2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia

8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia

1/28

A challenge for the future will be to

ensure that innovation policy is not the

sole driver of science policy and that

the national science base can remain

sufficiently comprehensive [to enable it

to pursue] global scientific

collaboration.

Tim Turpin, Richard Woolley, Patarapong Intarakumnerd

and Wasantha Amaradasa


2/28

437

INTRODUCTION

The present chapter covers a wide diversity of economies in

Southeast Asia, Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific

Islands.1 Of the seven countries grouped under Southeast

Asia, one is the worlds fifth-largest exporter of merchandise,

newly industrialized Singapore. At the other end of the

scale, Cambodia ranks 111th for world merchandise exports,

whereas Timor Leste does not even feature in the global

statistics of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The total population of the seven Southeast Asian

countries plus Australia and New Zealand came to

549 million in 2009. The total GDP for this group in

2008 amounted to US$ 2 475 million, just over half that

of China (US$ 4 327 million) and twice that of India

(US$ 1 213 million). The developed industrial economies

of Australia and New Zealand account for only 5% of the

population but nearly half of the groups total GDP.

The present chapter also encompasses 22 Pacific Island

countries and territories, although, in terms of science,

these are dominated by the big four: Fiji, Papua NewGuinea, New Caledonia and French Polynesia. These

economies are nevertheless small in size and in terms of

their contribution to world trade.

The global recession triggered by the US subprime crisis in

2008 has been experienced differently from one country to

another. Australia, for example, was one of the few countries

of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD) that technically avoided a recession.

This was largely because of the comparatively sound financial

structures in the economy and the continued high demand

for commodities from China and India. A strong economicstimulus programme was introduced by the Australian

government in 2009 but this focused on infrastructure

projects with little or no direct implications for science.

The earlier Asian financial crisis from 1997 to 1999 had

reverberated around Southeast Asia, leading to a number

of structural and institutional reforms in national financial

systems. Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia

were all hard-hit by the Asian crisis but reforms set in

motion as a consequence served to cushion many

economies from the impact of the global recession a

decade later, compared to what North America and

Western Europe have been going through. Moreover, in

most of the countries covered here, science remains a

comparatively low priority in national strategic plans, as we

shall see in the country profiles that follow for Cambodia,

Thailand and Fiji in particular. As a consequence, the global

recession has had very little direct impact on science.

Nevertheless, the impact can be observed through: (a) a

reduction in high-tech exports; (b) more sharply defined

science priorities aligned with local national priorities in

Australia, New Zealand and Singapore; and in some cases

(c) reduced spending on science and technology (S&T).

This latter impact is not yet clearly documented because

of the time lag in data availability on expenditure on

research and development (R&D) but the issue has been

foreshadowed in some national policy statements.

The stories that will unfold in the following pages are as

diverse as the countries themselves. There is no one single

story that epitomizes the region as a whole, or even sub-regions. There are, however, some common trends in terms

of the general direction science policy is taking, the mobility

of human resources and international collaboration.

Firstly, all countries are dependent to some degree on the

science systems of the global scientific Triad: USA, Europe

and Japan. This is evident in world output of scientific

papers, patents and other related intellectual property,

foreign investment and technological innovation and

research training.

Secondly, the global mobility of, and competition for,scientists and engineers have intensified. All countries are

seeking to train, attract and retain an increasing cohort of

scientists and engineers.

Thirdly, international collaboration in S&T is growing

rapidly, partly due to liberalized political arrangements

and partly due to the growing cost of much scientific

infrastructure.

Fourthly, science policy has shifted ground in terms of

national development strategies. Science policy has been

brought in from the cold to play a central role in innovationpolicies. This has quite significant long-term implications

and carries with it policy management dilemmas.

SoutheastAsiaandOceania

21 . Southeast Asia and OceaniaTim Turpin, Richard Woolley, Patarapong Intarakumnerd

and Wasantha Amaradasa

1. The present chapter includes the seven Southeast Asian countries of

Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and VietNam, as well as Australia and New Zealand, plus the 22 Pacific Island

countries and territories dominated by Fiji, Papua New Guinea, New

Caledonia and French Polynesia.

A Thai Buddhist

monk using a

laptop

Photo:

Richard Stamper/

iStockphoto


3/28

The responsibility for a science, technology and innovation

(STI) system draws on a wider range of government

portfolios than previously, whereas science has usually

remained the responsibility of one, or perhaps two,

ministries. With innovation touching on the responsibilities

of a much wider range of portfolios, co-ordination becomes

a key factor. An accompanying challenge is thus to maintain

a strong, competitive basic science system in the context of

the sometimes competing policy demands that emerge.

Last but not least, globalization offers both opportunities

and challenges for some of the smaller economies.

