A group assignment for the subject 'Budget Administration', Master of Public Policy, University Malaya. This subject was taught by Tan Sri Sulaiman Mahbob, former Director-General of Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister's Department and current Chairman of Felda Global Ventures (FGV).

1. 1
MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
PUBLIC POLICY AND MANAGEMENT (INPUMA)
UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA
KUALA LUMPUR
GROUP ASSIGNMENT:
THE EVOLUTION OF BUDGETING SYSTEM IN MALAYSIA
PREPARED BY:
Atiya Rasool (ZGA130025)
Mohd Hasim Ujang (ZGA110011)
Nik Amir Hanif Nik Roslan (ZGA130024)
Nur Hani Alias (ZGA130005)
Nurul Mardhiah Baharun (ZGA13022)
Pang Siew Chin (ZGA130016)
Safwan Salleh (ZGA130009)
Submitted to: Prof. Tan Sri Sulaiman Mahbob
ZIGP 6119: BUDGET ADMINISTRATION
Date: 3/11/2014

2. 2
INTRODUCTION
Budgeting system refers to the combination of methods, techniques, plus the overall bureaucratic
structures, processes and applications or instruments that are used to prepare, present and execute
government budgets. Different budgeting system in different countries will apply different approaches
for planning, controlling and evaluating the roles and effectiveness of the allocated budgets and
programs. In Malaysia, budgets are prepared annually and they form part of the national development
plans which in return are produced every 5 years, thus known the Five Year Malaysia Plan.
The Ministry of Finance is responsible for the preparation of annual budgets whereas the Economic
Planning Unit (EPU) under the Prime Minister’s Department is responsible for the preparation of the
Five Year Malaysia Plan. Both agencies seek inputs from all ministries to prepare the annual budget
and the Five Year Malaysia Plan. This paper focuses on discussing the evolution the annual
budgeting system under the purview of the Treasury. Since 16
th
September 1963, the country has
undergone several modifications to the national budgeting system which can be described by the
following milestones:
1. Line Budgeting System,
2. Program and Performance Budgeting System (PPBS),
3. Modified Budgeting System (MBS), and
4. Outcome Based Budgeting (OBB).
The evolution of Malaysian budgeting system started as a reform from the government which was
initiated as part of an effort by the government to develop the country strategically and efficiently.
These budgetary reforms focused on greater accountability, prudent and disciplined financial
management within the various government agencies as well as equitable distribution of resources in
order to carry out sustainable and equitable development programs for the country. These reforms
are intended to transform public budgeting systems away from simplistic control and distribution
towards a greater focus on outputs, outcomes and efficiency in the interest of improving operational
sustainability and promoting results-oriented accountability. This paper succinctly analyses the
budgetary reforms that were carried out and benefits that were gained from there reforms.
LINE ITEM BUDGETING
Line Item Budgeting was the first phase in the evolution of budgeting system. The dominant emphasis
was to provide an adequate system of expenditure control. Although planning and management
considerations were not altogether absent, yet these criteria were sidelined in favour of a reliable
system of expenditure accounts.
Features of Line Item Budgeting
Line Item budgeting, also called traditional budgeting lists in vertical columns, each of the revenue
sources and each of the expenditure class items. Each line item is given the same weight or
importance even though some are more complex than the other. The structure is simple,

