CRITICAL THINKING IN ECONOMICS

EIA2004

SEMESTER 1/SESSION 2019/2020

GROUP ASSIGNMENT

SHOULD EDUCATION BE FREE IN MALAYSIA?

PREPARED FOR: DR. PUI KIEW LING

PREPARED BY:

NO. NAME NO. MATRIC

1. AIN SYUHADA BINTI SHAHBUDIN EIA170007

2. KHAIRUL SYAHIRAH BINTI MOHD IDRIS EIA170055
3. MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ BIN SHAMSUL AZMI EIA170095
4. NOR AZRUL NAZIRUL BIN MOHD ZAWAWI EIA170116
5. NURHIDAYAH BINTI MAT RANI EIA170141
6. NURINA FARISYA BINTI JAMAL EIA170142
7. NURUL SHAHIRA BINTI ABDULLAH EIA170147
8. SOFIA SAZLIANAH BINTI AHMAD EIA170165
9. AZRAI AZMI EIA170208
10. ADAM BIN MOHD ROSLI EIA170209
1.0 Introduction

Children in Malaysia embark on their education journey as early as at the age of

four at pre-schools although this is not compulsory. Primary education starts when the
child reaches the age of seven on the first day of January of the current school year. At
present, only the six years of primary education is compulsory while the five years of
secondary education has not yet been made compulsory. At the end of this secondary
level, students sit for the public common examination, Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM).
The government provides free education for primary and secondary levels of education.

Students who want to pursue higher education after the secondary level need to
have the required academic grades and be able to fund their education. School leavers
with SPM qualifications can opt to obtain a pre-university qualification (such as the sixth
form, matriculation programmes and GCE 'A' levels) or study for a certificate or diploma
at higher educational institutions. The time needed to complete a pre-university
programme depends on the type of programme- students usually take a year to
complete a matriculation programme and one-and-a-half to two years for STPM and A-
levels.

At higher education phase, study opportunities include certificate, diploma,

undergraduate as well as postgraduate studies. Undergraduate studies consist of
bachelor degrees and professional qualifications while postgraduate studies offer
master degrees and PhDs. Generally, higher education at the diploma level is for school
leavers with a secondary school certificate such as SPM while bachelor degrees require
post-secondary qualifications such as STPM or GCE A Levels or other equivalent pre-
university qualifications.

The Malaysian government implements a free education policy at the primary

and secondary levels of education and imposes massive subsidies for tertiary education
fees. This write-up revisits the free education policy at the primary and secondary levels
and argues for free education to be carried forward to the tertiary level. This assignment
was written with the stand;

1
 Education should be free in Malaysia for all levels of public education
2.0 Main Idea 1 (Accessibility and Affordability)

2.1 Argument for Free Education

Education is a basic human right and it should be granted to everyone for all
levels of education. Headed by the Ministry of Education, the ministry aims to provide
equal access to quality education for all Malaysian citizens, forming highly skilled,
knowledgeable, and united Malaysians. However, there are still people who do not have
access to education due to certain circumstances. The cost of education especially in
tertiary level serves as a barrier to enter the universities. Thus, it is hypocritical for the
ministry to preach about access when there are still people who are isolated from
educational opportunities because they cannot afford them financially. Therefore,
education should be free to ensure total access for all.

According to The Star, Malaysia’s public universities tuition fee is already cheap
among other South-East Asian countries. However, even though the fee is cheap but
there is a group of people, especially among rural dwellers in Sabah and Sarawak that
still could not afford the fee (Arshad, 2016). A report by Malay Mail earlier this year shed
light on how a 20-year-old brilliant student from Terengganu who scored a 3.92 CGPA
for STPM could not register for university because she was not financially able to cover
the university’s registration and tuition fees.

In context of budget allocation, the World Bank reports that the Malaysian
government only spends 4.1 percent of Malaysia’s GDP on education. As an upper
middle-income country, Malaysia should and is able to spend more in education to be
more competitive and produce higher skilled labor. In comparison, even Cuba, which is
a least developing country, spends 12.9 percent of its GDP on their country’s education.
Since 2017, tertiary education funding has been reduced by the Malaysian government.
At present, the expenditure for public universities is reduced to 70%, with 30% of the
budget supported by self-generated revenue (Cheong, 2016). The cuts have been
especially dramatic over the past two years in 2017, a cumulative allocation of RM 6.12

2
billion was received by public universities, marking a 19.23 percent drop from the RM
7.57 billion allocation earned in 2016.

