scholarships/access to
student loans for study abroad
Do scholarship programmes for studying abroad exist, are they well-publicised
and are they available at all levels of study?
Inbound scholarships/access to
student loans for international
students
Do scholarship programmes for foreign students exist, are they well-publicised
and are they available at all levels of study?
3.2 Academic mobility and research funding
Outbound academic programmes Do funding programmes exist for teachers and researchers to undertake posts abroad?
Inbound academic programmes Do funding programmes exist to allow foreign teachers and researchers to undertake
posts in the home country?
Funding of international
research collaboration
Do funding programmes exist to promote international collaboration in research …
addressing issues of global importance … agreements between national and foreign
funding bodies?
3.3 Sustainable development policies
Anti-displacement policies Does the state actively seek to avoid the displacement of low-income or marginalised
domestic students by foreign students, e.g. by way of quotas, grants or scholarships?
Anti brain drain policies Does the government actively seek to counteract brain drain by attracting outbound
students and scholars to return home, e.g. by offering employment or by linking return
to funding?
Aid to developing countries
and regions
Does the government engage in development projects to support capacity building
in international higher education either at home or abroad, e.g. by offering grants to
students from low-income countries/regions or by investing in technical capacity-
building projects?
Foreign language and
intercultural competence policies
Does the government have policies in place to promote second-language competence
and intercultural awareness?
The shape of global higher education: understanding the ASEAN region 29

© British Council 2018 / H233
The British Council is the United Kingdom’s international organisation for cultural relations and educational opportunities.