3. 3
straightforward and easy to prepare. The funds are broadly allocated amongst main account heads
and not distributed among programs and activities. Similarly it does not consider what goods and
services are being produced and in what quantity and quality. By taking last year’s expenditure as the
‘base’ for estimation, future expenditures are forecasted. However, the efficiency and effectiveness is
not taken into consideration (Xavier, 2002). The budget execution was tightly controlled from
Treasury. Departments needed prior Treasury approval to spend on the individual items or to transfer
funds from one line item to another. Such a control existed even though the budget had been
approved by Parliament (Schick, 1966).
Strengths and Weaknesses of Line Item Budgeting
The biggest advantage of Line Item Budgeting is that it is simple, straightforward and comparatively
easy to prepare. However this type of budget is only suitable for lower management levels such as
city council or local government. The simplicity of the system makes it easier for the city council and
administrator to monitor revenues and expenditures (Combs, 2003).
However, it relies heavily on expenditure control with no concern for efficiency and effectiveness. The
centralized authority to spend leaves little or no control with departmental managers over their
budgets or expenditure decisions (Xavier, 2002). There is no flexibility to shift resources to desired
areas so that service delivery expediently meets the dynamics and needs of the prevailing
environment. Expenditure decisions are tightly and rigidly controlled by a centralized and elaborate
system of bureaucratic rules and procedures (Combs, 2003).The Treasury had to rely upon a
ministry’s previous year’s estimates and expenditure to allocate future funds. This inhibits the
innovative and rational allocation of funds to meet future demands. The funds are not distributed into
programs and activities of an item of expenditure. Hence, there are no means of knowing how much
to budget for a particular agency operation (Xavier, 2002).
Line Item Budgeting in Malaysia
The government inherited Line Item Budgeting from colonial period. After independence, the socio –
economic development expansion more than doubled public expenditure. In 1966 two American
consultants - Montgomery (Harvard University) and Esman (University of Pittsburgh) – recommended
Malaysian Government to adopt Program and Performance Budgeting (Xavier, 2002). Later, the
government also realized that Line Item Budgeting was unable to handle the escalating expenditure
and the increasing complexity of government management. Therefore, the Malaysian version of
Program and Performance Budgeting was devised and adopted in 1969 (Xavier, 2002).
PROGRAM & PERFORMANCE BUDGETING
Concept
Budgeting in a simplest meaning is a systematic way in allocating the resources which involve
forecasting revenue and expenditure of the government. The real essences of management of budget
are the balance between expenditure and revenue as well the efficiency of the government
expenditure. Various types of budgeting systems of the government have been used in order to
provide and maintain public goods. The Program and Performance Budgeting System (PPBS) as
developed and adopted following the Montgomery-Esman review which was submitted to the

4. 4
Malaysian Government in 1966. It was the first budget reform being taken by Malaysia which was fully
in force in 1969.
The concept of performance budgeting is based on the performances of previously allocated
programs and/or allocations. The agencies need to develop systematic and specific mechanism in
measuring the outcomes in order to be used in determining how well the agencies achieve their
objectives in carrying out the approved programs under the annual budget. With regards to that, it is
all about the appropriation of funds and whether the funds are utilized efficiently and effectively to
meet the objective of the specified programs. By having such objective setting, it would allow an
agency or organization to prepare a budget according to the priorities based on rank order objectives
(Hager, G et.al., 2001). The diagram below illustrates the mechanism of planning, approving,
executing, monitoring and reviewing outcomes of the allocations under PPBS:
Figure 1 Performance Budgeting Framework
Why Change to PPBS?
The government introduced the PPBS in 1969 as the government was concerned on the inadequacy
of the line item budgeting system to serve the country’s development needs (Xavier, J.A., 1996).
PPBS brought a few significant changes to the management and budgetary system in Malaysia using
program-activity format. The performance budgeting system estimates performance of an agencies’
program financially and physically. This helped the review of the government’s budget proposal by the
legislative with more focus on programs’ output and outcomes. In addition, the Treasury introduced a
simplified coding classification for expenditure and revenue for better budgeting as well as monitoring
exercises (Xavier, J.A., 1996).
PPBS also aligned the government programs to achieve organizational objectives and to match
between the input and output by requiring all departments and agencies to form and devise their
program structures cohesively. For example, if the objective is preservation of natural environment
then one of the programs should be Air Pollution Control. According to the Treasury Circular 5, PPBS
also required forward estimates for four years ahead of the new budget year which included the
projection on the operating expenditures for development projects coming (as cited in Xavier, J.A.,
1996). The Treasury also required all agencies to submit the estimation of their budget and to report
Strategic Needs
Strategic Planning Policies/Objectives
Programs and Activities
Budgeting
Inputs
Outputs and Outcomes
Implementation, Control and
Review
Performance Monitoring and
Reporting
Programs/Activities

