Harnessing Talent towards an Inclusive Malaysia

Harnessing Talent towards an Inclusive Malaysia

An Assessment of the National Policy on Science, Technology and Innovation (NPSTI) in Enhancing Social Inclusion in Research and Innovation

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia And United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Jakarta Office

Project funded by Malaysian Funds-in-Trust for UNESCO

Harnessing Talent Towards

An Inclusive Malaysia

An Assessment of the National Policy on Science, Technology and Innovation (NPSTI) in Enhancing Social Inclusion in Research and Innovation FINAL REPORT

United Nations Educational, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Scientific and Cultural

Bangi, Malaysia Organization (UNESCO) Jakarta

2016

13.4 MOVING FORWARD ..................................................................................................... 77 CHAPTER 14: ANJUNG FRAMEWORK: ANALYSIS OF NETWORKS AND

JUXTAPOSITIONS OF SOCIAL INCLUSIVENESS UNDERPINNING NATIONAL GOVERNANCE ······························································································································· 77

14.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 77

14.2 THE NEED FOR AN EXTENDED NARRATIVE ......................................................... 78

14.3 THE JUXTAPOSITION OF THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL INCLUSION WITH SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................... 78

14.4 ELEMENTS OF ANJUNG FRAMEWORK .................................................................... 79

14.5 APPLYING ANJUNG FRAMEWORK BEYOND THE NSTPI .................................... 81 REFERENCES ······································································································································ 82 APPENDIX 1: COMMERCIALISATION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FUND (CRDF)

······························································································································································· 85 APPENDIX 2: SDG INDICATORS RELATED TO MONITORING SOCIAL INCLUSIVENESS OF

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION ············································································· 90

ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

10MP Tenth Malaysia Plan 11MP

Eleventh Malaysia Plan ABI

Agro-Biotechnology Institute Malaysia AIM

Malaysia Innovation Agency AIN

Anugerah Inovasi Negara (National Innovation Award) APEC

Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation ASEAN

Association of Southeast Asian Nations B40

Bottom 40 BCF

Biotechnology Commercialisation Fund CCs

Core Concepts CIF

Community InnoFund CRDF

Commercialisation of Research & Development Fund DOSM

Department of Statistics Malaysia EIF

Enterprise InnoFund EPPs

Entry Points Projects EPR

End of Project Report EPU

Economic Planning Unit EquIPP

Equity and Inclusion in Policy Processes ETP

Economic Transformation Programme EWGs

Expert Working Groups FOR

Fields of Research FTA

Free Trade Agreement GDP

Gross Domestic Product GERD

Gross Expenditure on Research & Development GRIs

Government Research Institutions

GSIAC Global Science and Innovation Advisory Council GTP

Government Transformation Programme HIP

High Impact Programmes ICT

Information and Communication Technology IHLs

Institutions of Higher Learning IKMAS

Institute of Malaysian and International Studies IP

Intellectual Property IPL

Inclusive Policy Lab JKD

Jawatankuasa Kelulusan Dana (Funds Approval Committee)

JPK Jawatankuasa Pemantauan Khas (Special Monitoring Committee) LGBTI

Lesbian. Gay, Bisexual, Trans and/or Intersexual KPWKM

Ministry of Women, Family and Community Affairs MAPEN

Majlis Perundingan Negara (National Consultative Council)

MASTIC Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre MIGHT

Malaysia Industry-Government High Technology Group MOA

Ministry of Agriculture MOSTI

Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation MoU

Memorandum of Understanding MPI

Multidimensional Poverty Index MSI

MOSTI Social Innovation Fund MTDC

Malaysia Technology Development Corporation MyIPO

Intellectual Property Corporation of Malaysia MyNDS

Malaysian National Development Strategy MYR

Malaysian Ringgit NAM

Non-Aligned Movement NEM

New Economic Model NEP

New Economic Policy NGO

Non-Governmental Organisations NIC

National Innovation Council NICE

National Innovation Conference and Exhibition

NIP National Integrity Plan NKEAs

National Key Economic Areas NKRAs

National Key Result Areas NOD

National Oceanographic Directorate NPSTI

National Policy on Science, Technology and Innovation NSRC

National Science Research Council OBOR

One Belt One Road OECD

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

OIC Organisation of Islamic Cooperation PMO

Prime Minister’s Office PMTs

Project Monitoring Teams POC

Proof of Concept PRIs

Public Research Institutes R&D

Research and Development R,D&C

Research, Development and Commercialisation RIs

Research Institutions RMCs

Research Management Centres SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals SEO