With free education, there is no more barriers to education as it ensures total

access. We will be able to produce more graduates, increase our literacy rate,
innovation skills and develop our human capital in order to remain competitive globally.
All of these will lead to more skilled labor that can create sparks in developing new
technology that can put Malaysia at the same level with other developed countries. Free
education will also improve our country’s socioeconomic standing as the byproducts of
total access to education include the alleviation of poverty and reduced income gaps.
The process toward it might consume a lot of time but there will be a “butterfly effect” in
the future.

Intermediate conclusion

Spending on education is the drive that boosts the economy of Malaysia to be a fully
developed and a high-income country. Education should not have a price tag as it is
what fuels the economy truly.

2.2 Arguments against Free Education

For the last 10 years, the public education sector in Malaysia has gained status
as the biggest benefactor of the governmental budget every year with an average of
19% of the budget going to the sector every year. Since the budget expands every year,
so does the chunk that the education sector gets. In 2015, the education sector was
allocated 19.811% of the budget and this equaled to RM 56 billion. In Budget 2020, this
allocation grew to 21.582% and this equaled to RM 64.1 billion. This is obviously in line
with efforts of the government to ensure quality and inclusive education for all segments
of the society but as a developing country, Malaysia should also focus on other
spending options such as infrastructure expenditure to directly increase the welfare and
standard of living of the entire country. To put things into perspective, RM 64.1 billion
can be used to build the MRT Sungai Buloh- Kajang line three times over and can build
15 Petronas Twin Towers. If free education were to be implemented, the direct
consequence would be the need for a bigger budget for the education sector. This will

3
entail smaller portions of the budget to be allocated to other sectors like healthcare,
infrastructure and manufacturing.

There is no free lunch. Free education appears to be free because the taxpayers
are the ones who pay for the financial burden of the students. In Nordic and
Scandinavian countries, where education is free from preschool to tertiary levels, the tax
rates that the citizens have to pay are up to almost half of taxpayers’ salaries. For
example, Denmark, which provides free education, free healthcare and other benefits,
has the highest tax rates in the world with Danish people paying a range of 36% to 51%
of their income as income tax (McBurnie & Ziguras, 2001). The high income in Malaysia
currently enjoy an income tax rate much lower than the starting tax rate in Denmark, at
just 30% as announced in Budget 2020. If free education were to go all the way through
tertiary level, Malaysians would have to expect a substantial increase of their income
being taxed for the sake of financing the increasingly overwhelming education budget
(Lee, 2004). Not only that, in terms of consumption-based tax, Finnish people enjoy free
education at the expense of having a 24% Goods and Services tax. Malaysia’s Sales
and Services tax rate stands at 10% for sales and 6% for services.

Intermediate conclusion
This comparison might not do Malaysia justice as Malaysia is still a middle-upper
income class country while Denmark and Finland are high income countries. However,
that is exactly the point. Malaysia is simply not there yet. With growing concern of
income disparity, urban poverty, dependency on government aid and a close to
stagnant wage growth, Malaysians simply cannot afford forking out more of what’s left
of their income for a stricter tax regime, even when it is intended for a noble outcome
like free education.

4
3.0 Main Idea 2 (Equity)

3.1 Introduction

Equity in education means that personal or social circumstances such as gender,

ethnic group and social class should not be an excuse to achieve potential in education
and all individuals should reach at least basic minimum level of literacy skills.

Educational equity relies on two factors. The first is fairness, which implies that
someone’s personal condition (ethnic group, social class and gender) should not
interfere with the academic success. The second factor is inclusivity, which refers to the
same standard that applies to everyone in the education system. These two factors are
closely related and depend on each other for success in educational system. Education
is important for economic mobility. Hence, everyone should get the same opportunities
to ensure that they will be able to have a better quality of life.