5. 5
on the performance data for three years which comprised of past which is the actual, present which is
the estimates and budget year which is the targets for each of the programs. Through the estimation,
the performance had to relate with the program and the objectives of the activity. For example, to
measure the increase in the number of school children given primary education so in order to
evaluate the performance, a target of level of performance has to be quantified. The cost of achieving
the target would be the budget for that particular program.
The sum of all the cost for all programs will be the ministry budget and aggregation of all budgets from
all ministries will become government budget. Through PPBS, the Treasury sought to free the
managers from the structure of centralized controls (Xavier, J.A., 1996). This means that the
managers would be provided with much power in terms of budget management where it enables them
to allocate resources to areas of service delivery that are important and relevant to the prevailing
needs of the ministry’s clients. At the same time, this reform enabled the inclusive involvement of the
top, middle and lower management in the budgetary decision making. The monitoring process takes
place by overseeing the performance of the program physically and financially in the course of budget
execution. Achievement of the performance targets will be reported in order to find the reasons if
there is any inconsistency between the actual and the targeted performance during control and review
process to address any existing gap.
Strengths and Weaknesses of PPBS
Firstly, the PPBS enables agencies and departments to prepare and come out with a budget which
will be based on the cost of delivering the targeted outputs rather than by just detailing expenditure
requirements in a particular year. The inputs to produce desired outputs will be accounted as costs as
outputs are the ones that would lead to the desired outcomes. Through outcomes, managers can see
whether they achieve their objectives or not. Secondly, PPBS allows a department to focus on outputs
and outcomes rather than on inputs alone. The focus not only on how much being spent but also what
has being achieved from the amount being spent.
On the other hand, some of the weaknesses that can be identified in PPBS is that it does not fully
determine the objectives and provide alternative course of actions if objectives are not met. Basically,
it is much more focused on the how well the budget being spent and what has being achieved from
such expenditure. In order to evaluate that, the budget must be spent first in order to see how the
actual output from the spending. So, it somehow limits the effectiveness of evaluation and mitigation
of errors especially in terms of identifying other alternatives of course of actions. The second
weakness of PPBS is that it is difficult to determine the appropriate performance measures. This is
because in order to conduct evaluation in terms of performance, it must be quantifiable. This
somehow causes difficulties especially in measuring customer satisfaction as it is hard to quantify it.
MODIFIED BUDGETING SYSTEM (MBS)
Concept
A modification was made to overcome the weaknesses of Program Performance Budgeting System to
bring about the Modified Budgeting System (MBS) through Treasury Circular No. 8 & 11. According to

6. 6
Xavier (1996), budget is basically a plan of what the government intends to do in a budget year and
how it proposes to raise and use the resources for this purpose. Basically, MBS is a system that
designed to establish the logical linkages on the relationship between inputs, outputs and impacts.
Input is categorized under emoluments, supplies and services, assets, grants and fixed charges and
other expenditures. Output refers to the product or services produced by the government or its
agencies. The effectiveness of both input and output are measured in terms of the quantity (amount of
output produced), timeliness (output is produced on time) and also costs (cost per unit of producing
the goods and services).
The MBS reflects the treasury’s approach in which they need to overcome the weaknesses of the
existing financial management approaches and procedures such as problems of incremental
budgeting and gaming through incorporating the New Public Management features. Besides that,
MBS was based on program-activities approach (Karbhari & Sani Mohamad, 2007). Meaning to say, it
is within a long term macro planning strategies. The planned strategies made by the ministries need
to be focused on a systematic and structured performance measurement. Those strategies involved
linkages with policy making, resource management, program performance improvement and other
crucial success factors in performance management (Tam, 2013).
MBS has two objectives. The first objective is the rational and improved allocation of resources
(Xavier, 1996) to the government programmes. In order for the government to achieve this objective,
they need to impose a budget limits upon agencies and making a link between inputs and outputs.
The second objective of MBS is better and accountable program management. This is achieved by
adopting better management practices which encourages greater flexibility in the use and distribution
of resources from the Treasury to the agencies as well to the program and activity managers. The
budget flexibility is important to enable line management to redeploy their resources according to the
changed priorities and circumstances.
Furthermore, MBS seeks to re-orient the focus of accountability from mere compliance to rules and
procedures to issues of program efficiency and effectiveness. In this context, MBS will seek to
measure the performance against predetermined output targets. According to Xavier (1996), the
departments must evaluate their programmes and activities to assess their impact and relevance
towards those particular programmes and activities. All the performance will be under the
responsibility of the managers. Thus, in exchange for this accountability, the managers would be
given greater flexibility in managing those resources.
Feature
There are four features of MBS (Thomas, n.d). The first feature is expenditure target. The ministry
must not exceed the expenditure target for the existing and minor new policy purposes. Thus, the
Treasury provides them with a single, specific, numerical target for expenditure from the operating
budget. This is to make sure that the submission for the existing policy proposals does not exceed the
target. As for the major policy changes, they need to submit a separately. For the charged
expenditures, one-offs and major new policy charges, it will be excluded from those targets. The