Socioeconomic Objectives SMEs

Small and Medium Enterprises SPS

Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary SRIs

Strategic Reform Initiatives STI

Science, Technology and Innovation STP

Science and Technology Policy TAF

Technology Acquisition Fund TOR

Terms of Reference TVET

Technical and Vocational Education and Training UKM

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (National University of Malaysia) UMT

Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (University of Malaysia, Terengganu) UNCT

United Nations Country Team

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation VGs

Vulnerable Groups WHO

World Health Organisation WTO

World Trade Organisation YIM

Yayasan Inovasi Malaysia (Malaysia Innovation Foundation)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS NATIONAL WORKING GROUP – MALAYSIA

Emeritus Prof. Dato’ Dr. Abdul Rahman Embong (Team Leader), Principal Research Fellow, Institute of Malaysian and International Studies (IKMAS), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Prof Dr. Rahimah Abdul Aziz (Chief Researcher), Centre for Social, Development and Environment Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Prof Dr. Rashila Ramli, Director & Principal Research Fellow, Institute of Malaysian and International Studies (IKMAS), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Dr. Husyairi Bin Harunarashid, Coordinator of Research Unit, Department of Emergency Services, Hospital Tuanku Mukhriz, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Mdm Chan Hong Jin, Deputy Division Secretary, Planning Division RSE Unit, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI)

Associate Prof. Dr. Sity Daud, Chairperson , Centre for History, Politics and Strategic Studies , Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Dr. Andrew Kam Jia Yi, Fellow, Institute of Malaysian and International Studies (IKMAS), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Dr. Sharifah Syahirah Syed Sheikh, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Cognitive and Human Development Kolej Poly-Tech MARA

Encik Hariszuan Jabarudin (Research Team Secretariat), Junior Fellow, Institute of Malaysian and International Studies (IKMAS), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

We would like to acknowledge with thanks the following colleagues from Malaysia who have given their contribution to the study during different stages of the project implementation:

Dr. Lee Yok Fee, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Human Ecology, Universiti Putra Malaysia

Puan Mastura Mohd Zaki, Assistant Secretary, Planning Division RSE Unit, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI)

Puan Nur Fakhriyyah El-Emin Muhardi, Deputy Director, Education Planning and Research Division Ministry of Education Malaysia

Encik Faizal Bin Hj Zainudin, Principal Assistant Secretary - M 52, Labour Policy Section, Ministry of Human Resource

INTERNATIONAL CONSORTIUM OF EXPERTS

Ms. Anita Sykes-Kelleher, UNESCO Policy Lab

Ms. Jessica Gardner, UNESCAP Pacific Operations Centre (EPOC), Bangkok

Mr. Mac Maclachlan, Director of the Centre for Global Health, Trinity College, University of Dublin

Mr. Hasheem Manan, Health Sciences Centre, University College Dublin

Ms. Tessy Huss, Centre for Global Health and School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin

UNESCO

Mr. Irakli Kodeli, Programme Specialist of Social and Human Sciences Sector, UNESCO Office Jakarta Cluster Office to Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines and Timor-Leste

Mr. John Crowley, Chief of Research, Policy and Foresight Section, Sector for Social and Human Sciences, UNESCO Paris

Ms. Sue Vize, Regional Adviser for Social and Human Sciences Asia-Pacific, Social and Human Sciences UNESCO Bangkok

We would also like to put on record our thanks to the following individuals and institutions in Malaysia and abroad that have contributed directly or indirectly to the successful conclusion of this study:

H.E. Hon. Dato’ Sri Rohani Abdul Karim, Minister of Women, Family and Community Development of Malaysia; President of the UNESCO Inter-Governmental Council (IGC) of the Management of Social Transformation (MOST) Programme

H.E. Dato’ Sri Dr. Noorul Ainur Mohd Nur, Secretary General, Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) Malaysia; Immediate Past Vice President of Asia-Pacific Region of the UNESCO Intergovernmental Council (IGC) of the Management of Social Transformations (MOST) Programme

Malaysia Fund-in-Trust (MFIT)

UNESCO Jakarta & Paris

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)

Institute of Malaysian and International Studies (IKMAS) UKM

Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities UKM

Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI), Malaysia

Malaysian Science and Technology Information Centre (MASTIC)

Ministry of Education, Malaysia

Ministry of Human Resource, Malaysia

Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development, Malaysia

National Commission for UNESCO Malaysia

Universiti Putra Malaysia

Faculty of Cognitive and Human Development, Kolej Poly-Tech MARA

Department of Statistics Malaysia

Trinity College, University of Dublin

University College Dublin

UNESCAP Bangkok

NGOs and Individuals from Malaysia and Timor Leste who had attended the National Workshop in June 2015 and the National Dialogue in March 2016