Global competition has drawn groups of countries into

collaborating networks. Thus, regional structures2 such as

the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Pacific

Islands Forum and the Greater Mekong Subregion offer

new opportunities for coalescing scientific capacity.

These issues are discussed below in the context of five

structural factors: (i) research and development (R&D)

input (ii) R&D output and, in the country profiles (iii)

institutional arrangements (iv) policies and priorities and

(v) future trends and challenges.

R&D INPUT

Trends in R&D expenditure and personnel

The available data for all countries show rising national

investment in R&D. Singapore and Australia more than

doubled spending between 2000 and 2006. However, when

gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) is configured as

a percentage of GDP, it becomes clear that, for Thailand, the

Philippines and Indonesia, among others, these investments

have barely kept pace with growth in GDP (Table 1).

Of all the countries covered in the present chapter,

Singapore stands out as the most rapidly growing science

investor. In Singapore, GERD doubled between 2000 and

2007, progressing from 1.9% to 2.5% of GDP.

UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2010

438

Australia 22.1 48.3 2006 87 270 4 231 44.8* 993 2.06 720.7 57.3 57.2

Cambodia 14.8 0.8 2002 223 17 22.6 13 0.05 0.5 12.1 0

Indonesia 231.4 2.2 2005 35 564h 162h 0.05a 1.6a 3.7a

Malaysia 28.3 8.2 2006 9 694 372 38.8 44 0.64 79.9 84.9 84.7

New Zealand 4.4 29.9 2007 18 300 7 084h 0 894 1.21 330.5 42.7 40.1

Philippines 92.2 1.9 2005 6 896 81 50.7 10 0.12 3.4 68.0 62.6

Singapore 5.0 39.4 2007 27 301 6 088 0 529 2.52 1 341.8 66.8 59.8

Thailand 63.4 4.2 2005 20 506 311 49.9 160 0.25 +1 18.1+1 40.9+1 48.7

Timor Leste 1.2 0.5 *

Viet Nam 85.8 1.0 2002 9 328 115 42.8 0.19 3.1 14.5 18.1

Population2009

(millions)

GDPpercapita,2008

(US$thousands)

TotalFTE

Year

Researchersper

millionpopulation(FTE)

Women

researchers(%)

Techniciansper

millionpopulation

As%ofGDP

Percapita

PPP$

Performedby

business(%)

Fundedby

business(%)

Table 1: Socio-economic and R&D input indicators for Southeast Asia and Oceania, 2009 or most recent year available

Selected countries

-n/+n = data refer to n years before or after reference year a = partial data h = headcount * national estimation

Note: For Australia, women researchers are derived from 2006 census data.

Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, June 2010; United Nations Statistical Division, June 2010

Researchers GERD

2. See Annex I for the composition of ASEAN, APEC, the Pacific Islands

Forum and Greater Mekong Region


4/28

GERD per capita also doubled to US$ 1 342, a figureconsiderably higher than that for Japan (US$ 1 159), the

USA (US$ 1 195) or the UK (US$ 620). Singapore also

stands out for the four groups of variables used by the

World Bank to construct its Knowledge Economy Index

(KEI): economic incentive, innovation, education and

information and communication technologies (ICTs)

[Table 2]. Yet, even Singapore has struggled to move up

the ladder: in 2009, it ranked 19th out of 146 economies on

the KEI, having climbed just two rungs since 1995.

Nevertheless, the dynamic rise of Singapore is one of the

outstanding developments of the past five years.

The number of S&T personnel has also grown

considerably across the region. Again, Singapore leads in

terms of growth. However, Singapore still has a

comparatively small pool of technicians, suggesting

future skills shortages if the current pace of scientific

growth continues unabated. In Indonesia, numbers of S&T

personnel appear to have declined, although it should

be noted that the available data are not directly

comparable. Meanwhile, data on investment in R&D and

S&T personnel are few and far between for many of the

Pacific countries and Timor Leste.

An important indicator of national capability in STI is the

level of business sector investment in R&D. These data are

highly variable across the countries covered here.For example, Malaysia and the Philippines both have

comparatively high rates of business investment in R&D.

However, this is largely because of the presence of large

foreign firms operating in those countries. There is

evidence that similar developments are underway in

Thailand. The challenges for the STI systems of these

countries will be to lever knowledge and technology from

this foreign investment for their domestic economies.

Cambodia and Timor Leste have been undergoing

considerable social and economic transformation. As a

consequence, investment in S&T has focused primarily oninstitution-building and on developing human resources.

The tragedy of Cambodias turmoil throughout the 1970s

is reflected in a miniscule human resource base compared

to its neighbours. Also undergoing economic transition,

Viet Nam has been developing from a low base but S&T

institutional structures are comparatively well-developed

and, although undergoing widespread reform, provide a

strong historical foundation on which to build.