3.2 Argument for Free Education

We argue that if the policy of free education implemented in Malaysia, this will
promote equal opportunity among the students. Equity has been an aim of the
Malaysian education system since independence. Free education will give the chance
to the poorest in the country to continue their studies because there will be no charge
applied. Free education will help to reduce the number of people who do not have
formal education or lower educational level.

Tuition fees may affect some people who are in less income family to stop from
continue study because they cannot afford it. This will cause the poorest in the country
may not have formal education or they will be only able to complete a lower educational
level. This is because some of the poorest who are struggling to even buy basic
necessities such as food will not be able to pay for the tuition fees. However, education
is a right and crucial opportunity for someone to get a better life. According to Patel
(2014), they believe that the poorest in the country should be pushed to increase their
number of years of schooling, or at least mandatory completion of secondary should be
implemented while ensuring accessibility to quality education. Currently, only six years

5
of primary education is compulsory but it should be made mandatory to Sijil Pelajaran
Malaysia (SPM) level.

Evidence for Free Education

We have found some evidence that proved paid education give burden to the
poorest people in Malaysia. According to Khazanah Research Institute (KRI), the
number of poor Malaysians is higher than the official figure if the relative poverty line
reflects today’s reality. A joint report by the United Nations Development Programme
and Malaysia’s Economic Planning Unit found that “amongst poor households, over
two-thirds have either no formal education or only up to primary level”. Additionally, the
report showed that the likelihood of poverty decreased education (Patel, 2014).
According to a Malaysia Millennium Development Goals 2010 report, “over 90 percent
of those who are of lower secondary school age and are not in school, three-quarters of
those who are of upper secondary school age and are not in school, and two-thirds of
those who are of primary school age and are not in school are all from the bottom 40
percent of the income distribution”. Apart from that, UNICEF also estimates that around
17,000 children who drop out annually in Malaysia because of come from a lower
income earning.

Intermediate Conclusion
In conclusion, free education in Malaysia will reduce inequality among the
students in terms of social class.

3.3 Argument Against Free Education

Free education policy is seen to be as a choice of popularity among the students

and their family because they have to pay lesser cost for college. Almost 40% of
education system in the world consider themselves as “free”, however the realities
behind it is very diverse, and only few countries that actually provide free degree for
those who enter. It is widely accepted that educational opportunities should be equal.
However, in terms of equity concerns which must include overall access to adult

6
learning in countries, free education policy does not actually bring equity among the
students.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Education

ministers have developed ‘lifelong learning for all’ as their policy framework. One of the
major issues to rectify the lifelong learning includes equity in policy for lifelong learning
which is education. Educational equity does not seem to be improving in certain
countries, and may be getting worse in some cases. One of the important elements of
equity in education are participation and success of the students. First of all, there is no
strong evidence that free tuition leads to improved access and success for students, or
to better equity.

With public education being fully funded by the government, this also means that
competition amongst students will decrease. Another word to justify why free education
does not bring equity is that, participation of students will increase, and success rate of
students will be decrease. Government has to set lower standards of national exams to
ensure everyone should be able to attend college. The lower standards of national
exams will lead to low quality of students produced. Hence, this is why we can explain
why most of the countries choose to subsidize education instead of giving it free of
charge.

Moreover, with free education policy be implemented in Malaysia, this means

that more public universities need to be build. The amount of public institution needs to
be on par with the number of students that will be entering college, and that is the
current problem with Malaysia.

Evidences Against Free Education

According to data from Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, the number of

students applying for Higher Public Institutions (IPTA) has increased to almost 300,000
in 2016, and the number keeps increasing each year. Now, there are only 20 public
universities, 34 polytechnics 93 community college in Malaysia. With free education

7
policy being implemented in Malaysia, this means that government need to put higher
amount of budget to education system in Malaysia.

Intermediate Conclusion

Free-tuition higher education is a complex reality. To citizens, it may seem like an

easy move, since it is, after all, simply a budget decision, and definitely a strong political
act. However, implementing free-tuition for education in Malaysia is not only expensive
and difficult, but also does not guarantee improving access or success. This is mostly
because free higher education is not a horizontal-based policy; it impacts all individuals
independently of whether they need it or not. While this policy is vertical-based, it can,
and often does, create inequity.