All resource persons interviewed in the course of this research for information and perspectives related to NPSTI and its programmes

PREFACE

This Report is an outcome of the project entitled “Harnessing Talent Towards An Inclusive Malaysia: An assessment of the National Policy on Science, Technology and Innovation (NPSTI) in enhancing social inclusion in research and innovation”. The project was funded by UNESCO under the Malaysia Fund-in-Trust (MFIT) and conducted by the National Working Group of researchers, under the

leadership of key researchers from the Institute of Malaysian and International Studies (IKMAS) Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) with the collaboration of an international consortium of experts provided by UNESCO.

The study was conducted for almost a year beginning July 2015 and ending in May 2016. The overall objective of this initiative was to strengthen national capacity in Malaysia to assess and reform social policy and regulatory frameworks toward increasing their inclusiveness and ensuring equal enjoyment of human rights by all, including the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in the country. The specific objectives of the study were:

 To identify aspects/attributes/elements of social inclusion in the National Policy on Science, Technology & Innovation 2013-2020 (NPSTI);  To assess the degree of inclusiveness in the areas of research and innovation in NPSTI; and

 To assess the quality of relevant data and identify gaps and issues to be addressed. The National Working Group chaired by IKMAS UKM benefitted tremendously from the contribution

of various parties in the course of conducting this research. As a necessary prelude to the study, a Policy Initiation Workshop on the theme “Promoting Social Inclusion through Public Policy in Malaysia” was organised by UNESCO and IKMAS in Putrajaya, Malaysia on 8-10 June 2015 during which experts from UNESCO Policy Lab and Trinity College Dublin presented their research instruments namely: The UNESCO Analytical Framework for Inclusive Policy Design: Malaysia, (b) Equity Framework (Equiframe), and (c) Equity and Inclusion in Policy Processes (EquIPP). These instruments were to be utilised in the social inclusion policy research to be undertaken in Malaysia.

After the take-off of the project from July 2015 onwards, several meetings and consultations were held by the National Working Group with officials of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation Malaysia (MOSTI) to obtain data and their input on NPSTI. At the same time, similar meetings and consultations were also held with the experts from the international consortium to gain greater familiarity with the research instruments as well as to gather their input on the findings of the research. Another meeting with senior officers of MOSTI was also held to share some key findings of the study and to obtain their input before they were presented at the National Dialogue.

Towards the end of the project, a one-day concluding workshop and National Dialogue attended by several experts from the international consortium as well as various stakeholders from Malaysia was held on 22 March 2016. This was the culminating event in the framework of the UNESCO-Malaysia initiative that brought together national stakeholders to assess and enhance social inclusion in public policies – in particular in the STI sector – through the application of cutting-edge social science policy tools and methodologies. The National Dialogue showcased the results of the study and its policy recommendations, as well as the analytical tools employed during the policy assessment to a wider audience of national stakeholders, international partners and experts. This Report benefits greatly from insights and inputs provided by the participants at the National Dialogue.

The National Working Group takes note that this is the first of such study conducted in Malaysia to assess the degree of social inclusion in public policies. It is also the first time the UNESCO Analytical Framework is being tested and used in any country study, while it is also the first time the other two instruments – EquiFrame and EquIPP – were used in the analysis of policies in the science, technology and innovation (STI) sector.

This Report presents a historical overview of social inclusion in the Malaysian development policies since independence to the present, before zeroing in on the NPSTI and its four grant programmes. It presents important findings with respect to the degree of inclusiveness of the NSPTI and its four programmes, as well as offers policy recommendations to strengthen social inclusion in the STI sector in Malaysia.

The Report also highlights another important contribution of this study, that is, the construction of a research framework called “Analysis of Networks and Juxtapositions of Social Inclusive Policies Underpinning National Governance” or ANJUNG. ANJUNG is a new methodology which has been developed based on the Malaysian case study. This framework can and should be used in conjunction with the UNESCO Analytical Framework as well as the EquiFrame and EquIPP in any future country

studies on social inclusion in public policies. It is hoped that this Report and its recommendations can spark off and generate informed discussions

for policy reforms to enhance social inclusion not only in the STI sector, but in various national policies generally in line with the orientation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 2030. It is also hoped that the new methodology – ANJUNG – can be used creatively as a supplementary framework in the relevant policy studies in future.

While the National Working Group acknowledges the contributions of various parties in the preparation and refinements of this Report, the latter are not responsible for the Report’s shortcomings. The shortcomings are the sole responsibility of the National Working Group which welcomes further comments and criticisms.