Two important observations can be made from these

indicators. The first is that there is considerable diversity

across the region in terms of human resources andexpenditure on S&T. The second observation concerns the

rapid, meteoric rise of Singapores scientific capacity.

Southeast Asia and Oceania

439


Table 2: Knowledge Economy Index and Knowledge Index for Southeast Asia and Oceania, 2009

Selected countries

Note: Developed by the World Bank, the Knowledge Eonomy Index (KEI) is based on the average of the normalised scores of a country for all four pillars of the

knowledge economy: economic incentive and institutional regime; education; innovation and ICTs. The Knowledge Index (KI) measures a countrys ability to

generate, adopt and use knowledge. The KI index is based on key variables for the three knowledge pillars: education, innovation and ICTs. It should be noted

that some data are missing for Viet Nam.

Source: World Bank database, accessed March 2010

Singapore 19 +2 8.44 8.03 9.68 9.58 5.29 9.22

Australia 11 -1 8.97 9.08 8.66 8.88 9.69 8.67

New Zealand 14 -6 8.92 8.97 8.79 8.66 9.78 8.46

Malaysia 48 6.07 6.06 6.11 6.82 4.21 7.14

Thailand 63 -9 5.52 5.66 5.12 5.76 5.58 5.64

Fiji 86 -4 4.20 4.47 3.4 5.03 4.25 4.12Philippines 89 -16 4.12 4.03 4.37 3.8 4.69 3.60

Indonesia 103 -2 3.29 3.17 3.66 3.19 3.59 2.72

Viet Nam 106 +14 3.51 3.74 2.79 2.72 3.66 4.80

Cambodia 137 -8 1.56 1.54 1.63 2.07 1.93 0.62

Rankingfor 145

countries(KEI)

Change inRank from

1995

Country KEI KI EducationInnovationEconomicincentive

regime

ICTs


5/28

Singapore is one of the few countries in the region with a

net inflow of scientific personnel, both from the region

and from other scientifically advanced economies. There is

growing evidence that Singapore is becoming central to

global knowledge hubs in fields such as biomedical

science and information technology (IT). A big challenge

for Singapore will be to maintain the present inflow of

human capital in order to underpin sustained knowledge-

based development over the next decade, even as the

rapid growth of the Indian and Chinese economies is

stimulating demand for skilled personnel in these

countries. However, it can be safely said that the growing

presence of Singapore in global science is not simply a

localized phenomenon but also carries wider implications

for scientific collaboration across regional economies.

Information infrastructure: reaching the poor

One issue confronting most countries concerns their capacity

to deliver benefits from science to the rural poor who live

outside the major cities. According to the World Banks ICT

variable, Singapore performs best in Southeast Asia, no

doubt due in part to being essentially an urban country.

Singapore, Australia and New Zealand have all massively

expanded Internet access since 2001 (Figure 1). What is

striking is the difficulty countries with a large, urban poor

face in spreading access to the Internet, such as Cambodia,

the Philippines and Timor Leste. Interestingly, the French-

speaking Pacific territories have developed Internet usage

quite rapidly since 2000, no doubt due to their ties to

metropolitan France.


440

Source: United Nations Statistical Division, Millennium Development Goals Indicators

Singapore

New Zealand

Australia

Malaysia

New Caledonia

French Polynesia

Thailand

Fiji

Indonesia

Philippines

Papua New Guinea

Cambodia

Timor-Leste

53.2 72.0

52.7 72.0

41.7 73.0

26.7 55.8

18.2 34.5

6.3 33.9

5.6 23.9

2.5 / 6.2

2.0 / 7.9

1.9 / 12.2

0.9 / 1.8

0.1 / 0.5

0.2

Figure 1: Internet users per 100 population in Southeast Asia and Oceania, 2001 and 2008

Selected countries and territories


6/28

R&D OUTPUT

Scientific publications

The number of scientific publications has grown

substantially in the region, increasing by around 70% from

1998 to 2008, with Australia, Singapore and New Zealand

being the largest knowledge producers (Table 3). For

many countries, publications grew from a very low

starting point but some quickly overcame this handicap,

including Thailand and Malaysia. In 2001, Singapore even

overtook New Zealand, a country with a similarpopulation, and has since consolidated its position.

The big four dominated the scientific output of the

Pacific over the same ten-year period: New Caledonia,

Papua New Guinea, Fiji and French Polynesia. These four

accounted for 86% of articles published by scientists in

the Pacific islands that were recorded in Thomson Reuters

Science Citation Index (Table 4). Overall, the Pacific

countries and territories account for less than 1% of all the

scientific articles produced by the countries covered in the

present chapter.

These data raise the question of just how central the three

major science publishing countries of Australia, Singapore

and New Zealand are to scientific collaboration? Do

regional knowledge hubs really pivot around these

countries or is each of the three simply pursuing its own

separate scientific endeavour? In the answer lies the key

to understanding the dynamics of regional co-operation

in S&T.