7. 7
second feature is program agreements and exceptions reports. It means that the ministries are
required to prepare an Integrated Planning Framework known as program agreements. It consists of
proposed levels of performance for each activity and the proposed mix of resources to be used by the
activity. At the end of the financial year, the ministries are required to provide Treasury with
exceptions reports on areas where the actual performance was inconsistent with what was agreed
upon in the program agreements with the Treasury. These exception reports urge the ministries to
take measures to address emerging problems and to conduct more in-depth program evaluations.
The third feature is cycle of program evaluations. More in-depth evaluations are required to assist the
decision-making on major policy changes. This is because the program agreements will often be
limited to issues of operational performance. The evaluation was conducted at least once in five
years. These evaluations would provide the basis for the consideration of new policy proposals. Lastly
is a more generalized approach to expenditure control. It is to provide for stricter aggregate controls
while detailed controls are rationalized, reduced and even removed if necessary. By having stricter
aggregate control with reduction in detailed control, it saved more time and reduced red tapes for
specific approvals.
Strength & Weaknesses
MBS was implemented on the principles of “Let Managers Manage” using a combination of “top-
down” and “bottom-up” approaches where mid-level managers were empowered to utilise resources
and generate outputs as cost effectively as possible resulting in program effectiveness. An
Internalised Self-Evaluation (ISE) Model that would complement the MBS was designed because
evaluation has evolved into not than just an external event but rather one with emphasis on
development and capacity building. The ISE looks at performance or results at various levels in
program implementation to understand the nature of the problem, its linkages and its historical
perspective and suggest how best to overcome them. This has resulted in greater innovation, better-
targeted program delivery and more positive and committed attitude towards recommendations for
program improvement. The ISE enabled the development of a framework for monitoring, formative
(on-going) and summative (discrete) evaluation since they are interlinked through an IPMF (Program
Agreement). A trained moderator would initialise the process by way of workshop environment. It
induces a new approach to evaluation by indulging and engaging stakeholder and operatives in
serious discussion about results and using this information for program planning and implementation.
Benefits from Implementing the ISE
Stakeholders and managers have ownership over the evaluation process.
The goal of the evaluation is not to prove but rather to improve in line with the new paradigm.
Evaluation is ingrained in the day-to-day operations of an organization as part of the
developmental process.
There was improved communication and better understanding between groups within the
programs and between programs.

8. 8
Discover new knowledge about effective practices contributing to innovation.
An important benefit of internal evaluation is organisational learning, a way for the organisation to
assess its progress and to change in ways that lead to greater effectiveness. Within the organizational
context the ISE is a tool for managers to guide organisational management and decision making that
contributes to organisational design and organisational learning. Therefore it is critical to integrate
monitoring and evaluation into organisational life. Moreover, under the MBS, which is driven by a
common IPMF monitoring and evaluation is designed as an integral part of this framework. The
success of ISE would therefore depend on these key factors:
There must be top management support and commitment for planning, monitoring and
evaluation.
Positive and capable leadership to understand and internalise the evaluation function into
organizational life.
Organisational culture to support continuous learning and critical program review for improved
decision-making.
Challenges in Implementing the ISE Model
Continuous Capacity Building; is one of the biggest challenge in keeping the momentum going.
High staff turnover is one of the main concerns in ensuring that evaluation is undertaken
continuously. One urgent solution would be to institutionalise knowledge and develop a decision
support system internally so that staff turnover does not impact on the evaluation process.
Evaluation is commonly perceived as an externally driven event although it is part of the program
cycle. Traditionally, program managers have been involved only in program planning and
implementation while evaluation was perceived as an externally driven initiative. This challenge
makes evaluation part and parcel of the program manager’s responsibility and to build it into the
developmental process along with planning and implementation.
Objectivity of an evaluation conducted internally by program managers may be questioned as
there is potential for bias. Program managers who implement the programs may be tempted not
to report serious issues that may arise from the evaluation. Reporting bias can be minimised
under ISE by way of peer reviews, audits and meta evaluations which has been quite effective
in Malaysia.
OUTCOME-BASED BUDGETING (OBB)
The growing emphasis on accountability and transparency in the use of public funds has driven the
Government to introduce a new budgeting system known as Outcome-based Budgeting (OBB). The
announcement of the implementation of OBB in public sector was made by the Prime Minister during
the 2010 budget speech. The system was developed in 2010 and implemented since the 10
th
Malaysian Plan (2011-2015) to replace the existing Modified Budgeting System (MBS).