Bangi, Malaysia

5 May 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Malaysia has enjoyed one of the best economic growth records in Asia over the last five decades despite a multitude of challenges and economic shocks. Malaysia rose from the ranks of a low income economy in the 1970s to a high middle-income economy in the 1990s and remains so today. Nevertheless, with success come various challenges as there are gaps that need to be effectively addressed to incorporate especially those left out of mainstream development besides having to address the current challenging international economic situation along the way. In this regard, the study on promoting social inclusion through public policies in Malaysia is also in keeping with the UN Declaration of Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework in which of the 17 SDGs six goals pertain to social inclusion.

This study aims to address the problem of harnessing talent in various levels of society towards an inclusive Malaysia as part of the process of becoming a developed nation. Since not all talents are easily recognised, they need to be identified and nurtured regardless of geographical locations, social class positions, gender and ethnicity.

A key dimension to harness talent is to examine the National Policy on Science, Technology and Innovation (NPSTI) to assess in what way and to what extent it enhances social inclusion in research and innovation. Specifically the objectives of the study are: 1) to identify aspects/attributes/elements of social inclusion in the National Policy on Science, Technology & Innovation 2013-2020 (NPSTI), 2) to assess the degree of inclusiveness in the areas of research and innovation in NPSTI, and 3) to assess the quality of relevant data as well as identify gaps and issues to be addressed.

The stu dy was conducted using the “Framework for Inclusive Policy Design: Malaysia” from the UNESCO Inclusive Policy Lab, as well as Equiframe and the EquIPP. To execute that, the study looked into the documents and conducted interviews with relevant resource persons. For purposes of this study in the Malaysian context, social inclusion is defined as a rakyat or people-centered approach that can be considered as a goal and a process. Inclusiveness takes into account the environment where everyone feels a sense of belonging and where everyone has access to develop one’s full potential or talent. Inclusiveness is a process, as in ensuring the participation of all, including the disadvantaged and the vulnerable groups, the different stakeholders are engaged. Strategies formulated will be based on consultations and participatory approach, which then will allow for more voices to be heard, leading towards making better decisions and good governance. Inclusiveness is also a goal, for at the end of the process, it is expected that there will be higher degree of prosperity, greater equity and solidarity, and a lesser degree of discontent among the citizens of Malaysia.

This report is divided into four parts. Part 1 provides the setting – contextual and historical – for the study. Part 2 discusses the National Policy on Science, Technology and Innovation (NPSTI) together with a critical discussion of the methodology and instruments in the research especially with respect to its robustness and matching between policy documents, instruments and study objectives. In Part

3, the report focuses on the programmes under NPSTI with specific reports on the four programmes - - TechnoFund, InnoFund, Science Fund and the Flagship Programme. It is followed by a conclusion of Part 3 which is an assessment of NPSTI and its programmes in enhancing social inclusion in research and innovation as well as an assessment of data needs for enhancing social inclusion through NPSTI. Finally, Part 4 presents the overall conclusions and policy recommendations of the project on harnessing talent towards an inclusive Malaysia. It also contains a proposal, called, “ANJUNG Framework: Analysis of Networks and Juxtapositions of Social Inclusiveness Underpinning National Governance” based on the Malaysian case study.

At the completion of the study, the report highlighted the following eleven findings:

1. 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 more accurately, a policy of social transformation given the very ambitious targets to be completed in what arguably is a short few years before the year 2020.

2. The NPSTI as a policy document has a number of core concepts pertaining to social inclusion although it could be more explicit on its concerns on social inclusion including on vulnerable groups.

3. Drawing on the approach put forward by UNESCO in its Analytical Framework for Inclusive Policy Design, NPSTI is not taken here as a stand-alone document, but is looked at from a wider perspective and seen as an extension of the national planning documents and the policy framework they proposed.

4. A historical approach is necessary to understand the evolution of the idea of social inclusion as it has been a guiding principle for Malaysia since its independence in 1957.

5. 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.

6. The EquIPP was useful for the purpose of assessing the processes of social inclusion in policy making.

7. 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

an “ANJUNG Framework: Analysis of Networks and Juxtapositions of Social Inclusiveness Underpinning National Governance ”.

8. The assessment of the four grant programmes under NPSTI shows that they achieve a “moderate level” score in terms of social inclusion based on EquIPP instrument.

9. It is recommended that policy documents such as NPSTI make more explicit the concepts and concerns of social inclusion including the vulnerable groups, more so with Malaysia’s commitment to SDG goals.