It is possible to explore this question by investigating

patterns of co-authorship (Table 5). Co-authorship data

tell an interesting story. Firstly, it is clear that

international co-authorship of scientific papers is acommonplace practice for scientists right across the

region. Secondly, the rate of international co-authorship

is significantly higher among those countries that

produce a modest amount of scientific papers. The level

of international co-authorship for specific countries may

thus provide an indicator of international scientific

dependence. Cambodia, for example, has been almost

entirely dependent on international co-authorship for its

publication output for the past decade (94%). Scientists

in Indonesia and the Philippines also have relatively high

rates of co-publication with international colleagues.

Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia are, bycontrast, far less dependent on co-authors abroad for

their publication output and there is evidence of


441


Table 3: English-language scientific articles by authors from Southeast Asia and Oceania, 19982008

Selected countries

Source:Thomson Reuters (Scientific) Inc. Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded), complied for UNESCO by the Canadian Observariore dessciences at des technologies

1998 16 432 8 305 658 3 519 263 2 264 855 198 24 502

1999 16 766 12 354 830 3 597 292 2 729 965 239 25 784 5.2

2000 18 945 14 429 805 3 762 353 3 465 1 182 315 29 270 13.5

2001 19 155 14 449 906 3 772 317 3 781 1 344 353 30 091 2.8

2002 19 645 20 421 961 3 819 398 4 135 1 636 343 31 378 4.3

2003 20 920 23 428 1 123 3 935 418 4 621 1 940 458 33 866 7.92004 22 456 41 471 1 308 4 260 427 5 434 2 116 434 36 947 9.1

2005 23 376 50 526 1 520 4 590 467 5 971 2 409 540 39 449 6.8

2006 25 449 64 597 1 757 4 739 464 6 300 3 000 617 42 987 9.0

2007 26 619 80 582 2 151 4 974 535 6 249 3 582 698 45 470 5.8

2008 28 313 75 650 2 712 5 236 624 6 813 4 134 875 49 432 8.7

Total 238 076 401 5 212 14 731 46 203 4 558 51 762 23 163 5070 389 176 7.3

Growth19982008 (%) 72.3 837.5 113.1 312.2 48.8 137.3 200.9 383.5 341.9 101.7

Australia

Cambo

dia

Indone

sia

Malaysia

NewZe

alan

d

Philipp

ines

Sing

apore

Thailand

Viet

Nam

Annu

al

Total

Annu

al

grow

th(%)


7/28

considerable collaboration between countries in the

region. International comparisons suggest that a figure

of around 4050% for international co-authorship

represents a good balance between the national science

base and global collaborative science.

Although scientists from the USA are the most

prominent collaborators overall, there is some diversity

in international co-authorship. Among the Pacific

nations and territories, Australia and France are the

dominant partners, with the French connection logically

being strongest for the French-speaking territories. Thereis also co-operation among Pacific countries and

territories. For example, over 10% of Fijis international

co-authored publications include at least one author

from another Pacific country. The same is true for French

Polynesia and New Caledonia. This is an important

development for the smaller Pacific States and territories

because co-authorship with the larger Pacific economies

indicates not only co-operation in common areas of

scientific endeavour but also potential knowledge

conduits to major global science hubs elsewhere. The US

scientific hub is the most frequent source of co-authors

for most Southeast Asian countries, Australia and NewZealand. However, Indonesian and Vietnamese scientists

co-author articles primarily with their Japanese

counterparts and Malaysian authors with Chinese

scientists. China is also an important collaborator for

scientists from Singapore, the Philippines and Australia,

an interesting addition to the scientific domination

generally accorded to the USA, Japan and the European

Union (EU).

National strengths in particular fields emerge when

publications are counted by field of research (Figure 2).

For the region as a whole, clinical medicine

predominates (30% of all publications), followed by

biological (15%), engineering (15%) and biomedicalsciences (13%). In some countries, scientific output is

concentrated in one or two fields. For example, more

than half of Cambodias modest output is circumscribed

to the medical sciences. Interestingly, Earth and space

sciences also make up a sizeable share of its research

output. By contrast, output from Singapore emanates

firstly from engineering, followed by medicine and

physics. Fiji, Indonesia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea

and the Philippines all have a high output in biological

sciences. Malaysia stands apart, with its strong focus on

chemistry.

