www.moe.gov.

my
www.msc.com.my
Smart School Qualification Standards
(SSQS)

2008 © MDeC
Contents

Message from the Minister of Education, Malaysia 1

About MoE’s Role in MSC Malaysia 1

MSC Malaysia 2

Multimedia Development Corporation Sdn Bhd (MDeC) 4

Smart School Qualification Standards (SSQS) 5

Introduction 5

ICT Benchmarking in Education 7

Strategic Overview of the Smart School Qualification Standards (SSQS) 10

Star Ranking Methodology 13

SSQS Star Rankings 17

SSQS Chart 18
Message from the Minister of Education, Malaysia

Nothing is more critical to Malaysia’s future than education. The

Government is committed to continue its investment in the future of
this nation through education-related policies that will boost
Malaysia’s global competitiveness. A quality education system will drive innovation,
competitiveness and set the stage for Malaysia’s growth in the global economy.

Under the 9th Malaysia Plan, Smarts Schools are expected to bridge the digital divide
and deliver on the Prime Minister’s promise that ‘ICT should not be elitist, but should 1
touch the lives of every individual’.

ICT is intended to form the nucleus that supports the reinvention of the whole nation
towards becoming a knowledge-based economy by 2020. ICT is to be used both as a
tool for education people and for revolutionizing the education system. Skills such as
digital literacy, effective communication, critical thinking and problem solving will
empower Malaysians to make our mark and compete more effectively in this
increasingly technology-based world.

The Smart School Qualification Standards (SSQS) and its associated Star Rankings,
mark a critical turning point in the evolution of Malaysia’s education system. The
SSQS introduces a two-pronged strategy based on guidance and training and helps
educators in Smart Schools better understand their role and expectations.
 As the use of ICT continues to become more pervasive in schools, the SSQS sets
benchmarks that will measure the successful transformation of our national education
system. By monitoring the quality of our national education system, MDeC and the
Ministry of Education can focus on raising the bar on the quality of our education
system, with better policy planning and programme improvements.

Educators now have greater access to ICT resources through training workshops,
online value adding applications and on-site guidance. The SSQS provides the
necessary stimulus for change within our education system and ensures a better return
on investment from the deployment of ICT resources in schools throughout Malaysia.
2
The SSQS is unique in that is possibly the first set of indicators created by a
government-driven organization for national roll-out and development, as opposed to
international comparison and benchmarking.

We hope that the SSQS will empower educators to inspire a new generation of students
that will be better equipped to fuel the nation’s evolution towards developing a
knowledge-based economy.

DATO’ SERI HISHAMMUDDIN TUN HUSSEIN

About MoE’s Role in MSC Malaysia
The Ministry of Education, Malaysia, is the lead agency of the Smart School Flagship
Application, one of the original seven flagship applications of the MSC Malaysia launched
in 1997.
From 1997 to 2002, the Ministry worked with MDeC, other Government agencies and the
private sector to plan, implement, monitor and evaluate the Smart School Pilot Project.
As the lead agency of a flagship application, the Ministry is a member of the MSC Malaysia 3
Flagship Coordination Committee and the MSC Malaysia Implementation Council which
oversee the planning and implementation of flagship applications and other initiatives
relating to the MSC Malaysia.
A significant project which was extensively discussed and supported by the MSC Malaysia
Implementation Council is the ‘Teaching and Learning of Science and Mathematics in
English Programme’ (PPSMI).
In addition, the Minister of Education attends the MSC Malaysia International Advisory
Panel which meets every two years.
The Ministry is also a member of several committees, such as the MAMPU Data Dictionary
Committee and the Open Source Committee, which deal with specific matters relating to
the use of ICT.
 MSC Malaysia

The Malaysian Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC Malaysia) was conceptualized as an

exciting initiative to spur the nation’s entry into the burgeoning global Information
& Communication Technology industry.

4
The MSC Malaysia has since grown into a thriving and dynamic ICT hub, hosting
more than 900 multinationals, foreign-owned and home-grown companies focused
on multimedia and communications products, solutions, services and research and
development.

