KEY FINDINGS This Report makes several major findings that are synthesised below.

13.2 KEY FINDINGS This Report makes several major findings that are synthesised below.

First, the NPSTI is not a social policy that tends to be specific both in target groups as well as its targets in correcting various forms of inequality and social exclusion that resulted in the core problem which the particular policy tries to address. Rather, it is a policy of social development or a policy of social transformation with very ambitious targets to be achieved by 2020. While the NPSTI as a policy document has a number of core concepts pertaining to social inclusion, it could be more explicit on its concerns on social inclusion including on vulnerable groups. Further, the NPSTI cannot be studied as a stand-alone policy, but must be located within the broader framework of the national development paradigm within which the idea of social inclusion has been embedded.

Second, the idea of social inclusion has been a guiding principle for Malaysia since its independence in 1957. It is embedded within the Federal Constitution, and underpins Malaysia’s medium and long-term development plans, although the term ‘social inclusion’ was not is usage then. The Report notes that only in the 21 st century has the concept of social inclusion been made explicit in the Malaysian development policies. This is in keeping with the global agenda initiated by the United Nations through

UNESCO and others to promote social inclusion in public policies and strengthen regulatory frameworks for that purpose.

Third, the objectives and priory areas of the four grant programmes do not reflect a balance between natural sciences and social sciences, let alone those outside the academe. Most of the requirements and outcomes tend to support natural sciences education, research and innovations as outlined in the beginning of this Report. It is therefore very important to review the database on successful applicants and the outcome of each project to evaluate the impact on the society at large.

Fourth, the research instruments of EquiFrame, EquIPP and the ‘Framework for Inclusive Policy Design: Malaysia’ from the UNESCO Policy Lab - while to some extent could be generalised in order for NPTSI to be analysed – the instruments need to be used with care and with an understanding of the wider and deeper historical context of Malaysia. The “Analytical Framework for Inclusive Policy Design: Mala ysia” provides the means for such a policy analysis by providing one specific parameter and three policy markers to consider the dynamic character and the evolution and historical evolution of the issues of exclusion and the agenda of inclusive development. EquiFrame, which emphasises core concepts of social inclusion and vulnerable groups as the main criteria to assess inclusiveness, is highly suitable for the study of health policies for example. However, when it is used to study NPSTI, it could only identify 13 core concepts of social inclusion, but could not identify vulnerable groups.

Fifth, while EquiFrame was not readily applicable in the study of NPSTI except as shown in the fourth key finding above, a broader framework was necessary, and in this r egard “Analytical Framework For Inclusive Policy Design” developed under the UNESCO Inclusive Policy Lab was helpful. At the same, the EquIPP also was useful for the purpose of assessing the processes of social inclusion in policy making.

Sixth, the asses sment of the four grant programmes under NPSTI shows that they achieve a “moderate level” score in terms of social inclusion based on EquIPP instrument. However, the grant documents cannot be analysed in themselves as they need to be backed or complemented by documents that are

kept in files that are not readily available and also from information gathered through interviews with the relevant MOSTI officers with the institutional memory. Only by combining these methods that these grant programmes achieve th e ‘moderate’ score above.

Seventh, this study made use of the three instruments in various ways, and in the process, had developed its own broad approach by combining the various methods. This approach is called ANJUNG Framework, which is an acronym for “Analysis of Networks and Juxtapositions of social inclusiveness Underpinning National Governance” (see Chapter 14 for details).