4th Global Congress on Engineering Education © 2004 UICEE

Bangkok, Thailand, 5 - 9 July, 2004

How Smart Are Malaysia’s Smart Schools?

M. Puteh & A.M. Vicziany

Monash Asia Institute, Monash University

Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT: This paper evaluates the Malaysian government’s experiment with the ‘Smart Schools Project’ that began in 1999
with 90 schools. The project was part of the Malaysian government’s response to the pressures of globalisation and the belief that an
Information Technology Revolution in Malaysia would help to maintain the momentum of economic growth by producing a
technologically literate workforce. The paper discusses the origins of that policy, the application of ICT in ‘Smart Schools’ and the
results of that experiment. This assessment is based on a comparison with the experience of Australian schools in the state of
Victoria during the last ten years. The Victorian comparison is introduced as a way of providing a benchmark against which the
Malaysian applications and outcomes can be compared. A key conclusion of this research is that Malaysian government needs to
evaluate its ‘Smart Schools’ strategy before extending the program to the remaining 8962 schools in the country.

INTRODUCTION
The Malaysian government is preparing to meet the challenges
of globalisation as part of its strategy of becoming a developed
country as envisaged in the national agenda, Vision 2020.
Vision 2020 was introduced in 1991 and summarised the
essence of Malaysia’s plans for economic transformation.
Vision 2020 emphasised that Malaysia had to embrace the
knowledge economy in order to become globally competitive.
Creating an Information Communication Technology
(hereafter ICT) literate society was a central platform in
achieving that transformation. Thus, the National Information
Technology Council was established three years late to advise
the government on ICT policies as well as provide assistance
with implementing them [1]. The Council included
representatives from the public and the private sectors and
fostered the idea that knowledge and information are the
assets of the future Malaysian economy. The Council launched
the National IT Agenda in December 1996 to promote the
wider application of ICT across many economic sectors. Thus
the concepts of E-community, E-public services, E-learning, E-
economy and E-sovereignty emerged. E-learning included the
Smart Schools Project, the subject of this paper.
Given that most world governments are addressing the issues
of globalisation and how to harness the capacities of the ICT
revolution to achieve world competitiveness, what makes the
Malaysian government’s efforts different from others?
Certainly the Malaysian effort has attracted attention in Asia
with at least one recent paper suggesting that Taiwan could
learn from the Malaysian experiment [2]. This paper analyses
the Malaysian Smart Schools Project’s (SSP) attempt to
enhance the teaching and learning processes at the primary and
secondary schools level. Our comparative framework includes
references to the Australian experience as a way of
highlighting the unique nature of the Malaysian approach.
THE SMART SCHOOLS POLICY
The SSP is one of the Flagship Applications of the Multimedia
Super Corridor (hereafter MSC). This signals that primary and
secondary education is regarded by the Malaysian government
as a critical long term building block for its post-industrial
strategy. The MSC was initiated in 1996 by Datuk Seri Dr.
Mahathir Mohamad, the Malaysian Prime Minister, as a way of
replicating the successes of silicon valley. The idea was to
create within Malaysia a geographic hub that provided local
and foreign companies with the essential infrastructure needed
for modern production, in particular ICT facilities and services.
[3] On the ground, the MSC takes the form of numerous
highways that span the distance from Kuala Lumpur’s new
airport to the city. Dug into the side of the roads are the
electrical and communication cables needed for the kind of late
industrial, value-added production that the Vision 2020
strategy had in mind. Beyond this geographic space there is a
much wider notional corridor that extends to companies and
associations that have special relationships with the MSC.
These organizations are said to have ‘MSC status’ that gives
them access to government privileges and incentives.
The Smart Schools Integrated Solutions (hereafter SSIS) was
rolled out 1998 at the cost of US$78 million (RM 300 millions)
to be spent on a pilot project up to December 2002. Of this
RM183,573,737 was for Capital Expenditure and
RM116,426,263 for Operating Expenditure[4]. Table 1 gives a
more detailed breakdown of the budget.

223
Table 1 consortium. Within the consortium, the level of interest and
The Budget for the SSP Pilot Project 1999-2002 [4]. commitment in the project was divided amongst the various
‘shareholders’ into fixed percentages with Telekom
SSIS Components Costs (RM) % of total Multimedia Sdn Bhd having a 51 per cent controlling interest
Teaching-Learning Materials (in 92,443,742 30.8 [8].
eg CD ROM format)
Smart School Management 31,366,872 10.5 A third distinguishing feature of the SSP is that the provider
System was asked to develop technologies and services capable of
Technology Infrastructure (IT 65,921,874 22.0 integrating all ICT functions within a school system. In other
and non-IT equipment) words, not only did the provider develop new teaching
Training on various components 2,113,380 0.7 materials in the form of CD ROMS but it also developed
of SSIS software systems for the routine management of the schools.