With this unique corridor, leading ICT companies from around the world are motivated
and incentivised to locate their industries in the MSC Malaysia and undertake research,
develop new products and technologies and export from this base. The MSC Malaysia
is also an ideal growth environment for Malaysian ICT Small and Medium Enterprises
to transform themselves into world-class companies. Furthermore, the MSC Malaysia
welcomes countries to use its highly advanced infrastructural facilities as a global test-
bed for ICT applications and a hub for their regional operations in Asia.
Seven innovative flagship applications were put in place to accelerate ICT growth and
development in the areas of telehealth, e-Business, smart card technology, electronic
government, technopreneurship – one of them is the Smart Schools project headed
by the Ministry of Education.
5

To spark progress, MSC Malaysia-status is awarded to both local and foreign

companies that develop or use multimedia technologies to produce or enhance their
products and services and for process development. In return, MSC Malaysia-status
companies enjoy a set of incentives and benefits from the Malaysian Government
backed by the ten Bill of Guarantees.

In 2004, the MSC Malaysia National Rollout began, spreading the MSC Malaysia
benefits and value propositions nationwide and reaching out to both industry and the
community-at-large. By the year 2020, the MSC Malaysia Agenda will be extended to
the whole country. It will be a national transformation for Malaysia to become a
Knowledge-based Economy and Society, as envisaged in Vision 2020.
 Multimedia Development Corporation Sdn Bhd (MDeC)
Your gateway to the MSC Malaysia is the Multimedia Development Corporation (MDeC),
a high-powered ‘one-stop agency’, focusing on ensuring the success of the MSC Malaysia
and the companies operating in it.
The MDeC has been incorporated under the Companies Act of Malaysia, owned and
funded by the Government. At MDeC, we combine the entrepreneurial efficiency and
6
effectiveness of a private company, with the decision-making and authority of a high-
powered government agency.
Our role is to advise the Malaysian Government on legislation and policies, develop MSC
Malaysia-specific practices, and set breakthrough standards for multimedia operations. We
also promote the MSC Malaysia locally and globally, as well as support companies which
are locating within the MSC Malaysia.
We are dedicated to ensuring the MSC Malaysia is the world’s best environment to harness
the full potential of ICT. MDeC is a champion, facilitator and partner. We champion the
merits of the MSC Malaysia, facilitate the entry of companies and partner with the
Government and the private sector in realizing both a vision and an opportunity.
MDeC ensures that companies interested in entering the MSC Malaysia have what they
need to succeed. MDeC stands ready to work with investors, foreign and local, big or small,
to ensure that the MSC Malaysia fulfils its promises.
Smart School Qualification Standards (SSQS)

INTRODUCTION

The Smart School initiative was launched in July 1997 as one of the seven flagships of
the Multimedia Super Corridor. Much has been achieved since the initial Smart
School pilot project by the Ministry of Education which resulted in an outstanding
initiative – the establishment of the selected “88 Smart Schools”.

7
These 88 Smart Schools were initially identified to act as the reference nucleus for
Smart School concepts, materials, skills, and technologies developed by the MoE.

However, research analysis from the Impact Study (2005) indicated that the
infrastructure set up by the MoE, including the provision of computers, applications
and ICT Co-ordinators to the various schools, was not managed and utilised
optimally.

As such in April 2006, the National IT Council chaired by the Prime Minister
endorsed the Minister of Education’s proposal that MDeC create a systematic
transformation of the selected ‘88 Smart Schools’ into model schools. This included
promoting best practices in technology-enabled teaching, learning and school
management.
 MDeC was given the mandate to develop an easy model for replication by the 88
Smart Schools. These 88 Smart Schools will in turn act as role models to showcase
utilisation and maximisation of ICT usage in education through the infrastructure
provided by the MoE. Based on a 2-pronged approach, MDeC together with the MoE
has provided guidance and training on basic management and transformation
principles of positive “Monitoring” and “Value-adding”, to achieve this goal.

In order to encourage active interest and participation of schools, a measured and

graded benchmark of ICT utilisation of the Smart Schools was created. There are
several monitoring tools planned but of prime importance is the Smart School
8
Qualification Standards (SSQS) based on Star Ranking. In addition, training
workshops, online value-adding applications and on-site guidance are being
implemented to reinforce ICT usage in education. In June 2006, the Minister of
Education agreed with MDeC on the establishment of the SSQS based on Star
Ranking. The first Star Ranking assessment was scheduled for the end of the year.

I CT Benchmar kin g in Education

As ICT becomes widespread, education systems in schools as a whole need to:

develop performance indicators to monitor the usage

and impact of the technologies
These indicators are needed specifically to monitor the types of ICT resources
available, the extent and nature of professional development efforts, and changes in
teaching/learning practices.

