Malaysia's Innovation Policy and University R&D

By: Retave’s Research Desk Editor

Listen to this article

When Putrajaya published the National Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (NSTIP) 2021–2030, then-Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation Khairy Jamaluddin wrote in its foreword that Malaysia should “aspire to be a country that innovates, creates and develops its own technology and no longer exists as merely consumers of technology.” That line sets the tone for the whole document. NSTIP isn’t a plan for government labs working alone. It’s a ten-year roadmap that puts universities, called institutions of higher learning (IHLs), throughout the policy, right alongside industry and public research institutes (PRIs) as the people who actually have to build the thing.

A vision built on four groups, not one

The policy’s vision is a sustainable, inclusive, and scientifically enriched society moving toward a high-tech nation. Its mission is to drive inclusive and sustainable growth by developing and applying what the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI) calls progressive Science, Technology, Innovation and Economy (STIE), the policy’s own shorthand for treating Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) as an economic driver that runs through the whole country, not confined to a lab.

Two foundations hold that framework together. The first treats Science, Technology, Innovation, and Economy as the main enabler of policy and national development, meaning that science and technology considerations are meant to run through every ministry’s planning rather than sit solely within MOSTI. The second is collaboration between government, industry, academia, and society, written into the policy as a foundation in its own right.

On top of those foundations sit six thrusts: responsive STI governance, technology development through Research, Development, Commercialisation and Innovation (R&D&C&I), local technology-based industry, adaptive STI talent, enculturation and application of STIE, and global prominence. Twenty strategies and 46 initiatives sit underneath them, by the policy’s own count. Universities show up across several of those thrusts, but Technology Development through R&D&C&I is where the document spells out what a university’s job actually looks like.

What Technology Development through R&D&C&I asks of universities

Technology Development through R&D&C&I (Thrust 2) has the stated objective of mobilising a concerted effort from all stakeholders, including the public sector, industry, academia, and the community, toward stronger national technology capabilities for universities, translating into two concrete jobs.

The first is research itself. National Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy calls for advancing fundamental and applied research while strengthening experimental development. Specifically, this work has to line up with what future industries and emerging technologies actually need. Institutions of higher learning and industry are identified as major contributors to the country’s Research and Development (R&D) output and are expected to coordinate closely.

The second job is less visible but just as structural: building a research culture that can be trusted. The policy calls for the Malaysian Code of Responsible Conduct in Research (MCRCR) to be adopted as a certification standard, backed by Responsible Conduct in Research (RCR) training. It specifies that this training extends to students in institutes of higher learning, as well as to working researchers. That’s a deliberate choice to treat research integrity as something universities teach from the start, rather than leaving it to be enforced only after a problem arises.

Datuk Ir. Dr. Siti Hamisah Binti Tapsir, then Secretary-General of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, made a similar point in her own foreword to the policy: implementing NSTIP “depends on the support, commitment and dedication of all parties involved,” with full cooperation needed from the public and private sectors, academia and the community. That’s not a throwaway line. It’s the policy naming, in writing, that a research university sitting on the sidelines isn’t really an option here.

Money and infrastructure lie behind all of this, and that’s where NSTIP gets more mechanical: how research priorities are actually chosen, how funds are managed, and how facilities are shared across institutions. That’s the operational half of the policy, and it’s where universities stop being named stakeholders and start showing up as actual budget lines.