Support Services 17,851,177 6.0 Such an integrated system was regarded as the most efficient
Project Management, Business 90,302,955 30.0 way of leapfrogging Malaysian schools into a high technology
Process Reengineering, Systems domain.
Integration
TOTAL 300,000,000 100 ICT IN AUSTRALIAN SCHOOLS: A CONRASTING
EXAMPLE
Table 2 shows the percentage of government expenditure on
education as a proportion of GDP in 1998-2000 for various ICT learning strategies have been an integral part of the
countries. Relative to others, the Malaysian government is Australian schools system for some twenty years, but the
spending more on education. This is partly because in the manner in which ICT learning has been established differs
developed countries the private sector plays an increasingly significantly from the Malaysian approach. To begin with, the
important role in basic education. At the same time, Table 2 Australian education system does not seek to provide across-
indicates that the Malaysian government is spending much the-board solutions for all aspects of teaching, learning and
more money on education than its per capita GDP would management in schools. Rather there are separate programs
predict. Such high levels of expenditure require the Malaysian and providers for these components.
government to deliver good results from its investment in
expensive initiatives such as the SSP. Secondly, the Australian schools system has seen a move
towards more private schools in the last few decades. These
Table 2 private schools have developed their own ICT strategies.
The Proportion of Public Expenditure on Education as a Some of these do, however, involve private firms as providers
Percentage of GDP in 1998-2000: Malaysia compared with of the equipment needed by students. For example, the largest
others [5] private school in central Melbourne established a program
some 15 years ago requiring every student from Grade 5
Country GDP GDP/ Public Expenditure onwards to have their own laptops. Parents are advised that
(US$ Capita on education the laptops could be hired through the school from a preferred
Billions) (US$) (as % of GDP) private firm that was also responsible for the maintenance of
2001 2001 1998-2000 equipment and loading up software compatible with the
school’s requirements. Parents had the choice of supplying
Malaysia 88.0 3,699 6.2
their children with their own laptops from other vendors, but in
Singapore 85.6 20,733 3.7
that case the parents were also responsible for maintenance and
USA 10,065.3 35,277 4.8
the compatibility of software. Not surprisingly, parents
UK 1,424.1 24,219 4.5 overwhelming chose to hire laptops through the school’s
Australia 368.7 19,019 4.7 preferred supplier as this was a less risky option and required
New Zealand 50.4 13,101 6.1 less input of their own time. At the end of three years, the
laptops are returned to the corporation and new laptops and
The involvement of private sector companies in the contracts are issued. In other words, the private corporate
implementation of government policy is a unique feature of sector does play a role in the ICT programs of private
Malaysia’s Smart Schools Project. In 1999 the Telekom Smart Australian schools, but there is no central approach to this.
School corporation (hereafter TSS) was established in Moreover, the private firms only provide equipment; they have
response to the Malaysian government’s call for private sector no pedagogical role that extends into the production of
support to the project. That support took the form of a courseware.
provider charged with implementing the pilot project in the 90
schools that had been selected out of some 9,000 Malaysian Thirdly, and most important of all, the development of
schools. The new consortium consisted of seven Malaysian curriculum and the delivery of curriculum in the Australian
firms and three multinationals including the Malaysian schools system is left to educational specialists – professional
subsidiary of NIIT (National Institute of Information teachers who have made a career choice to become involved in
Technology, an Indian IT company), the world’s largest trainer curriculum development. Typically, these professionals work
of IT manpower [6]. In effect, TSS became the ‘owner’ of the in collaboration with educational specialists in the universities
pilot and it was not until the project was completed at the end to ensure that the teaching content is of the highest quality and
of 2002 that ownership reverted to the Ministry of Education in that what is taught in schools ultimately relates to what is
March 2003 [7]. The bulk of the budget set out in Table 1 expected in the tertiary sector [9].
above, reflected the money spent by the Malaysian government
on specific project components and services provided by this

224
Thus, the Australian approach to ICT for schools is highly
decentralised in contrast to the centralised model of the
Malaysian Smart Schools Project. It also recognises that the
competencies required by technical and pedagogical specialists
are totally different, so that these two functions are not blended
into the tasks of a single provider. At the same time, a move
has been made in Australia towards a coordinated effort in
developing a national online curriculum. This began in 1999
with the Australian Action Plan proposed by the Federal
Government. The plan requires federal, state and territory
governments to work together, in contrast to the previous
model in which state and territory governments developed their
own local curricula. Given the history of state governments
and territories guarding their control over educational and
other policies, their willingness to work together on this
initiative represents an important break with tradition.