The indicators show how ICT should be used not only as a basic operational tool
(such as the number of computers and online connectivity) but also as a
communications tool which promotes the development of:
• creativity
• interactivity
9
• collaborative learning
• critical thinking
• problem-solving

It is hoped that eventually educational policy makers and administrators will

streamline the implementation of these performance indicators into their national
education policies and information systems management. It is envisaged to provide
not only a snapshot of current conditions but a stimulus for change.

Performance indicators in education have traditionally focused on academic results,

such as the League Tables in the UK. There are very few comparable standards and
measurements for ICT penetration and utilization in education on a national basis.
 Key findings on performance indicators for ICT in education in other countries are
highlighted below:

 Second Information Technology in Education Study (SITES), as part of Industry

Canada’s SchoolNet and Computers for Schools programmes shows a clear
example of how the SSQS can work. SITES was developed to address the
increasing use of ICT in Canada’s school system and challenges faced. In an effort
to generate vital data, Canada, along with 27 other countries participated in SITES.
SITES provides valuable benchmark information against which future progress can
be measured. The survey captures data on the implementation of ICT in education
10 systems at different stages.

 Typically, national initiatives are part of a broader regional or international

benchmarking programme. The guide developed by the Organisation for Economic
Co-Operation and Development (OECD), “Education at a Glance – OECD
Indicators”, is an example of a collection of indicators that represent the consensus
of professional thinking on how to measure the current state of education
internationally.

 UNESCO’s Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education provides a situational
analysis regarding the development and impact of ICT in Education. It offers methods
of collecting indicators, comparisons of indicator themes in selected countries as
well as several case studies on the use and impact of ICT in education.
 One of the users of UNESCO’s programme is African SchoolNet. The African
Education Knowledge Warehouse (AEKW) is a pan-African education portal which
services African SchoolNet practitioners, policymakers and school-based
communities on ICTs in education across Africa.
 In Europe, the eEurope+ Final Progress Report provided a set of indicators to
benchmark the introduction of new technologies into education and everyday life.
The report showed that all Acceding and Candidate Countries have made
significant efforts towards the implementation of a knowledge-based society but
also highlights the need to stimulate the development of interactive, multi-media
rich and multilingual content, as a driver for broadband deployment. The 11
implementation of e-government services, the integration of ICT training into every
students’ education and the deployment of lifelong ICT training were other
measures recommended.

STRATE GIC OV ERV IEW OF THE S M A RT S C H OOL

Q U ALI FICATION STA NDA RDS (S S QS )
The SSQS is unique in that it is possibly the first set of indicators created by a
government organisation for national use and development, as opposed to
international comparison and benchmarking.
Locally developed and driven, the SSQS is positioned internationally as it is
consistent with the 2003 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva.
 The Summit specifically highlighted the need for effective performance monitoring
and evaluation tools of ICT for Development programmes, particularly in the
education sector.

Objectives of the SSQS:

 To increase utilization of ICT in schools
 To develop a system (set of indicators) to measure ICT use in education
 To provide a basis for policy planning and programme improvements
 To raise standards in education
12
 To serve as a catalyst for educational change
 To empower teachers and learners

In any transformation exercise, benchmarks as indicators of success and failure are

required to measure the way work, projects and programmes are conducted. In
implementing ICT in education, indicators focused on utilisation of ICT are given
emphasis.

Efforts and evaluation tools to integrate ICT in education are available globally but to
determine national impact of ICT locally, a localised set of indicators or criteria is
required for measurement and ranking. Performance indicators to monitor the use
and impact of technologies also provide useful information to respond to challenges.

The relationships between the use of technology and educational development;

empowerment of teachers; changes in teaching and learning processes; and student
learning are demonstrated through the benchmark of indicators. It is important to note
that using technology is not an end in itself, but a means to promote educational
outcomes and creativity; empowerment of learners and teachers; and the
development of resourceful learners and problem solvers. In order to assess these
outcomes, appropriate measurement tools and indicators are needed.
13
To transform a school from a non-ICT oriented teaching and learning environment, to
one which maximizes and promotes ICT in education to the fullest, clear direction
and guidance must be given. This includes the training of both the educators (who use
the system) and the technicians (who maintain the system).

Strategically, the thrust of the entire programme is one of monitoring and guidance (as
a form of subtle and gentle enforcement) activities backed by value-add (or
reinforcement) support in identified areas.