10. The prioritization of the fields or areas of research can be reconsidered. As it is, only one area is categorised as social sciences and humanities, while the other areas are under science- related fields. To enhance social inclusion, the perspectives of social sciences and humanities are very crucial hence more attention should be given to it in terms of grants for research and innovation.

11. To ensure social inclusion, data is necessary. In this regard there is a crucial need for data disaggregation in particular by sex, age, geography, including rural-urban location, and ethnicity in keeping with the SDG framework.

This report is divided into four parts:

Part 1: Introduction and Macro Overview

This part discusses the objectives and methods of the study and the problematic of social inclusion. It is followed by an analysis of the embeddedness of social inclusion in Malaysian public policies, focusing on the evolution of the idea of social inclusion while the last section presents the highlights of This part discusses the objectives and methods of the study and the problematic of social inclusion. It is followed by an analysis of the embeddedness of social inclusion in Malaysian public policies, focusing on the evolution of the idea of social inclusion while the last section presents the highlights of

Part 2: The National Policy on Science, Technology and Innovation (Npsti) & Its Programmes: An Evaluation of Methodology and Instruments

This part discusses the National Policy on Science, Technology and Innovation (NPSTI) together with a critical discussion of the methodology and instruments used in the research, especially with respect to its robustness and matchings between policy documents, instruments and study objectives.

Part 3: Programmes under NPSTI – Assessment of NPSTI in Enhancing Social Inclusion in Research and Innovation

Part 3 discusses the programmes under NPSTI with specific reports on the four programmes - TechnoFund, InnoFund, Science Fund and the Flagship Programme and an overall assessment of NPSTI and its programmes in enhancing social inclusion in research and innovation. It also contains an assessment of data needs for enhancing social inclusion through NPSTI.

Part 4: Overall Conclusions and Policy Recommendations

This part presents the overall conclusions and policy recommendations of the project on harnessing talent towards an inclusive Malaysia. It also contains a new instrument, viz. an analytical framework based on the Malaysian case study called "ANJUNG Framework: Analysis of Networks and Juxtapositions of Social Inclusiveness Underpinning National Governance - Analytical Framework Based on Malaysian Case Study".

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND MACRO OVERVIEW

CHAPTER 1: OBJECTIVES AND METHODS OF STUDY, AND THE PROBLEMATIC OF SOCIAL INCLUSION

1.1 INTRODUCTION Malaysia has enjoyed one of the best economic growth records in Asia over the last five decades

despite a multitude of challenges and economic shocks. The economy has achieved a stable real GDP growth of 6.2% per annum since 1970, successfully transforming from a predominantly agriculture- based economy in the 1970s, to manufacturing in the mid-1980s, and to modern services in the 1990s. Malaysia rose from the ranks of a low income economy in the 1970s to a high middle-income economy in the 1990s and remains so today. Malaysia’s national per capita income expanded more than twenty- five fold from US$402 (1970) to US$10,796 (2014) and is expected to surpass the US$15,000 threshold of a high-income economy by 2020 (Malaysia 2015: 3).

Nevertheless, with success come various challenges as there are gaps that need to be effectively addressed to incorporate especially those left out of mainstream development, besides having to address the current challenging international economic situation along the way. In this regard, the study on promoting social inclusion through public policies in Malaysia as proposed by UNESCO is extremely timely as Malaysia aspires to achieve a developed nation status by 2020 and beyond. This is made all the more necessary as in the recently launched 11 th Malaysia Plan (2016-2020), enhancing inclusiveness towards an equitable society is one of the sixth strategic thrusts (see Chapter 4). This is in keeping with the UN Declaration of Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework in which of the 17 SDGs, six goals pertain directly to social inclusion as shown below:

Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.

Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation.

Goal 10:

Reduce inequality within and among countries.

Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. Goal 16:

Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions for all.

The SDGs, adopted by the United Nations member countries in September 2015, set the agenda for achieving sustainable development over the next 15 years. Each goal is supported by a number of targets with specific statistical indicators to be identified as a measure of progress. Linking this assessment to the demands of the SDG framework is both timely and strategic. A key issue for monitoring social inclusion is access to data that is disaggregated to a level sufficient to inform policies. Malaysia, along with all UN member countries, regardless of level of development, will need to monitor The SDGs, adopted by the United Nations member countries in September 2015, set the agenda for achieving sustainable development over the next 15 years. Each goal is supported by a number of targets with specific statistical indicators to be identified as a measure of progress. Linking this assessment to the demands of the SDG framework is both timely and strategic. A key issue for monitoring social inclusion is access to data that is disaggregated to a level sufficient to inform policies. Malaysia, along with all UN member countries, regardless of level of development, will need to monitor

This study aims to address the problem of harnessing talent in various levels of society towards an inclusive Malaysia as part of the process of becoming a developed nation. Not all talents are easily recognised, what more developed. As such they need to be identified and nurtured regardless of geographical locations, social class positions, gender and ethnicity. A key dimension to harness talent is to examine the National Policy on Science, Technology and Innovation (NPSTI) to assess in what way and to what extent it enhances social inclusion in research and innovation (see Chapter 4).