9. 9
The OBB is aimed to address the weaknesses of MBS through strategic integration of planning,
budgeting, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation at various levels in the public sector. Under the
OBB approach, emphasis will be given to the impact and effectiveness of projects and programs,
instead of expenditure and output. In addition, Government expenditure will emphasize value-for-
money as well as programs and projects with high multiplier effects.
The objectives of the OBB are as follows:
a) to ensure greater budgetary alignment with the country’s strategic agenda
b) to empower officials in managing and monitoring resources
c) to increase accountability at all levels
d) to emphasize value-for-money expenses
A special OBB team was formed to expedite the implementation of OBB. The team comprises of four
main committees and two subcommittees that are responsible to implement and monitor OBB’s
performance at national and ministry level. The committees that were established are as follows:
i. National OBB Steering Committee (NOSC)
• NOSC is chaired by the Secretary General of Treasury, Ministry of Finance (MOF) who
determines the policies and directions of the OBB in the public sector.
• NOSC is responsible to develop the OBB and continuously improve the system.
ii. Central Performance Management Committee (CPMC)
• The Director of National Budget, MOF chairs this committee that will be responsible to
review, recommend and evaluate all ministries’ estimated budget.
• In addition, the CPMC is also responsible to review and analyse ministries’ performance
reports which will be submitted to the Secretaries-General of Ministries and Heads of
Services Meeting, National Development Planning Committee (NDPC) Meeting, Cabinet
Meeting and the Parliament.
iii. Program Rationalisation Committee (PRC)
• The PRC is co-chaired by the Deputy Secretary General of Treasury (Policy) and Deputy
Director General of Economic Planning Unit (EPU). The PRC is tasked to review,
evaluate and recommend new programs and activities proposed by ministries.
iv. Ministry OBB Implementation Committee (MOIC)
• MOIC (chaired by the ministry’s Controlling Officer – Pegawai Pengawal) is established
in each Ministry to monitor the implementation and success of OBB.
• Two sub-committees are formed under the MOIC:

10. 10
(a) Program Performance Management Committee (PPMC)
- Chaired by the Program Manager, the PPMC is responsible to monitor the
implementation and achievement of program outcomes.
(b) Activity Performance Management Committee (APMC)
- The APMC is chaired by the Head of Activities to monitor the implementation and
success of activity achievement
The Outcome Based Approach (OBA) under the 10
th
Malaysian Plan has introduced the National
Results Framework (NRF). To ensure that the national outcomes (NRF) can be achieved, the OBA
has to be supported by the Ministry Results Framework (MRF) which is developed under the OBB.
The MRF is an integrated results framework comprised of planning, budgeting, monitoring and
outcomes reporting. Under the OBB, each ministry is tasked to identify its outcomes and programs
that contribute (directly or indirectly) to national level outcomes and programs under the NRF. By
focusing on outcomes, programs would be easier to be targeted, while maximizing the use of
resources to achieve the desired outcomes planned. Emphasis is given to the achievement of the
planned outcomes, therefore programs and activities are designed to ensure the contribution and
achievement of those outcomes.
The OBB is a budgeting system that is used to translate planning into results through the
implementation of policy and programs. By focusing on outcomes, planning, budgeting,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation, resource allocation are optimized and integrated properly
into an efficient system (Tam, A, 2013). The program is also intended to build stronger connections
between national and ministerial priorities and programming, foster clear and unified lines of
responsibility and create better audit oversight and reporting. At ministry level, the four milestones in
OBB are specified as follows:
i. Outcome-based planning.
The Ministry OBB Plan, otherwise referred to as Ministry Performance Agreement (MPA) are to
be prepared as a high level management and supervisory tool by the Controlling Officer to
delegate power and responsibilities to Program Manager and Head of Activity. The OBB Strategic
Template on which the MPA is based seeks to align the MRF with NRF, to eliminate overlapping
functions or programs within and outside the ministry as well as to generate a holistic view on the
preparation of budget in an integrated and cohesive manner. The OBB Strategic Template
consists of the following components:
Ministerial Executive Summary;
Program Performance Management Framework (PPMF); and
Activity Performance Management Network.