There is also evidence of the growing impact of the

science produced in the region. One indicator of scientific


442

Table 4: English-language scientific articles by authors from Pacific islands, 19982008



1998 24 44 66 61 27 222

1999 29 35 51 76 37 228 2.7

2000 23 38 65 68 32 226 -0.9

2001 23 32 56 72 20 203 -10.2

2002 33 35 39 65 20 192 -5.4

2003 33 33 59 62 40 227 18.22004 41 40 62 53 46 242 6.6

2005 58 35 85 43 38 259 7.0

2006 62 44 115 50 57 328 26.6

2007 60 38 126 81 44 349 6.4

2008 59 41 107 79 30 316 -9.5

Total 455 415 831 710 391 2 792 4.2

Growth19982008 (%) 145.8 -6.8 62.1 29.5 11.1 42.3

Fiji

Fren

ch

Polyne

sia

New

Cale

doni

a

Papu

aNew

Guin

ea

Othe

rPacifi

c

Islan

ds

TotalPa

cific

Annu

al

grow

th(%)


8/28


Figure 2: Publications in Southeast Asia and Oceania by major field of science, 2008 (%)


443


Table 5:Top three countries for international co-authorship with Southeast Asia and Oceania, 19982008

Australia 207 944 45.5 USA (14.7) UK (7.7) China (5.2)

Cambodia 396 93.9 USA (26.9) France (19.9) Japan (15.1)

Indonesia 4 750 88.8 Japan (28.1) USA (22.1) Australia (22.1)

Malaysia 13 576 48.4 China (18.0) UK (12.8) India (12.6)

New Zealand 42 491 48.5 USA (32.0) Australia (24.9) UK (17.9)

Philippines 4 079 71.9 USA (32.6) Japan (25.0) China (7.2)Singapore 45 943 41.4 USA (30.2) China (29.1) Australia (10.8)

Thailand 21 001 56.6 USA (34.6) Japan (22.7) UK (12.1)

Viet Nam 4 569 62.1 Japan (19.1) USA (15.3) France (14.6)

Fiji 453 78.4 Australia (35.8) USA (22.5) India (13.0)

French Polynesia 415 88.4 France (70.0) USA (21.3) New Caledonia (8.7)

New Caledonia 831 83.9 France (59.8) USA (16.5) Australia (13.2)

Papua New Guinea 671 80.9 Australia (46.0) USA (31.5) UK (14.4)

SCIpapers

19982008

Selectedcountries andterritories

Internationalco-authors

(%)

Country of originof co-author

(%)


Australia

Cambodia

Fiji

Indonesia

Malaysia

New Zealand

Papa New Guinea

Philippines

Singapore

Thailand

Viet Nam

Biology

Earth and space

Biomedical research

Engineering & technology

Chemistry

Mathematics

Clinical medicine

Physics

100806040200

13.9 13.3 6.3 35.7 9.8 10.7 2.9 7.4

14.6

33.8 6.7 10.213.613.6 16.9 5.2

23.7 12.8 7.1 13.8 12.0 2.1 5.722.8

10.8 11.1 21.7 19.7 4.5 21.9 2.1 5.7

22.3 12.9 5.6 32.4 10.8 7.7 3.3 5.0

25.3 24.0 48.1 2.6

36.4 3.716.0 8.5 4.62.726.3

11.9 11.1 20.9 2.0 28.7 3.3 19.52.6

14.3 11.917.6 29.7 4.3 14.7 5.9

14.0 10.6 4.4 19.8 7.2 8.8 13.8 21.4

18.6 4.1 41.3 20.0

Percentage

28 313

Total

75

59

650

2 712

5 236

79

624

6 813

4 134

875


9/28

impact is the level of citation of scientific papers (Table 6).

Most of the larger science systems in the region were

achieving average citations per paper that were relatively

close to the overall average number of citations for all

papers from all countries (10.51 citations per paper).

Citations per paper also appear to be on an upward trend

for the developing economies in the region.

A higher than average citation rate for papers from a

particular country in a given field can be considered an

indicator of scientific impact. For example, Australian

papers were more highly cited than the overall average in

16 out of 22 broad scientific field for the period 19992009,

with New Zealand (10 fields) and Singapore (8 fields) also

showing clear evidence of achieving above-average

impact across a spectrum of sciences. However, some of

the smaller science systems from the region also achieved

above-average impact in specific fields, including: the

Philippines (computer science, environment/ecology,

pharmacology and toxicology, plant and animal science);

Viet Nam (clinical medicine, microbiology, neuroscience);

Indonesia (geosciences, social sciences); Papua New

Guinea (biology, microbiology) and New Caledonia

(geosciences). These apparent strengths are discussed in

the country profiles that follow, along with national

priorities for science and national policy directions.

Patents

One regional feature is the trend towards integrating S&T

policies with innovation and industry policies, notably

through the registration of patents. Through the period20002007, the number of patents held in the USA and

registered by the Southeast Asian countries, Australia or

New Zealand nearly doubled (Table 7). Australia and New

Zealand were the two largest patent-registering countries

and Malaysia was the fastest-growing patent producer,

although from a smaller base. Malaysia registered half as

many patents as New Zealand in 2001 but matched it by

2006 and moved ahead in 2007.