8
4.0 Main Idea 3 (Externalities)

4.1 Introduction
In economics, an externality is the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not
choose to incur that cost or benefit. Educational externalities are the public benefits of
education that spill over for the betterment of others in society, including those in
succeeding generations. External benefits differ from private market benefits to earnings
and from private non-market benefits beyond earnings to health, longevity and quality of
life. Externalities in education can either be positive or negative. External benefits of
education include the direct benefits of education for the growth of civic institutions,
which gradually lead to the rule of law, democracy, human rights and political stability
over a long period of time. Externalities also include direct benefits to health, reduced
poverty, lower crime rates, lower public services and incarceration costs, environmental
sustainability, improvements to wellbeing and social capital, and distribution effects and
new R&D capabilities.

4.2 Arguments for Free Education

First and foremost, we will argue the argument that if Malaysia administer policies
of free education especially with higher education, this will amplify positive externalities
which in turn enhances society. The premises that we found is that education
externalities are the public benefits of education that spill-over to benefit others in the
society, including others in future generations. (McMahon, 2010) and it also states that
the benefits incurred include education’s direct benefits and indirect benefits.
Reasoning for these premises is that the externalities will cause the development
of civic institutions, reduced poverty, lower crime rates, environmental sustainability and
contributions to happiness within the society. This is because as more of the populace
are educated in tertiary education, they will learn more highly complex ideas related to
democracy, civic participation, welfare of the state and have better understanding of the
nuances of society. Besides, they will have a positive impact on work attitude thus
increasing productivity and benefiting others and future generations. Due to having a
highly educated workforce within the country, it encourages innovation as new ideas are

9
being brought forward on ways of completing tasks and work in general. Boost in
productivity occurs as workers are more efficient in doing their jobs and more effective
in using resources available, this reduces leakages.

Evidences for Free Education

We have found supporting articles as evidences for the argument on why free
education in the tertiary education would bring these externalities benefits. There are
large positive effects of more education on voter participation, on support for free
speech, and on the quality of civic participation, the latter as indicated by the frequency
of news readership (Dee 2004). From this we can see that knowledge gained in college
education increases perception and awareness of the pubic on current issues, social ills
and betterment of the community.
The benefits of allowing access to education for the youth would bring lower
crime rates among minors as they would spend more time in school limiting time
wasting on socially harmful activities such as loitering, under-age drinking and petty
crimes. Witte’s (1997) review reveals that reducing high school dropout rates and
increasing 2-year college enrolments that cause young males to be under supervision in
school (and in employment later) are effective.
There are many studies that show that education has a positive effect on
happiness, known earlier as subjective well-being. Happiness is a private benefit of
education except it also benefits others by contributing to social cohesion and social
capital which are also external benefits (Helliwell 2005). Based on Maslow hierarchy of
needs, as basic needs and psychological needs are met for individuals, they would try
to achieve the final need; self-fulfillment needs, this need can be easily attainable when
individuals have greater education levels compared to just having a high school
education.

Intermediate Conclusion
Free education specifically higher education will bring positive externalities to the
society as the population would be more educated and assist in developing individuals
and the community.

10
4.3 Arguments against Free Education
Free education policy in Malaysia especially in higher education does not
enhance society as a whole. This statement will be the main argument against policies
of free tertiary education. We will argue against the argument that if Malaysia administer
policies of free education especially with higher education, this will amplify negative
externalities which in turn damages society. The premises that we found is that not all
education externalities would have spill-over effects towards the society and some have
negative impacts. Note the potential for higher education to build negative externalities,
such as credential inflation. (Forbes, 2017). The second premise as noted by (Forbes
2017), the key is that any social benefits conferred by higher education are finite,
meaning government subsidies for education should be finite as well.
Reasoning for these premises is that even though some of the externalities will
cause the development of a highly educated population; however, as skills acquired by
those graduated from tertiary education will be higher than it is expected that there will
be an influx of over skill within the community. This will cause jobs to be very
competitive and limited as Malaysia still does not have the capabilities to adapt towards
the sudden surge in graduates. Jobs that require high skill workers are still lacking in the
country as such the decision for free tertiary education is not beneficial towards society
as a whole. Besides that, graduates will also be employed in lower skill jobs will may
cause a suppression of wages in the job market as too many people are highly skill
causing the benefits of having a college education equating to higher pay becomes
irrelevant.