Monitoring Programmes – are “enforcement” activities carried out on-line (via

computers) and on-site.
 Value-Add Programmes – are “reinforcement” activities which include training
workshops and infrastructure support, such as:
 Revitalisation Workshops for Principals and Headmasters
 Professional Development for teachers
 Technical Support Enhancement
 Deployment Strategies for SMS/LCMS* to 88 Smart Schools

* These are software applications: School Management System/Learning Content

Management System.

14 STAR RANKING METHODOLOGY

A 4-step methodology has been developed for assessing the 88 Smart Schools and
deriving the Star Ranking of each school:
1. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
The first step to the methodology is to establish Key Performance Indicators of the
ICT Focus Areas. These KPIs set the accepted conditions and assign scores upon
which the Star Ranking is based.
2. Survey and Appraisal
Having established the KPIs, each Smart School will be surveyed to ascertain the
conditions of each ICT Focus Area. The survey will be conducted quarterly while
the online monitoring system captures live data that will verify the survey.
3. Smart School Qualification Standards (SSQS)
The SSQS outlines the ICT Focus Areas each Smart School is appraised on. Each
area carries its own weightage reflecting its significance in the SSQS. The areas
are:
 Utilization 40%
 Applications 40%
 Human Capital 10%
 Technology Infrastructure 10%
15
To qualify as a Smart School, the pilot schools must achieve the minimum
conditions (or 1 star) specified for each KPI within the ICT Focus Areas.

 Utilization: monitors the extent to which the school makes use of ICT in its
operation, management, teaching and learning activities. Utilization accounts
for 40% of the Star Ranking appraisal as it forms the integral part of
transformation.

Examples of KPIs within Utilization are: Student-to-PC contact hours,

courseware integration by teachers for core subjects, SMS updating,
Educational TV and LCMS usage, and student completion of self-learning
modules.
  Human Capital: refers to the competency of end-users in integrating ICT in
teaching, learning and/or administration. Human Capital accounts for 40% of
the Star Ranking appraisal.

Examples of KPIs for Human Capital are: ICT Co-ordinators’ competency,

core-subject teachers’ ICT competency, use of ICT in dissemination of
information, smart partnerships, use of multimedia in teaching and the
students’ awareness of the availability of educational courseware.

 Applications: refers to the various applications provided by the MoE and

16 others that the schools have adopted. It accounts for 10% of the Star Ranking
appraisal.

Examples of KPIs for Applications are: at least 5 modules used for operations
management, LCMS and MoE courseware are used for teaching, and website
presence and maintenance.

 Technology Infrastructure: not only audits the provision of the infrastructure

itself (provided by MoE) but also looks at maintenance and support of the
infrastructure within the schools. As a large portion of the infrastructure
provision is determined by MoE at the central level, this focus area accounts
for only 10% of the Star Ranking appraisal.
 Examples of KPIs for Technology Infrastructure are: PC-to-Student ratio, PC-to-
Teacher ratio, Projector-to-class ratio, PC accessibility, LAN & WAN, and
technology downtime.

4. Star Ranking
The aim of this exercise is the quarterly Star Ranking, where Smart Schools are
measured in the ICT Focus Areas and ranked between 1 to 5 stars.

Schools which do not qualify for any Star Ranking may regard that as a clear
indication that they do not qualify as model smart schools, and urgent steps need
17
to be taken to regain position on the development track.

Schools which show a steady improvement or maintain an exemplary standard in

the key areas will be positioned as ideal role-model Smart Schools.

It is hoped that the 88 schools will make use of the ranking system to qualify
themselves as 5-Star Smart Schools.

The Star Ranking is awarded based on a unified score from the indicators to:
 Serve as a device for monitoring
 Provide information for specific actions to uplift schools
 Facilitate decision and policy making
 The Star Rankings are:

Basic Smart Schools with merely basic conditions across

all indicators

Basic Plus Star ranking for Smart Schools with basic features,
with slight additions but falling below the average
conditions for all indicators.
18
Median Star ranking awarded to Smart Schools with fair or
average conditions of all the indicators.

Advanced A seal of approval awarded to Smart Schools with

good or advanced conditions for most indicators.