444

Table 6: Scientific papers and citations of authors from

Southeast Asia and Oceania, 19992009


Note: Data cover the period 1 January 1999 to 31 December 2009.

Source: ISI Web of Knowledge, Essential Science Indicators,

March 2010

Australia 284 272 3 304 072 11.62

Cambodia 566 4 197 7.42

Fiji 633 2 955 4.67

French Polynesia 456 3 805 8.34

Indonesia 5 885 45 156 7.67

Malaysia 17 980 79 098 4.40New Caledonia 950 7 780 8.19

New Zealand 55 253 575 803 10.42

Papua New Guinea 741 7 318 9.88

Philippines 5 370 44 295 8.25

Singapore 58 731 498 782 8.49

Thailand 26 896 188 759 7.02

Viet Nam 5 878 41 043 6.98

Country/territory Papers Citations Citationsper paper

Table 7: USPTO registered patents from Southeast Asia and Oceania, 20002007

Selected countries

Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 increase,20002007 (%)

Australia 802 981 964 1 023 1 068 1 002 1 476 1 382 72.3

Cambodia 1 1

Indonesia 11 13 9 13 11 12 7 9 -18.2

Malaysia 63 65 94 77 111 117 162 212 236.5

New Zealand 125 147 171 164 161 135 160 136 8.8

Philippines 17 22 30 45 39 26 44 33 94.1

Singapore 274 373 505 523 540 429 519 481 75.5

Thailand 25 39 60 37 37 28 56 28 12.0

Viet Nam 1 4 2 2 6 2 1 0.0

Total 1 318 1 644 1 833 1 884 1 970 1 755 2 427 2 282 73.1


10/28

Figure 3: High-tech exports from Southeast Asia and Oceania, 2008 (%)



445


Exports

US$ millions

-n = data refer to n years before reference year

Note: Exports are grouped according to the Standard International Trade Classification: Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials (Section 3);

Chemicals and related products (Section 5); Machinery and transport equipment (Section 7). The categories for Manufactured goods and Other do not

include any high-tech exports.

Source: United Nations Comtrade database

0 20 40 60 80 100

53.7

13.9

14.95.02.623.8

67.6

50.1

76.13.420.0

31.8 3.8 6.9 10.6 46.9

0.6 96.5 2.9

26.225.313.75.429.4

17.3 5.2 32.3 22.6 22.6

64.614.29.25.16.9

2.4 39.1 13.0 43.5

9.011.254.811.213.8

4.5 7.9 44.8 24.1 18.7

24.541.011.52.320.7

48.11.5

16.42.0

Mineral fuels, lubricants& related materials

Chemicals & relatedproducts

Machinery & transportequipment

Manufactured goods Other

Percentage

Fiji

French Polynesia

New Caledonia

Papua New Guinea

Australia

Cambodia

Indonesia

Malayasia

New Zealand

Philippines

Singapore

Thailand

Vietnam

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

High-tech exports

Despite the global recession, a number of Southeast Asian

economies have performed well in high-tech

manufactured exports and commodities in particular

(Figure 3). High-tech manufacturing is drawn mainly from

Sections 5 and 7 of the Standard International Trade

Classification. Within Section 7, the major high-tech

products are electronics, electrical and related data

equipment but also some power-generating equipment

and medical devices. Section 5 includes medical and

pharmaceutical products, optical equipment, aeronautics,

photographic equipment and metrological devices (Lall,

2000). Where the available data are recent enough,

growth in some of these high-tech exports appears to

have slowed or even declined as a result of the global

recession. However, a closer analysis shows that the

decline has been progressing since 2000, suggesting a

lead up to the recession rather than a direct consequence.

745.7

206.7

1 632.1

2 722.2

187 039.4

2 797.5

137 020.4

198 846.4

30 578.0

50 465.7

299 297.4

153 571.1

48 561.3


11/28

Malaysias exports of machinery and transport equipment

(Section 7), the largest commodity group (33.2% of

exports), actually dropped by 23.6% in 20072008,

mainly due to a fall in exports of electronic integrated

circuits. This sub-group collapsed by 75% from 2007 to

2008 but was generally flat through 20002008. Other

major high-tech exports from Malaysia for 2007 include

automatic data processing equipment (7.2% of total

exports) and office and data processing machine parts

(5.5%).

Major high-tech exports from the Philippines dropped

40% between 2006 and 2007. For the latter year,

electronic integrated circuits comprised 11.0% of total

exports and automatic data processing machines 7.8%.

Exports of machinery and transport equipment

constituted the majority (54.8%) of Singapores exports in

2007. High-tech manufacturing featured strongly in

Singapores export performance, including electronic

integrated circuits (21.1% of total exports) and automatic

data processing equipment (3.4%). Over the period

20032007, Section 7 exports averaged a growth rate of13.8% but this fell to 4.7% for 20062007. Although

exports of electronic circuits slowed, they still reflected a

positive trend.