Specifically, the Australian Government allocated A$34.1
million over five years (2001-2006) to the Schools Online
Curriculum Content Initiative [10]. State and territory
governments have matched the funding bringing the total
budget to A$68.2 million. The project is managed by The
Learning Federation which is a joint venture between the
Curriculum Corporation and a new company called
Education.au limited. Both companies are government sector
corporations charged with the responsibility of driving
educational changes in Australian schools. The Learning
Federation aims to create online curriculum content to be used
by all school systems in Australia and New Zealand. The
Curriculum Corporation has wider objectives that include the
production of learning materials for face-to-face classroom
teaching. The online content will be developed in six
curriculum priority areas (see Table 3), and the focus is on
interactive learning activities.
Table 3
The six priority areas for the development of online, interactive
curriculum in Australia schools 2000-2005 [10].
Subjects Grades involved
Innovation, Enterprise and All year levels
Creativity
Languages Other than English All year levels
Literacy Years 5-9
Numeracy and Mathematics Years P-9
Science Years P-6 and years 9-10
Studies of Australia All year levels
Another major difference in approaches is that the online
curriculum in Australia is intended to focus on learning areas
that are conceptually, technically or mathematically difficult to
get across in class room situations. The following three areas in
particular have been identified as priorities for the development
of new courseware:
1. difficult concepts or demonstrations of dangerous
processes (i.e. in chemistry);
2. proofs for certain tests and processes;
3. concepts that are beyond a student’s experience.
In order to facilitate the production of innovative teaching
material, the Learning Federation created the ‘learning object’
model that focuses on the digital content of the online material.
The ‘object’ is defined as “ a component of online material that
can be identified, tracked, referenced, used and reused for a
225
variety of learning purposes.” For example, the learning object
could be a file containing graphics, text, audio or animations.
The emphasis of the ‘learning object’ model is to develop
standardised and replicable information with broad relevance
to schools across Australia. In the schools, however, the
teachers have the option of supplementing this information
with other materials to meet the specific learning needs of their
particular students.
IMPLEMENTING MALAYSIA’S STRATEGY
The Smart Schools Project began in 1999 with 90 schools
representing no more than one percent of Malaysia 9,000
schools. Six different categories of schools were recognised
and each identified for particular kinds of ICT strategies:
• 9 new schools (5 primary and 4 secondary)
• 36 residential secondary schools
• 14 Munshi Networked schools (secondary schools
currently piloting electronic resource centres)
• 14 state secondary schools
• 14 state primary schools
• 3 remote schools without direct electricity supply
(comprising 2 primary schools and 1 secondary
school)
On the completion of the pilot project at the end of 2002, three
of the new schools had not yet been built so the pilot project
ultimately involved only 87 schools. In the next eight years, the
remaining Malaysian schools (about 8965) will be upgraded to
‘Smart School status’.
The role of ICT in the Smart Schools is to enable and enhance
learning; it is not intended to shift learning strategies to a
wholly ICT basis. In this it is similar to the Australian
approach. The model also sought to test the applicability of
ICT strategies in remote areas not yet covered by the electricity
grid and where generators provide power for TVs, VCRs and
radio sets. Through this means students will be able to access
a wide range of educational programmes [11][12].
The one remote secondary school involved in the pilot will
also be provided with wireless access to the internet. Much
can be achieved by the use of generators to guarantee the
supply of electricity to these pilot schools, although whether
this model can then be extended to the 2,000 Malaysian
schools that are still without electricity remains debatable [13].
Classification of Pilot Schools
The pilot schools in the SSP were divided into three types,
namely: A, B+ and B schools. There were nine A schools, two
B+ schools and 79 B schools. Each type was given different
levels of ICT intensity. Type A schools received two computer
laboratories and all individual classrooms and science labs
were also equipped with computers. The student-computer
ratio was targeted at 5:1.
In the B+ schools, a more limited number of classroom
computers was provided plus the science labs received four
computers each. Many of the learning activities in the B+
schools were designed to be group-based with 10 or 12
students sharing the use of a single computer and worked
together on projects.