Evidences against Free Education

We have found supporting articles as evidences for the argument against free
education in the tertiary education. Hill (2014) studied the degree to which course
repeaters practiced negative externalities on their classmates. He found that that the
proportion of repeaters in a given course resulted in a modest and statistically
significant increase in the likelihood of course failure for the first-time course
participants. His results also indicate that this negative effect only occurs when the

11
share of repeaters exceeds a level of five to ten percent of the total number of course-
takers, and that spill-overs can be differentiated from peer effects of low-capacity.
Pritchett (2001) theorizes that perverse institutional / governance incentives in
some countries allocate educated labor to socially wasted activities such as bloated
government bureaucracies and over-managed state-owned enterprises. As a result, an
increase in the educated labor force could reduce, rather than improve, economic
growth. Likewise, an increase in the "years of education" of the labor force may not
create real changes in their human capital — just more useless diplomas and degrees
in countries with sub-par education quality. To order to avoid these traps, the required
condition for any consideration of new educational entitlements must first be to correct
such shortcomings to institutions, governance, and the education system.

Intermediate Conclusion
Free education specifically in tertiary education will bring negative externalities to
the society as the population would experience an influx of highly educated graduates
but society is still lacking jobs and opportunities for them to be beneficial towards the
community.

12
5.0 Main Idea 4 (Student Debt)

5.1 Introduction

Student loans are common at the tertiary level throughout the world. Student loan
is a method for students to ensure that they are able to finance their university or
college degrees. Since its introduction, student loans have created the student loan
debt problem, in which borrowers do not repay or default from their loans. It is occurring
everywhere in this world. According to the World Economic Forum, The United States
recorded a whopping 1.5 trillion USD in student loan debt. Besides that, New Zealand’s
student loan debt stood at 7 billion USD and Malaysia at RM39 billion (9.5 billion USD)
owed to the National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN).

5.2 Argument for Free Education

Based on the topic, education should be free for tertiary level so that it will not
burden the students after they have graduated from the universities. This is because
there is no guarantee that the fresh graduate will be employed right after they finish their
studies which can give them the ability to repay the loans which is known as the
National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN) in Malaysia. Unemployment
among the fresh graduates are getting worse as the number of fresh graduates keep on
increasing with changes happening in the economy. This is shown by the statistic given
that there are about 290 000 fresh graduates that graduated annually but one in five will
remain unemployed and most of them are age below 24. Fresh graduate with tertiary
education hold share of 25 percent of unemployment rate in Malaysia. The issues of
unemployment among fresh graduates will influenced their burden to repay their loans
as they do not have a stable source of income.

Next, the basic income of a fresh graduates is inadequate to repay the loans.
The loan repayment plan implemented an interest rate between 1 to 3 percent depend
on the loan application students applied. In addition, according to The Edge, the living
cost in Malaysia is persistently high due to slower growth in income that cannot keep up
with the rising process, unstable country’s currency and unaffordable property prices.
Thus, for fresh graduates to repay back the loan it will be a lot of struggle as they also

13
need to pay for the rent and daily expenses including foods, transportation and etc. The
Bank Negara (Dec 2017, NST) also stated that the reasonable salary for the fresh
graduates is approximately RM 3 000 by taking into account the overall expenses
including the repayment of study loan if they lived in the major cities in Malaysia.
Unexpectedly, what happen according to Khazanah Research Institute ‘s School-to-
Work Transition Survey 2018, the average monthly salary for the young workers get is
around RM 1 846 per month which is unable to cover the overall expenses. This shows
a big gap in expected income to the real income of the fresh graduates that will affect
the students’ burden in repaying their loan.

Intermediate Conclusion

In conclusion, the education should be free so that the youth will not have to
struggle with the debt repayment with their low wages after they graduate that will
hinder the youth development in the country in many aspects.