Like Malaysia, Thailand performed well in high-tech

exports of automatic data processing equipment

(8.2% of total exports in 20062007) and electronic

integrated circuits (5.3%) over the same period.

For Thailand, machinery and transport equipment

represented nearly half (44.8%) of total exports. For this

section, Thailand has maintained an annual growth rate

of 18.3% for several years, with a slight dip in 20062007to 17.9%.

It is likely that, when data emerge for 2009 and 2010, they

will reveal evidence of a decline in high-tech exports but

it is also likely that some countries in the region will fare

worse than others. As recovery deepens, economies such

as Singapore and Thailand will probably recover more

quickly than others, given the current trend.

COUNTRY PROFILES:Australia and New Zealand

Australia

S&T and economic status

Although it maintains a comparatively small population,

Australia ranks 23rd in terms of world trade merchandise

exports. GDP per capita amounted to US$ 48 253 in 2008.

Merchandise exports (US$ 187 million in 2009) were

dominated by fuel and mining (60%), with manufacturing

comprising just 16% and agriculture 14%.

Australia has been undergoing somewhat of an STI policy

transition since 2005. Through the early 2000s, the economy

lagged behind other OECD countries in terms of the level of

investment in R&D. In 2000, GERD in Australia amounted to

just 1.61% of GDP, with business contributing just under half

(47.8%) of the total, according to the UNESCO Institute for

Statistics. With the exception of mining, business expenditure

on R&D remained well below the OECD average. Even

though GERD rose to 2.17% by 2006, driven largely by the

growing share (57.3%) invested by business in general andmining in particular, the Australian economy still slipped

from 5th to 18th position in the World Economic Forum Index

from 2000 to 2008 (Cutler, 2008). This apparent slide in global

competitiveness in all but the natural resources sector

spurred the new government to undertake a series of

reforms in 2007. A number of reviews that directly or

indirectly focused on the national science system were

carried out between 2007 and 2010. These included reviews

of: the Australian innovation system; the higher education

system; the co-operative research centres programme; and a

series of sectoral reviews covering automobile production,

clothing and footwear, and pharmaceuticals. In all cases, therecommendations made and the policies that have resulted

so far have sought to bring science more centrally into the

Australian innovation and industrial systems and to

overcome some of the structural weaknesses noted in recent

years, such as a general decline in public investment in

science. According to the Innovation Review, Australian

government support for science and innovation as a share of

GDP fell by approximately 25% from 1994 to 2007 (Cutler,

2008).

Structural arrangements, priorities and policies

As a consequence of the recent reviews cited above and anapparent commitment to strengthening the science base

underpinning the countrys innovation performance, seven


446


12/28

priorities for innovation were identified in 2009 to

complement existing national research priorities. These

are not sectoral priorities but rather are directed towards

systemic reform of the innovation system. These priorities

are:

improving research funding;

producing skilled researchers to undertake the

national research effort;

securing value from commercialization and

development of industries for the future;

disseminating new technologies, processes and ideas;

enhancing collaboration within the research sector and

between researchers and industry;

stimulating international collaboration in R&D;

involving the public and communities to work with

others in the innovation system to improve policy

development and service delivery.

Within the university research system, there remains a set

of four overarching research priorities dating from 2002.

These are:

an environmentally sustainable Australia;

promoting and maintaining good health;frontier technologies for building and transforming

Australian industries;

safeguarding Australia.

These research priorities are not directly attributable to

specific fields of scientific enquiry but rather set out

generic targets for socio-economic development. Under

each broad heading, there are lists of more specific

research targets.

Australias business sector investment in R&D has

traditionally been weak and dominated by a small numberof large firms, particularly in mining. The recent growth in

business sector R&D shows promise but this has largely

been led by mining and energy, which accounted for 17.4%

of the total national R&D effort in 2007, up from 12.8% two

years earlier. The public sector remains the major performer

across most fields of research; it is responsible for nearly

100% of pure basic research and 94% of strategic basic

research. Around 94% of business sector investment is

either experimental development or applied research.

Apart from universities, the Commonwealth Scientific and

Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is by far thebiggest public sector performer of research. In 2009,

it employed 6500 people at 50 sites across the country.

CSIRO research priorities are driven by a set of flagship

programmes adopted in 2000:

energy transformed;

food futures;

climate adaptation;

future manufacturing;

preventative health;

wealth from oceans;

minerals down under and;

sustainable agriculture.

These flagship priorities reflect the growing regional

concern with climate change and sustainable production.

Expenditure on the Commonwealth socio-economic

objective of the environment has been rising slowly over

the past decade, reaching 2.4% of all Commonwealth

research investment for 2007.