Finally, in the B schools, ICT teaching strategies were
introduced through the use of computer laboratories only.
Each school was given one laboratory set up with 37
computers. Access to the technology supported learning was
only available to the classes of students scheduled to use those
laboratories.
Given the regional complexity of Malaysia, the implementation
of the Smart School Project also ensured that there was at least
one inspiring Smart School in each of Malaysia’s 13 states
[11][12].
Achievements of the Pilot Project
In April 2003, the Telekom Smart School (TSS) consortium
reported that the pilot project had been successfully completed.
It documented its ‘significant achievements’ in the following
way manner:
• TSS had produced about 1,500 CD ROMs with new
courseware;
• It had delivered an ‘integrated computerised Smart
School Management System for Malaysian Schools’;
• 87 Malaysian schools now had the ICT infrastructure
envisaged in the 1998 plan;
• 1,000 IT professionals had been involved in
developing that infrastructure;
• 68 staff from the Educational Ministry had been
trained by TSS[14].
It is noticeable that the achievement criteria are all technical
ones rather than pedagogical. The pedagogical criteria for the
Pilot Project are set out clearly by TSS in a section of their
website titled: ‘Frequently asked questions regarding the
Smart School initiative’ [15]. These criteria include very
ambitious objectives such as:
• teaching students to their best individual abilities;
• teachers making the national curriculum relevant to
their students’ needs;
• creating a school environment to encourage students
to reach their highest potential with teachers as
mentors;
• ongoing assessment of student learning and
motivation;
• educational leadership by school principals and
teachers as role models;
• strong commitment to school objectives by parents
and the wider community, including a wide range of
extra curricula activities.
Clearly, this pedagogical approach has moved strongly away
from the rote learning methods typical in Asian schools,
including Malaysian schools. Whether the Smart Schools will
meet these objectives remains to be seen.
At this stage, not even the Pilot Project schools have been
assessed according to these criteria. This is a concern, because
the TSS emphasis on establishing the technological
infrastructure in the Smart Schools system included the
production of 1,500 CD Roms. What this courseware
represented and how close it came to the original objectives of
the SSP pilot is not yet known. Nor do we know much about
how principals and teachers implemented the pilot and whether
226
the learning objectives were even partially reached. An
assessment study has now been commissioned, but unless this
reviews the learning outcomes it will not address the urgent
needs that Vision 2020 identified.
Sporadic feedback from one showcase school suggests that the
pilot project may have delivered a chink into the rote learning
models. Dr Salbiah Ismail, principal of the Sekolah
Menengah Kebangsaan Putrajaya, has reported that students
and teachers took to the new IT technology ‘like a sponge
absorbs water’ [15]. Specifically, using the internet the
students were able to ‘get information online, faster and more
comprehensively’. Above all, the internet ‘teaches them to be
more independent’ [authors’ emphasis].
If this experience of IT learning is more general throughout the
pilot Smart Schools, then there is indeed room for optimism.
Final conclusions on this subject, however, must await a proper
assessment of the learning outcomes. We certainly need to be
cautious in claiming achievements for ICT simply because it
represents new technology. Lewis, for example, has warned us
that there is nothing inevitable about more ICT in the schools
of the world and higher levels of knowledge and achievement
[17]. One of the most academically distinguished schools in
Australia has achieved remarkable learning results with the
introduction of philosophy as a primary school subject. There
is nothing unusual about this school’s teaching programs when
it comes to ICT - local practice conforms to what happens in
other modestly funded government schools. The beneficial
results of philosophy have gone well beyond academic criteria
and include less schoolyard violence and more responsible
citizenship in general.
CONCLUSIONS
In December 2003, Malaysia’s Ministry of Education decided
to extend the Smart Schools strategy to a further 100 schools
[17]. Reports by the government and the TSS are highly
optimistic about the pilot’s outcomes. At the same time, the
Smart Schools Project is widely perceived by the general
Malaysian community to have failed. How can this discrepancy
be accounted for?
One reason is that neither the government nor the ICT
provider, TSS, has made a systematic assessment of the pilot
project’s learning results. Too much of the information about
the SSP sounds like an exercise in mutual self-promotion
rather than a realistic assessment of what actually happened in
the pilot schools. As already noted above, the TSS measures
its successful delivery of ICT using technological criteria. It
has now ‘rolled out’ the ICT system in 87 schools and, so ipso
facto, it is assumed that the project has been implemented. In
fact, the only thing about which we can be certain is that the
technological infrastructure now exists in the pilot schools.