5.3 Arguments Against Free Education

Firstly, student loans are considered as ‘good debts’. This is because student
loans will provide educational opportunities that will generate income in the future. It is a
worthy investment in the long-term. Besides that, student loans usually offer low interest
rates compared to other types of loans. With student loans and educational
opportunities, it increases the value of individuals to be employed and increase their
prospective future income. Good debts like student loans can help an individual to build
financial health. It is commonly believed that financial illiteracy is the main cause of
financial burden and a problem among borrowers. With student loan interest rates lower
compared to other types of loans, it can help to teach students on financial
management. Thus, this will form a society with good financial health that will definitely
reduce the student loan debt problem and other problems related to debts. Therefore,
student loans should not be considered as a burden, but a guide to better financial
health.

14
 Obviously, the popular opinion would be to eliminate student debt entirely.
However, this might lead to negative consequences. To address the student debt
problem in Malaysia, PTPTN has provided incentives such as discounts to borrowers if
they repay their loans according to criteria that PTPTN have set. For example,
borrowers would receive a 15 percent discount if they repay their loans in full at once.
Besides that, borrowers can also gain a 10 percent discount if they repay half of the
amount that they borrowed at once or agree to automatic salary deduction loan
repayment program. This would seem be an ideal solution in the short term. However, it
has unintended consequences in the long-term. Firstly, it will be unfair to those who
have paid off their PTPTN debt. The question of why they were not rewarded for their
good repayment behaviors at the time will arise among the public. Secondly, current
borrowers (current students) will avoid repayment of their loans once they graduate until
they can obtain the same or maybe even better incentives to repay their loans.
Consequently, this will result in less revenue to the government as more people are
avoiding repayment due to hopes for incentives. With more people not repaying their
student loans, this causes the student loan debt problem to worsen.

Intermediate Conclusion

Student debts are worthy investments for students as it will benefit students in
the long run.

15
6.0 Main Idea 5 (Quality of Education)

6.1 Argument for Free Education

The enrollment of students in free education country such as Sweden and
Norway are the highest. If there is more enrollment which is showing the quality of
education are increasing. Increase in enrollment of student in primary, secondary and
tertiary level will decrease the unemployment rate of country. This is because of
increasing in the quantity of graduates from college, so they will have more job
opportunity. Furthermore, free education will decrease the worrisome for student about
the fees. In 2017, the numbers of registered students in higher education institutions in
Sweden from academic year 2007 to 2017 are increased from 319119 to 345496 and
the unemployment rate are below 4% in 2018 which is 3.92%. (Statista,2018).
Quality in education supplies knowledge and skills, expertise and abilities needed
to solve challenges domestically and abroad and contributes effectively to the society's
economic and democratic growth. Quality education has long-term benefits for
employment and decent work, democracy, and self-development, which is important to
meeting all other goals and objectives, including gender equality, health, food, and
sustainable development. If the global society is committed to making real progress, the
right to access, quality education for all must be assured by governments.
Based on the current example from country that are practicing the free education,
which is the Sweden, they have actually quite high literacy rates which is stand still from
2005 to 2018 with 99%. Besides that, the unemployment rate in Sweden is 6.4% in
2018.
Besides that, it is also show that Swedish keep want to improve their quality such as a
landmark in Swedish education policy, was aimed at improving the prestige of the
teaching profession, encouraging professional development and thus enhancing
education quality.

Intermediate Conclusion

16
 In conclusion, government should implement free education as it would increase
the quality of education in Malaysia.

6.2 Arguments Against Free Education

The free-education movement is actually not the free tuition; it must be paid by
the public most of it, through taxes. The free education is not as easy to implement as
the policy, maybe it is easy for the policy maker to implement as it only simply a
decision maker. However, when implementing those policies not actually it is very
expensive to put up with, it is also giving effect in reducing the quality of graduate’s
student. When the education for secondary and tertiary level are free, it will jump the
number of student enrollment for higher education. The university itself have limited
resources, in terms of number of instructors, the limited resources of places for study
which is eventually reducing the quality of graduate’s student.
Besides that, the most important thing is the qualification of the instructor. As
there are too many enrollments which will lead to lack of instructor with a good
qualification which will eventually affect the quality of education. Arnon and Reichel
(2007) showed that there are two types of teacher which is the ideal type of teacher and
self-image as a teacher. The student with the ideal type of teacher show that the
qualities in term of knowledge, etiquette, kindness and leadership compare with the self-
image as teacher. Therefore, a good teacher gives more effective towards the students.
However, when too many students in one session will give pressure and difficulties to
the instructor in giving their knowledge and ensuring access to all those students which
will affect the quality of the education. The ratio lecturer-to-students also will be poor as
they will be facing some challenges of overcrowded lecture halls. It is also will led to the
university being underfunded and difficult to fulfil the student enrolment. This is why the
education should not be free because of the limited resources of qualifications lecturer
will give impact toward the quality of graduate student.
Besides that, as when there is free education it will made the college degree are
not as important for society seem like that everyone can get their college degree at free
of charge. It will devalue the college degree which will eventually devalue of quality of
graduate’s students. It is also potentially undermining the persistence of the students as

