UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT

UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT
oversight would require introducing a legal framework and
engaging the stakeholders in the early stages of designing
performance monitoring and assessment criteria. Indeed,
an independent monitoring body could provide greater
accountability and transparency over the disbursement and
collection of R&D funds and reduce duplication.
There has been some recognition of the need to co-ordinate
STI better, in particular as concerns research and commercialization
of the results. For example, the National Science
Research Council presented a proposal in 2014 to establish a
central independent agency to co-ordinate R&D. The agency’s
mandate would incorporate technology foresight, among
other tasks, as well the monitoring, evaluation and management
of R&D.
Many issues have resurfaced in current policy
The government’s focus on STI dates back to the launch of the
First Science and Technology Policy in 1986. This was followed
by an Action Plan for Industrial Technology Development in 1991
to stimulate the development of strategic and knowledgeintensive
industries, as well as by the creation of intermediary
organizations such as training centres, universities and
research laboratories to propel this development. It is the
Second Science and Technology Policy (2002–2010), however,
which is considered the first comprehensive formal national
policy with specific strategies and action plans to set the STI
agenda.
The current Third National Science and Technology Policy
(2013–2020) emphasizes the generation and utilization of
knowledge; talent development; energizing innovation in
industry; and improving the governance framework for STI to
support innovation. Nevertheless, many of the issues targeted
in the first two policies have resurfaced in the third policy,
implying that the objectives fixed in the previous policies
have not been achieved; these issues include the diffusion
of technology, the private sector’s contribution to R&D and
innovation, commercialization, monitoring and evaluation.
Without business R&D, 2020 target will not be reached
Without a doubt, R&D is contributing far more to the country’s
development than even a decade ago. Between 2008 and
2012, gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) rose from
0.79% to 1.13% of GDP (Figure 26.3). This is all the more
remarkable in that GDP grew steadily over the same period.
Despite this progress, Malaysia still lags behind Singapore or
the Republic of Korea for this indicator; the gap is particularly
wide when it comes to business expenditure on R&D (BERD).
In 2012, Malaysia’s BERD/GDP ratio stood at 0.73%, compared
to 1.2% in Singapore and 3.1% in the Republic of Korea.
Malaysia is targeting a 2.0% GERD/GDP ratio by 2020; whether
or not it reaches this target will depend largely upon the
dynamism of the business enterprise sector.
While private sector participation in R&D has risen
considerably since 2005, in particular, its share is still quite low
in comparison with dynamic Asian economies. For example,
between 2006 and 2011, a total of 25 423 ICT patents were
filed in the USA by Koreans, compared to a meagre 273 by
Malaysians (Rasiah et al., 2015a, 2015b).
R&D spillovers have not been significant, despite the strong
presence of multinational corporations in Malaysia. This is due
to the lack of a critical mass of R&D infrastructure, especially
as concerns human capital and laboratories specializing in
frontier R&D at research universities and government-owned
institutions (OECD, 2013; Rasiah, 2014).
The involvement of multinational corporations in frontier
R&D is still limited in Malaysia, so pro-active measures will
be required to develop this activity (Rasiah et al., 2015a).
R&D conducted by both national and foreign firms is largely
confined to product proliferation and problem-solving.
For example, in the ICT industry, no firm is engaged in R&D
targeted at miniaturizing ICT nodes or in expanding wafer
diameters. Innovative activity tends to be limited to the
transfer and diffusion of technology through intra-industry
trade, particularly in the country’s free trade zones. This
constant focus on production-type operations will only be able
to contribute to incremental innovation (Rasiah, 2010). In 2012,
a group of multinationals established a platform to promote
collaborative R&D; although this is a step in the right direction,
it is too early at this stage to assess its success (Box 26.1).
Figure 26.3: GERD/GDP ratio in Malaysia, 2008–2012
Other countries are given for comparison
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0
3.12
2.62
1.47
0.84
Rep. of Korea
Singapore
China
3.29
2.16
1.70
1.01
Malaysia
India
3.47
2.01
1.76
1.07
Thailand
Indonesia
3.74
2.16
1.84
1.06
4.03
2.02
1.98
1.13
0.79 0.82 0.80 0.82
0.39
0.25
0.08
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, May 2015
680