That is an important achievement, but by itself it is no
guarantee that better learning will result.
Second, public perception has been negative because from the
beginning the Ministry of Education failed to consult the
country’s educational experts from within the schools system
and Malaysian universities. The Smart School Task Force
represented only the different divisions of the Educational
Ministry and the private companies that were invited to tender
for the project. The Task Force was asked to conduct a
feasibility study prior to the production of the Smart School
Project blueprint [18]. The team studied the ‘Smart School’
approach in various foreign countries, but at no time consulted
or involved Malaysia’s teaching or academic experts who had
studied the problem more systematically.
Third, teachers have also resisted the Smart Schools model. A
study by Mei & Kin’s showed that teachers were not prepared
to teach in the Smart School environment [20]. They were
concerned that the new emphasis on using ICT in their
teaching would increase rather than reduce their workload.
They realised that in addition to familiarising themselves with
the new technologies, they would be required to prepare for
their classes in new ways that would be time consuming.
Teachers were also acutely aware of the insufficient number of
computers in most Malaysian schools. Their own personal
access to computers was limited. Hence they feared that if the
SSP guidelines became generalised throughout the schools
system, they would not be able to meet the new requirements
expected of them. How could the sharing of IT knowledge
become generalised in the Smart Schools when the
teachers themselves were uncertain of their competence?
According to the government about 1000 teachers have been
trained in the new Smart School teaching approach. The
Teacher Training Division has conducted training for various
components of the SSIS, in particular the “smart” teaching-
learning strategies, classroom management and technology
management. This 14-week program represented a good
beginning but there is no indication that the teachers received
on-location support to practice what they had learnt after the
course had finished. Moreover, there has been no follow-up to
monitor the progress that the teachers may have made. TSS
itself does not report any training of teachers: its only reference
to training outcomes as noted above is to their training of
some‘ 68 staff from the Educational Ministry’.
Dr Ismail’s report on her school refers to the training of her
teachers, but it needs to be stressed that her school is amongst
the most privileged in Malaysia: it is located in Putrajaya, the
heart of the Malaysian government. The school has nine
servers and more than 500 computers, and the principal herself
has a doctorate. This constitutes an ideal environment for the
Smart School Pilot project, but it does not reflect the typical
situation in the majority of the 79 pilot Smart Schools level B
which depend on computer labs housing no more than two
servers and 37 computers for the entire student population .
Given the differences between the pilot schools themselves,
this also raises the danger that the SSP will be seen as a project
that promotes elitism rather than a more equitable access to
modern learning possibilities.
Finally, the dependence of the SSP project on corporate
delivery raises some concerns. The greater part of the budget
in Table 1 covered the costs of employing TSS as the provider
of the technological infrastructure. It is noticeable, that the
smallest component of the budget was the training program –
this represented a mere 0.7 per cent of the total and it is not
clear whether this was all intended for teachers rather than
government administrators charged with administering the
program after TSS had installed the infrastructure.
When TSS handed over the ‘ownership’ of the SSP to the
Malaysian government, it only did so after signing a licensing
agreement in July 2002 whereby TSS received a 50 year
227
copyright contract giving it the right to commercialise any
aspect of the software materials it developed during the first
pilot project in 1999-2002 [14]. The contract includes the right
to export to foreign countries.
It is understandable why the Malaysian government called
upon TSS in the first place. Creating a new corporate entity to
deliver educational ICT products to Malaysian schools does
help to overcome the technical barriers to introducing ICT into
the educational system. Whether the cost of doing it in this
way was cheaper than other alternatives remains to be
assessed.
Converting the remaining 9,000 Malaysian schools into ‘smart’
schools is not impossible. What is in question is the possibility
of achieving this objective by 2010, even when we confine
ourselves to the technological issues that need to be solved to
make this feasible. But the far more important question is
whether the Smart Schools Project will actually produce
‘smarter’ students and teachers. The answer to this question
requires the SSP pilot project to be reviewed by an
independent assessor capable of analysing the pedagogical
results of the new ICT approaches.
Notably, an assessment has been commissioned, but its
independence of government and TSS and its educational
credentials need to be studied before its final report can be
validated. Unless an independent review, with input from
educational specialists, is conducted, the lack of systematic and
hard-headed feedback will continue to hamper the success of
the SSP strategy because teachers, parents, students and the
general community will remain sceptical about the benefits of
allocating so much money to an ICT learning strategy that has
not been proven to deliver more smartness.