17
they will think that the education has been free and are not worth their money anymore.
The current fees are actually driving student to get done with their college as soon as
possible to reduce the debt and work. As they are no other things to motivate them
anymore will affect their persistence and might see laziness from the students. It is also
making the college creating a well-educated workforce. The businesses also will
actually have problems from this policy as they cannot differentiate the degree as the
degree has become a norm.

Evidence Against Free Education

Despites the free-education policy in Argentina, a study in 2013 found that the
country record the highest tertiary dropout rates in the world. Only 27 percent of the
student population that graduates from the university, the other 70 percent turn out to be
a dropout from the university which is follow by Brazil and Chile which is also
implementing the free-education policy. Based on the evidence stated, it is just show
that the free education is such a waste of people money (since most of the fees are
being paid by the taxpayers) and the quality of the graduate’s student is not even
guarantee. Moreover, in France, the dropout rate is as high as 50%. However, as
demand increases, the proportion of students dropping out will also multiply. This is a
resource waste.
According to the Foundation Economic Education, as the government have bad
record in providing funding towards the education. The operations cannot distribute
supply adequately to demand. This will end in increasingly underfunded and cramped
colleges in France, which operates a free program, this is shown. Its universities are
heavily underfunded and unable to meet student enrollment requirements. There are
even incidents where due to overcrowded lecture halls students were sent home.
Students also complain, citing a lack of resources and poor relationships between
teacher and pupil. This is not limited to France.

Intermediate Conclusion
Therefore, in this case the free education will affect the quality towards the
education due to students are no longer see the worth of a college degree and lack of

18
qualification of the instructor which is the crucial indicators in determining the quality of
education.

7.0 Conclusion

In conclusion, it is evident from our analysis that the pros of having free
education outweigh the cons. To answer the question of whether we should or should
not have free education, we definitely should. It can lead to greater accessibility in
education which in turn will boost equality and social development of the entire country.
Not only that, free education produces positive externalities that will enhance the well-
being of the society in terms of lower crime rates and reduced poverty rates.

On the citizen’s side, it might bring benefit to them to push for free-education
policy. However, policymaker need to look at the context of reality. Every year,
government of Malaysia has put highest amount of allocation for the education system
in Malaysia. By implementing free education policy, it does not guarantee higher
participation of student of increase success rate. In fact, by implementing free education
policy government actually need to spend more. The reason why Malaysia choose to
subsidize partially on education but not subsidized fully is because of higher cost and it
somehow difficult to be implemented.
Apart from that, Malaysia is an upper middle-income country with concerns of
income disparity, urban poverty, dependency on government aid and close to stagnant
wage growth. Government cannot afford to pay more tax and therefore cannot afford
free education. Should or should not? We should. Can we afford it? We cannot.

19
References

Abdullah, D. (2017). Public universities and budget cuts in Malaysia. International

Higher

Education, (91), 15-17.

Akareem, H. S., & Hossain, S. S. (n.d.). Determinants of education quality: what

makes students' perception different? Retrieved from

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23265507.2016.1155167.

Asadullah, N., & Chan, T. (2019, June 26). Malaysia's student-debt crisis could cripple

the economy, unless the government acts. Retrieved from

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/06/asia-s-student-debt-time-bomb/.

Boyce, P. (2019, May 20). "Free" College Would Depreciate the Value of College

Degrees Even More: Paul Boyce. Retrieved from https://fee.org/articles/free-college-

would-depreciate-the-value-of-college-degrees-even-more/.