However, the examination of the NPSTI needs to be located within the framework of an overarching national paradigm on social inclusion as well as examined within a historical perspective in order to have a holistic grasp and comprehensive view of social inclusion as the guiding principle of Malaysia’s

national development. A single policy approach to the study of social inclusion will only give a partial view, which sometimes can be misleading. This is because the question of social inclusion – as will be shown below – is often embedded within the mesh of multifarious cross-cutting social inclusion policies that pervade across sectors, and which flow from the over-arching national paradigm that

guides the nation building process since the country’s independence in 1957 and more so since the 1970s.

It is with this understanding that this Report consciously begins with an overview of social inclusion – or what can be regarded as attempts at social inclusion –in Malaysian public policies, to trace the evolution of the idea before we begin with the analysis of the NPSTI. It poignantly argues that the idea of social inclusion has been embedded in the Malaysian Constitution and development plans since the birth of the independent nation almost 60 years ago, i.e. well before it became an explicit mainstream policy concern in the 21 st century both nationally and globally. It is the contention of this Report that without the understanding of this historical context and the grasp of the embeddedness of social inclusion in public policies since Independence, we will not do justice to the study of social inclusion in Malaysian public policies today including the NPSTI, and will not be able to make appropriate recommendations to strengthen national capacity and to suggest reforms.

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The overall objective of this study is to strengthen national capacity in Malaysia to assess and reform

social policy and regulatory frameworks toward increasing their inclusiveness and ensuring equal enjoyment of human rights by all, including the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in the country.

Specifically the objectives of the study are:

1. To identify aspects/attributes/elements of social inclusion in the National Policy on Science, Technology & Innovation 2013-2020 (NPSTI);

2. To assess the degree of inclusiveness in the areas of research and innovation in NPSTI; and

3. To assess the quality of relevant data and identify gaps and issues to be addressed.

1 United Nations.Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform: Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.

1.3 METHODS Based on the outcome of the discussion between UNESCO, the international consortium and the

National Working Group chaired by IKMAS UKM, the study was conducted by applying the following instruments to the selected policies: (a) UNESCO Analytical Framework for Inclusive Policy Design: Malaysia, (b) Equiframe, and (c) EquIPP. The three instruments employed in this work have been selected for their complementarity, in terms of level of application and approaches, and their specific focus on furthering inclusive social development through inclusive public policies and government programmes. To achieve its objectives, the study looked into the policy documents and conducted interviews with relevant resource persons.

1.3.1. Analytical Framework for Inclusive Policy Design: Malaysia. Produced by UNESCO, the tool was contextualised to national and sectoral needs by IKMAS and the members of the Malaysian National Working Group. The resulting product put forward quality- and process- related markers against which the inclusive character of the overall national strategic documents, especially the Eleventh Malaysia Plan (11MP), and the portfolio of NPSTI policies was weighed.

1.3.2. Equiframe. The instrument ‘EquiFrame” is intended to evaluate the degree of explicit commitment of an existing public policy to 21 Core Concepts of Human Rights (based on research evidence and UN Conventions) and inclusion of 12 Vulnerable Groups (for Malaysian context, additional vulnerable groups are included).

1.3.3. EquIPP. Equity and Inclusion in Policy Processes (EquIPP) is an approach which insists that the processes of government facilitate the translation of policy content into priority access for

‘vulnerable groups’ and adherence to core human rights principles. This is in recognition that by bridging gaps and encouraging exchanges between policy makers, service providers and service users, more effective service design and delivery will result, as well as being better

tailored to meet the different needs of the different people in the community. Within the framework of this project, the tool was primary applied to NPSTI policy and programmes.