Advanced Plus The highest approval ranking, awarded to Smart

Schools with advanced conditions for most
indicators.
 Smart School Qualification Standards (SSQS)
School BASIC BASIC PLUS MEDIAN ADVANCED ADVANCED PLUS
Smart Ranking
Indicators     
School
Indicators (0 < x < 20%) (20% ≤ x < 40%) (40% ≤ x < 60%) (60% ≤ x < 80% (x ≥ 80%)

Utilization 1. Usage of ICT-based applications by 1 application 2 applications 3 applications 4 applications ≥ 5 applications

(40%) administrators in school management
– ICT integration in
2. Usage of Web-based School Management once a month once in 3 weeks once in 2 weeks once a week daily
teaching, learning
System/other ICT-based system by
and school
administrators in school management
administration
3. Usage of ICT equipment (other than once a month once in 3 weeks once in 2 weeks once a weeks daily
computer) by administrators in school
management
4. Usage of electronic tools (email, SMS, once a month once in 3 weeks once in 2 weeks once a week daily
etc) for dissemination of information by
administrators 19
5. Integration of courseware or ICT-based ≤ 1 period 2-3 periods 4-5 periods 6-7 periods ≥ 8 periods
teaching materials by teachers in teaching per month per month per month per month per month
& learning for each subject
6. Usage of Learning Content Management ≤ 60 minutes 61-120 minutes 121-180 minutes per 181-240 minutes ≥ 241 minutes
System by teachers in teaching & learning per month per month month per month per month
7. Usage of Educational TV content by 1 period 2 period 3 periods 4 Periods ≥ 5 periods
teachers in teaching & learning per month per month per month per month per month
8. Usage of educational technology 1 period 2 period 3 period 4 periods ≥ 5 periods
equipment (other than computer & TV) by per month per month per month per month per month
teachers in teaching & learning
9. Usage of internet by teachers for seeking ≤ 60 minutes 61-120 minutes 121-180 minutes per 181-240 minutes ≥ 241 minutes
information in teaching & learning per month per month month per month per month
10. Usage of ICT-based content by teachers to Once in Once a month Once in Once in Once a week
develop new teaching materials 2 months 3 weeks 2 weeks
11. Student-PC contact hours during school ≤ 60 minutes 61-120 minutes 121-180 minutes per 181-240 minutes ≥ 241 minutes
hours for any subjects per month per month month per month per month
12. Usage of Learning Content Management 1 assignment 2-3 assignments 4-5 assignments per 6-7 assignments ≥ 8 assignments
System by student per month per month month per month per month
13. Usage of self-learning modules by student 1 title 2-3 titles 4-5 titles 6-7 titles ≥ 8 titles
per month per month per month per month per month
 School BASIC BASIC PLUS MEDIAN ADVANCED ADVANCED PLUS
Smart Ranking
Indicators     
School
Indicators (0 < x < 20%) (20% ≤ x < 40%) (40% ≤ x < 60%) (60% ≤ x < 80% (x ≥ 80%)

Utilization 14. Student-PC contact hours after school ≤ 60 minutes 61-120 minutes 121-180 minutes per 181-240 minutes ≥ 241 minutes
(40%) hours for learning purposes per week per week week per week per week
– ICT integration in
15. Usage of Resource Centre/Access Centre Once a month Once in 3 weeks Once in 2 weeks Once a week Daily
teaching, learning
for ICT-related work by student
and school
administration 16. Update of activities and data on the Once a year Once in 6 months Once every 3 months Monthly Weekly
relevant modules by IT Coordinator in
Web Based School Management System/
other ICT-based system
17. Update of school portal by IT Coordinator Once a year Once in 6 months Once every 3 months Monthly Weekly

20 HUMAN CAPITAL 1. ICT competency level of Administrator Very Low Low Average High Very High
(40%) 2. Number of ICT-related courses attended 1 2 3 4 ≥5
– ICT competency
by Administrator in the last 3 years
of Administrators,
Teachers, 3. Frequency of ICT Smart-partnership once a year twice per year 6 times a year monthly weekly
IT Coordinators programme with community
and Students 4. Number of in-house ICT training courses 1-2 per year 3-4 per year 5-6 per year 7-8 per year ≥ 9 per year
conducted
5. Frequency of dissemination of information once a year twice a year 6 times a year monthly weekly
regarding ICT by Administrator
6. Frequency of change management once a year twice a year 4 times a year 6 times a year monthly
conducted by Administrator
7. Number of types of ICT-related support 1 per year 2 per year 3 per year 4 per year ≥ 5 per year
from the community
8. Number of innovative programmes 1 per year 2 per year 3 per year 4 per year ≥ 5 per year
conducted in schools
9. ICT competency level of teachers Very Low Low Average High Very High
10. Additional ICT competency level of Very Low Low Average High Very High
teachers
11. Number of ICT-related courses attended 1 2 3 4 ≥5
by teachers in the last 3 years
 School BASIC BASIC PLUS MEDIAN ADVANCED ADVANCED PLUS
Smart Ranking
School Indicators     
Indicators (0 < x < 20%) (20% ≤ x < 40%) (40% ≤ x < 60%) (60% ≤ x < 80% (x ≥ 80%)