11. 11
The outcome-based planning should be done to specify the Ministry’s desired goals and
outcomes for the next five years with annual review of the milestones and achievements.
The OBB Strategic Cycle consists of four milestones:
ii. Budget Preparation
The estimations for Operating and Development Expenditure (OE & DE) are to be
prepared by the Ministry based on the agreed outcome in the MPA. The budgets are
prepared and approved annually with strict monitoring by the Treasury and EPU.
iii. Monitoring and Evaluation
This cycle involves rigorous internal monitoring and evaluation by each ministry to ensure
compliance to the MPA.
iv. Reporting of Outcome Results
To ensure compliance to the MPA, MRF and NRF, each ministry must submit the following
reports to the Treasury:
Ministry’s Quarterly and Annual Performance Report;
Quarterly and Annual Cash Flow Projection;
MOIC Report;
Quarterly and Annual Monitoring Report on Programs and Activities;
Formative Appraisal Report on Programs and Activities; and
Summative Appraisal Report on Programs and Activities.
CONCLUSION
The government plays an important role in the economic life of the state through the revenue and
expenditure measures of its budget. The economy and the budget are interrelated. In addition, the
economic consideration indicates that the budget has some functions such as in allocation,
distribution and stabilization. Different budgeting system will apply different approaches for planning,
controlling and evaluation roles of budgeting, so that’s the reason why we have evolution in our
budgeting system. We have gone through four type of budgeting system which are Line Budgeting
System, Program and Performance Budgeting System (PPBS), Modified Budgeting System (MBS),
and Outcome Based Budgeting (OBB).
There is however so much uncertainty surrounding the economic scenario under which various
economic forecasts are made in a national budget. Each year the needs and goals of the budgeting
system are different. Having undergone four types of budgeting evolution, who’s to say that we would
not have a fifth type of budgeting system later on. It is an ongoing process of perfecting and adapting
to the current economic situation and it will keep on evolving. As Charles Lindblom, a Yale Professor
of Political Science would say, budgeting which is a part of policy formulation, is a “science of
muddling through”.

12. 12
REFERENCES
Combs, S. (2003). Budget Manual. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.
Schick, A. (1966). the Road to PPB: The Stages of Budget Reform. Public Administration
Review, 26(4), 243–258. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/973296
Xavier, J. A. (2002). Understanding MBS (the modified budgeting system) (p. 111).
Hager, G. et.al. (2001). Legislative research commission program review and investigations
committee performance-based budgeting: Concepts and examples. Program Review & Investigation
Committee Staff Report, Retrieved from http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/RR302.pdf.
Xavier. (1996). Budget reform-the malaysian experience . Public Administration and Development,
16, 485-501. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.um.edu.my:2694/doi/10.1002/(SICI)1099-
162X(199612)16:5<485::AID-PAD913>3.0.CO;2-C/pdf.
Karbhari, Y., & Sani Mohamad, M. H. (2007). The Impact of the Modified Budgeting System
(MBS) on Performance Measurement in Malaysian Central Government Organisations.
Retrieved October 20, 2014, from http://irep.iium.edu.my/10967/1/PM-EIASM-07 -
the_impact_of_the_MBS_on_perf_measures-.pdf
Tam, A. (2013, January). Retrieved October 20, 2014, from Enhancing Monitoring and
Evaluation for Better Results:
http://www.parlimen.gov.my/images/webuser/artikel/ro/amy/Results-
based%20Management6.pdf
Ministry of Finance, Malaysia November 2008
C.Y.Fook & K.Thomas, (2005). Managing Knowledge Building Through Utilisation Focused
Evaluation in Malaysia, 11th Annual UKES Conference, Manchester.
Thomas, K. (n.d.). Retrieved October 20, 2014, from A Short Introduction to the Malaysia
Budgeting System: http://api.ning.com
Ministry of Finance, (2013), Bajet Berasaskan Outcome, Pekeliling Perbendaharan Malaysia
Bil. 2 Tahun 2012.
The 2010 Budget Speech. (2009, October 23). Retrieved October 21, 2014, from
http://www.sabah.gov.my/main/Content/budget/National/NationalBudget10.pdf
Tam, A. (2013). Enhancing Monitoring and Evaluation For Better Results. Retrieved October
21, 2014, from http://www.parlimen.gov.my/webuser/artikel/ro/amy/Results-
based%20Management6.pdf
Perbendaharaan Malaysia Pasukan Projek OBB, (2012, June 2012). Pelaksanaan Outcome-
Based Budgeting, Persidangan Penolong Akauntan Sektor Awam Kali Ke-10.