Dubb, S., Dubb, S., Conway, M., Conway, M., Kanayama, K., Kanayama, K., …

Butcher, A. (2015, September 2). What Exactly is the Impact of Free Higher

Education? Retrieved from https://nonprofitquarterly.org/what-exactly-is-the-impact-

of-free-higher-education/.

eTawau. (2019, January 27). Perbadanan Tabung Pendidikan Tinggi Nasional

(PTPTN).

Retrievedfrom http://www.etawau.com/edu/Scholarship/Government/PTPTN.htm.

Experian. (n.d.). A Debt Management Plan: Is It Right for You? Retrieved from

https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/credit-education/debt-
management-plan-is-it-right-for-you/.

20
Fay, B. (n.d.). How to Manage Your Student Loan Debt: Solutions & Tips. Retrieved
from

https://www.debt.org/students/debt/.

Foo, T. (2018, December 15). Reasonable salaries for young people. Retrieved from

https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/letters/2018/12/15/letters-skills-mismatch-
not-salaries-making-out-young-people-unemployable.

Free Education in Malaysia: Not a Fantasy |. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2019, from

https://kprumalaysia.org/2013/05/03/free-education-in-malaysia-not-a-fantasy/

Gayardon, Ariane. (2017). Free Higher Education: Mistaking Equality and Equity.

International Higher Education. 91. 12. 10.6017/ihe.2017.91.10127.

Jürgensen, A. L. (2019, August 9). Sweden: number of registered students 2007-2017.

Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/533601/sweden-number-of-
registered-students/.

Lee, M. N. N. (2004). Global Trends, National Policies and Institutional Responses:

Restructuring Higher Education in Malaysia. Educational Research for Policy and

Practice, 3(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-004-6034-y

Leo, M. (2019, August 26). Fresh Graduate Unemployment in Malaysia. Retrieved from

https://eduadvisor.my/articles/what-didnt-know-fresh-graduate-unemployment-
malaysia-infographic/.

Levin, Ben. (2013). Approaches to Equity in Policy For Lifelong Learning, OECD August

2013 Report, from https://www.oecd.org/education/school/38692676.pdf

Lindsay, F. (2019, February 14). Why Sweden Is Deporting High-Skilled Labor Migrants.

21
 Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/freylindsay/2019/02/13/why-sweden-is-
deporting-high-skilled-labor-migrants/#40d542594510'.

Mcburnie, G., & Ziguras, C. (2001). The regulation of transnational higher education in

Southeast Asia: Case studies of Hong Kong, Malaysia and Australia. 22.

McMahon, W. W. (2010). The External Benefits of Education. International

Encyclopedia of Education, 260-271. doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-044894-7.01226-4

Nissen, S., Hayward, B., & Mcmanus, R. (2019). Student debt and wellbeing: a
research

agenda. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 14(2), 245–
256. doi: 10.1080/1177083x.2019.1614635

Patel, T. (2014). Malaysian education: what do the poor really want?. Policy Ideas

No12.

Pettinger, T., Sameer, Caleb, Fernandez, S., Temi, Phil, … Hue, M. (2017, December

17). Tejvan Pettinger. Retrieved from

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/949/economics/should-university-education-

be-free/

Reijman, M. (2017, January 7). How PTPTN discounts can backfire. Retrieved from

https://www.thestar.com.my/business/business-news/2017/01/07/how-ptptn-
discounts-can-backfire.

Roos, D. (2007, December 11). How Debt Works. Retrieved from

https://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/debt-management/debt1.htm.

Sloan, A. (2019, July 8). Canceling all student debt is a bad idea. Retrieved from

22
 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/canceling-all-student-debt-is-a-
bad-idea/2019/07/05/09b3d11a-9dc4-11e9-85d6-5211733f92c7_story.html.

Surendran, S. (2019, August 3). Why cost of living remains high. Retrieved from

https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/why-cost-living-remains-high.

Sweden Literacy Rate 1990-2019. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/SWE/sweden/literacy-rate.
Sweden Unemployment Rate. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/unemployment-rate.

Zahiid, S. J. (n.d.). KRI: Realistic poverty measures show more Malaysians poorer now

Malay Mail. Retrieved December 15, 2019, from

https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2019/06/25/kri-realistic-poverty-
measures-show-more-malaysians-poorer-now/1765210

23