HUMAN CAPITAL 12. Number of in-house ICT training courses 1 per year 2 per year 3 per year 4 per year 5 per year
(40%) conducted by teachers
– ICT competency
13. Frequency of dissemination of information once a year twice a year 6 times a year monthly weekly
of Administrators,
regarding ICT by teachers
Teachers,
IT Coordinators 14. ICT competency level of IT Coordinator Very Low Low Average High Very High
and Students 15. Number of ICT-related courses attended 1 2 3 4 ≥5
by IT Coordinator in the last 3 years
16. Number of in-house ICT training courses 1-2 per year 1-4 per year 5-6 per year 7-8 per year ≥ 9 per year
conducted
17. Frequency of dissemination of information once a year twice a year 6 times a year monthly weekly
regarding ICT by IT Coordinator 21
18. ICT competency level of students Very Low Low Average High Very High
19. Additional ICT competency level of Very Low Low Average High Very High
students
20. Number of sources Student refers to for 1 2 3 4 5
ICT-related knowledge

APPLICATION 1. Must have modules for school management 3 4 5 6 >6

(10%) 2. Must have application for the school 1 2 3 4 >4
– IT Coordinator
for the schools 3. Must have a system to manage learning 1 1 1 1 1
content for teaching and learning
4. Must have software for the development of 1 2 3 4 >4
teaching and learning materials
5. Must have courseware/ICT-based learning 1 type 2 types 3 types 4 types > 4 types
material
 School BASIC BASIC PLUS MEDIAN ADVANCED ADVANCED PLUS
Smart Ranking Indicators     
School
Indicators (0 < x < 20%) (20% ≤ x < 40%) (40% ≤ x < 60%) (60% ≤ x < 80% (x ≥ 80%)

APPLICATION 6. Must have a website for the school One website One website One website, One website, One website,
(10%) and updated updated with one updated with two updated with all
– IT Coordinator of the following of the following of the following
for the schools criteria: criteria: criteria:
• maintained • maintained • maintained
• interactive • interactive • interactive
• downloadable • downloadable • downloadable
materials materials materials
7. Must have an email application for the Email Email Email Email application Email application,
school application application application and directory for directory and
the school email groups for
the school
22
INFRASTRUCTURE 1. Number of functioning computers in the 5-10 11-15 16-20 21-30 ≥31
(10%) school
– Administrators 2. Computer: Pupil ratio 1:>12 1: 10-12 1: 6-9 1: 3-5 1: 2
and IT
Coordinators 3. Computer/Notebook: Teacher Ratio 1: >8 1: 6-8 1: 4-6 1: >2-4 1≤ 2
4. LCD Projector: Class Ratio 1:>20 1: 16-20 1: 11-15 1: 5-10 ≤5
5. Accessible computer locations 1 2 3 4 5
6. Percentage of Computers not working ≥ 50% 30% - < 50% 20% - < 30% 10% - < 20% < 10%
more than 24 hours
7. Local Area Network connectivity ≤2 3-4 5-6 >6 ≥7 & wireless
8. Standard maximum downtime >7 times/week 5-6 times/week 3-4 times/week 1-2 times/week 0 time/rarely
9. Internet accessibility 1 location 2 locations 3 locations 4 locations ≥5 locations
10. Maintenance activity Once a month Once every Once every Once a week Daily
3 weeks 2 weeks
MSC Malaysia Client Contact Centre (CliC)
Multimedia Development Corporation Sdn Bhd (389346-D)
MSC Malaysia Headquarters, 2360 Persiaran APEC, 63000 Cyberjaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
Tel: +603 8315 3000   Fax: +603 8318 8519   Email: [email protected]   URL: www.msc.com.my