1.4 THE PROBLEMATIC OF SOCIAL INCLUSION The Report maintains that while the explicit use of the concept of social inclusion in academic discourse

and in public policies is very recent, the idea and practice of social inclusion in society as observed in various countries is not new. Various religions and civilisations throughout the ages have social inclusion embedded in their teachings and practices. In Islam, for example, there is the precept of the zakat – the compulsory tithe – to be paid by the well-to-do, and distributed to the eight categories of people (asnaf) who meet the criteria – or what today can generally be described as the vulnerable socioeconomic groups. However, it is not just the question of giving that is emphasised as there is also the idea of empowering the people, or releasing their initiatives, capability and talent to enable them

to stand on their own feet. Thus the injunction in Islam that “Allah will not change the fate of a people unless they themselves strive to change it” is very pertinent.

With regard to public policies, one of the earliest – perhaps the earliest – conscious use of the term ‘social exclusion’ was in France in the 1970s to refer to people excluded from the social insurance system, and subsequently became a mainstream policy concern in the United Kingdom (UK) and Europe in the 1980s and early 1990s (Hayes et al. 2008). The concept of social inclusion has to be seen

in relation to social exclusion. I t emerged in the 1990s as part of the “…critiques of traditional approaches to poverty and disadvantage that solely focused on income deprivation …” (Szoke 2009: 23). Social exclusion is defined as “…the involuntary exclusion of individuals and groups from society’s political, economic and societal processes, which prevents their full participation in the society in which in relation to social exclusion. I t emerged in the 1990s as part of the “…critiques of traditional approaches to poverty and disadvantage that solely focused on income deprivation …” (Szoke 2009: 23). Social exclusion is defined as “…the involuntary exclusion of individuals and groups from society’s political, economic and societal processes, which prevents their full participation in the society in which

…” (UN 1995, chpt. 1, para 66). 2 More specifically, an inclusive society is one “…that rises above differences of race, gender, class, generation and geography to ensure equal

opportunity regardless of origin, and one that subordinates military and economic power to civil authority …” (Atkinson & Marlier 2010: 3).

The United Nations through its various agencies has adopted the agenda of social inclusion since the late 1990s, an agenda that has since become a mainstream global policy concern especially since the launching in 2000 of the Millennium Developments Goals (MDGs) to be achieved by 2015. The MDGs are the world's time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions – income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion – while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability. However, critics have argued

that there was a lack of analysis and justification behind the MDGs’ objectives, and the difficulty or lack of measurements for some goals, and that much of the aid from developed countries went to debt relief, natural disaster relief and military aid, rather than for development and capacity building. Some

other criticisms also merit attention: These include the lack of consultations at its conception to build ownership that has led to the perception of a donor-centric agenda; inadequate incorporation of other important issues, such as environmental sustainability, productive employment and decent work, inequality; limited consideration of the enablers of development; and the failure to account for differences in initial conditions. As highlighted earlier, the Sustainable Development Goals (SGs) towards 2030 adopted by the UN in 2015 are supposed to have addressed these shortcomings, and take into account more directly the question of social inclusion.

UNESCO defines social inclusion as “a multi-dimensional process geared towards the creation of conditions and, if required, lowering of economic, social and cultural barriers for a full and active participation of every member of the society in all aspects of life. Such a process pays due attention to

how and for whom terms and conditions are to be improved” (UNESCO Analytical Framework for Inclusive Policy Design, p. 6). While the above definition is used as a guide, for purposes of this study in the Malaysian context, social inclusion is defined as a rakyat or people-centered approach that can

be considered as a goal and a process. Inclusiveness takes into account the environment where everyone feels a sense of belonging and where everyone has access to develop one’s full potential or talent.

Inclusiveness is a process, as in ensuring the participation of all, including the disadvantaged and the vulnerable groups, the different stakeholders are engaged. Strategies formulated will be based on consultations and participatory approach, which will then allow for more voices to be heard, leading towards making better decisions and good governance. Inclusiveness is also a goal, for at the end of the process, it is expected that there will be higher degree of prosperity, greater equity and solidarity, and a lesser degree of discontent among the citizens of Malaysia.

In conclusion, it should be stressed that social inclusion in public policies is a necessary precondition for nurturing and harnessing talent in every level of society. It seeks to overcome obstacles and ensure access to opportunities in order to realize one’s potentials irrespective of race, gender, geography, creed, age, etc .

2 . See documents of the United Nations World Summit for Social Development held in Copenhagen in

1995 in particular the Program of Action to build an “inclusive society”.