Placed into the context of the international debate about how
and whether ICT can deliver ‘smarter’ students and teachers,
there is also the issue of whether the same investment in
alternative teaching approaches could have delivered better and
more relevant results for Malaysia. The role of philosophy, for
example, in the study by Lewis, suggests that ICT by itself
does not automatically produce imaginative, curious,
questioning and productive learners.
Finally, it hardly needs to be stressed that the competence and
learning capacities of school children will affect their
performance in universities, regardless of whether they are
studying engineering or philosophy. This gives the Smart
Schools Project in Malaysia particular interest to educational
policy makers globally.
REFERENCES
[1] Mohamed, M. (1998). Multimedia Super Corridor. Subang
Jaya, Pelanduk Publications (M) Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur, p. 9.
[2] Chin I Jen, Chia-Sen Jimmy Huang [nd), ‘Application of
the
Concepts of the Smart Schools of Malaysia to Taiwan’s
Technology Education’, www.iteawww.org/PATT10/Jen.pdt
Accessed March 2004.
[3] Ariff, I & Chuan, G.C. (2000). Multimedia Super Corridor.
Kuala Lumpur, Leeds Publications.
[4] Ministry of Education Malaysia (2004), Smart School Pilot
Project Information, Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Education
(2004),
http://www.moe.edu.my/BestariNET/bestarinet2004.htm
accessed March 2004.
[5] World Bank (2003). Human Development Report:
Human Development Indicators 2003. Washington DC:
World Bank, pp.266-281.
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/indicator
Accessed March 2004.
[6] Telekom Smart School (TSS) Corporation, Partners
and Affiliates (2004), http://tss.tmsasia.com Accessed
March 2004.
[7] Telekom Smart School (TSS) Corporation, Telekom
Smart School Passes Ownership of Smart School
Pilot Project to Ministry of Education. TSS website
News, 31 March 2003, http://tss.tmsasia.com
Accessed March 2004.
[8] Telekom Smart School (TSS) Corporation,
Corporate Structure, http://tss.tmsasia.com
Accessed March 2004.
[9] The preceding paragraphs are based on Professor
Vicziany’s experience of working with curriculum providers in
Victorian schools since 1993.
[10] Le@rning Federation (2002). Schools Online Curriculum
Content Initiative - Phase Two Plan 2002-2006; Le@rning
Federation (2004). Schools Online Curriculum Content
Initiative, www.thelearningfederation.edu.au Accessed March
2004.
[11] Government of Malaysia (1997). The Malaysian Smart
School Implementation Plan, Kuala Lumpur: Government of
Malaysia.
[12] Government of Malaysia (1997). Smart School Flagship
Application: The Malaysian Smart School - A Conceptual
Blueprint, Kuala Lumpur: Government of Malaysia.
228
[13] Lim K.S (1999), ‘If Malaysia’s smart school concept does
not require computers, then it should not be one of the MSC
flagship applications’, Speech, Committee Stage of the 2nd
1999 Supplementary Estimates, Ministry of Education,
http://www.malaysia.net/dap/sg1824.htm Accessed March
2004.
[14] Telekom Smart School (TSS) Corporation, TSS Update
(2003), http://tss.tmsasia.com Accessed March 2004.
[15] Telekom Smart School (TSS) Corporation, Frequently
Asked Questions, http://tss.tmsasia.com Accessed March
2004.
[16] A Smart School in Action (2002), MSC Success Stories,
www.mdc.com.my/today/html/2003-sstory_04.asp?story=381169
Accessed March 2004.
[17] Cathi Lewis (2004), ‘Putting IT in its Place (in the
Classroom)’ in Marika Vicziany (ed.), Cultures and
Technologies in Asia, Monash Asia Institute, Melbourne.
[18] Abas, Z. W. (2003). ‘For Success of Smart School
Project, New Straits Times. 8 December 2003
http://www.emedia.com.my/Services/database/htm Accessed
March 2004.
[19] Mohd Zain, M.Z. (2002), ‘The Role of Information and
Communication Technology in the Development of the
Malaysian Smart School Concept: A Qualitative Analysis’,
Malaysian Journal of Educational Technology 2 (No. 2), 29-
41.
[20] Mei, H.J & Kin, C.C. (2000). Smart School
Implementation in the State of Johore – An Observation. Proc.
13th Educational Technology Convention, Ipoh, Perak,
Malaysia. 19-21 September 2000, 209-216.