CHAPTER 2: THE EMBEDDEDNESS OF SOCIAL INCLUSION IN MALAYSIAN PUBLIC POLICIES: EVOLUTION OF AN IDEA

2.1 INTRODUCTION As indicated in the first chapter, while the discourse specifically on the concepts of social exclusion and

social inclusion as well as stakeholder engagement is relatively new, more so in Malaysia, it does not mean that the awareness of the need for inclusion and the actual action to ensure inclusion has been absent in Malaysian society and in public policies. Similarly, the process of stakeholder participation in policy formulation is also not something new. Indeed the idea of social inclusion and stakeholder participation has been embedded within Malaysian policy documents ever since the birth of the Malaysian nation in 1957 until today. The formulation of the Federal Constitution by the Reid Commission in 1955 was preceded by a series of stakeholder consultations to get as much inputs as possible to be integrated into the founding document.

For analytical purposes, the discussion on academic awareness and policy commitment to social inclusion in Malaysia will have to be seen in four distinct historical phases – 1957 to 1970; 1971-1990; 1991-2010; and 2011 and 2020.

2.2 THE FIRST PERIOD 1957-1970

2.2.1 The first period 1957-1970: This was basically the immediate post-independence years during which the principal document guiding the country was the Federal Constitution. Articles 8, 10 and 12 of the Constitution expressly state Malaysia’s commitment to human rights – the fundamental principle of social inclusion. Article 8 of the Federal Constitution states that:

“(1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law; (2) Except as expressly authorised by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against

citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent, gender or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on

of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment.” Article 10 is on the freedom of speech and expression; the right to assemble peaceably and without

arms; and the right to form associations. All these indicate the respect for basic human rights. Recognising the multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious diversity of the Malaysian society, and

the specific socioeconomic challenges faced by the Malays and other Bumiputera groups, the Constitution stipulates certain guiding principles to ensure unity and inclusiveness. For example, on the question of religious diversity, Article 3 of the Constitution addresses it thus: that “(1) Islam is the

religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.”

Article 153 on the special position of the Malays has been a controversial issue. However, if examined carefully, it is an attempt to ensure ‘balance’ between the different ethnic groups. Article 153 states that “…It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong [King as Head of State] to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the

legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.. .” According to the former Lord President Tun Mohamed Suffian, the main purpose for including Article 153 in the Constitution was to rectify the perceived weakness of the Malay community in the economic field, the public service and the problem of Malay poverty at the time of Independence (Tun Mohamed Suffian

Hashim 1972: 245). It is not meant to deprive the rights of other communities as the Article balances it by stating that the King would pro tect “…the legitimate interests of other communities…”

The enshrining of these principles in the Constitution constitutes the overarching paradigm and the necessary basis for the formulation of subsequent national plans and policies that take into account the interest of the people at large.

2.3 THE SECOND PERIOD 1971-1990

2.3.1 The second period 1971-1990: This was the period of the implementation of the New Economic Policy (NEP), a long term perspective plan covering 1971 to 1990. While the ideas of the NEP were already in gestation since the early 1960s, the NEP as a plan was triggered by the May 13, 1969 race riots, which led to a brief suspension of Parliament for one and half years. It also led to some soul- searching and serious stakeholder consultations on how to rebuild a united cohesive nation. This led to the promulgation of the Rukunegara or the National Ideology, the formulation of which was the efforts of the National Consultative Council (Majlis Perundingan Negara or MAPEN), headed by Prime Minister Tun Abdul Razak Hussein with a view to create racial harmony and national unity. It became the guiding principles of the New Economic Policy (1971-1990) which was launched in 1971, with the aim to forge unity among the various ethnic groups in Malaysia.

The Preamble in Rukunegara which was announced on Merdeka Day on 31 August 1970 articulated Malaysia’s aspirations to achieve greater unity among her peoples; maintaining a democratic way of life; creating a just society where the prosperity of the country can be enjoyed together in a fair and

equitable manner; ensuring a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural traditions; and building

a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology. As can be seen above, the idea of social inclusion and an inclusive society is already embedded within

the preamble of Rukunegara, and was expressed in policy formulation in the New Economic Policy (1971-19990). The two-pronged objectives of the NEP were: (a) to eradicate poverty irrespective of race; and (b) to restructure society to remove the identification of race with economic function. It should be noted here that the understanding of social exclusion during that period was related to poverty, and hence the focus was on the eradication of this scourge.

2.4 THE THIRD PERIOD 1991-2010

2.4.1 The third period 1991-2010: This was the period covered by two long term perspective plans, (a) The National Development Policy, 1991-2000, which focused on ensuring the balanced development of major sectors of the economy and regions, as well as reducing socioeconomic inequalities across communities; and (b) The National Vision Policy, 2001-2010, focused on building a resilient and competitive nation. The planning during this period was predicated upon the big visionary ideas articulated in Vision 2020, a national vision which was launched in February 1991.