Future trends and challenges for Australia

The Australian government increased the science budget

by 5% over the previous years budget in 2008 and a

further increase of 25% was foreshadowed for the 2010

science and innovation budget. Among major initiatives,the government has announced a super science initiative.

This AU$ 1 100 million initiative is directed towards key

enabling technologies: biotechnology, nanotechnology

and ICTs, as well as two other key areas: space science and

astronomy; and marine and climate science. This

investment is likely to direct the overall national R&D

effort further towards the development of environmental

technologies and management practices.

The Australian Cooperative Research Centres Programme has

been a key feature of the national science system for nearly

two decades. Over AU$ 150 million of Commonwealth fundsare invested in the programme. Recent changes announced

by the government include a refocus on public good

research, which should again add further impetus to

environmental technologies and their management,

including alternative energy and water management.

There are three key challenges confronting the Australian

system. The first concerns the comparatively weak and

narrowly focused business sector involvement in the

system. The challenge will be to draw smaller and

potentially innovative firms into the broader national

science and innovation system. Public sector investmentis critical for building a strong national basic science

capability but the recent trend toward contestable


447



13/28

funding in a common arena for the academic and public

sector system has blurred the boundaries for the missions

of different science institutions. The Australian Institute of

Marine Science (AIMS), the Australian Nuclear Science and

Technology Organisation (ANSTO), the CSIRO and

universities are now in competition across many common

sources of funds. This is a product of the integration of

S&T policy with innovation policy. The challenge, however,

will be to ensure that the basic science base can remain as

broad as possible in order to sustain a strong, diverse and

sustainable science culture. Managing the sometimes

competing demands of science and the much broader

demands of innovation and industry policy will remain a

major structural challenge for policy advisors and

governments.

New Zealand


New Zealand ranks 63rd on the World Trade Organization

(WTO) world trade merchandise index. GDP per capita is

lower than in neighbouring Australia, at US$ 29 870. New

Zealands trade remains dominated by agricultural exports

(59%) and scientific output is strongly concentrated in thebiological and medical sciences (Figure 2).

New Zealand, like Australia, has lagged behind most other

OECD countries in terms of the level of investment in R&D.

It was not until 2002 that the GERD/GDP ratio reached

1.2%. Moreover, the level of private sector R&D is lower

than for almost all other OECD countries.


In early 1990, New Zealand introduced a major

restructuring of its science system which is still valid today.

The new arrangement separated science policydevelopment, science funding and the production of

scientific output. A longer-term strategic view directed

towards benefit to New Zealand was adopted and a rather

unique structure put in place establishing the government

as a science purchaser (Cleland and Manly, 2007). The

Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (MoRST) is

still the main driver of science policy and the Foundation

for Research, Science and Technology is the major

purchaser of public-funded science. The Health Research

Council is the major purchaser of medical research.

Although science policy is aligned with innovation policy,administration remains more discrete than in Australia.

However, there is a strong emphasis on Transformational

Research, Science and Technology and on establishing

roadmaps for S&T investment. There are currently four

strategic priorities:

sharpening the agenda;

engaging the population with S&T;

improving business performance; and

building a world-class science system.

Existing priorities in biological and medical research have

been maintained, with new sectoral areas targeted for

development through national roadmaps, including food

research, energy and biotechnology. Through 20082009,

transformational research focused on building a high-tech

platform for renewable energy. The Health Research

Council received a considerable increase in funding in the

2009 budget.

Established in 1992, Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) are a

major feature of the New Zealand system. By 2004,

investment in CRIs had reached US$ 395 million, making

them the biggest national investment programme.

Although their structural arrangements are quite different

from the Cooperative Research Centres in Australia, theyrepresent a similar structural feature in the New Zealand

science system and provide a similar level of policy input.

International linkages are a strategic priority for New

Zealand. These are enshrined in a number of agreements,

including the Energy Development in Island Nations

partnership with the USA and Iceland, and the Science

and Technology Cooperative Agreement with the EU.

Future trends and challenges for New Zealand

New Zealand ranks just below Australia on the

Knowledge Economy Index (KEI) overall but higher forthe variable of economic incentive regime. Both countries

have policies in place to build closer alliances between

the research and business sectors. Both are also placing

greater emphasis on public good research, much of

which comes in response to environmental concerns. For

New Zealand, this is described as eco-innovation that will

draw together government, industry and science (MoRST,

2009: 3)

A key challenge identified by the New Zealand

government is to refocus the CRIs in order to deliver a

greater impact in tackling challenges New Zealand facesfor the future. This includes, building high-tech platforms

for renewable energy, food research and biotechnology.


448


14/28

COUNTRY PROFILES: Southeast Asia

Cambodia


Cambodia is still recovering from the trauma of the

international and civil wars that decimated the countrys

scientific capacity in the 1970s. The economy has grown

rapidly in the first decade of the 21st century, albeit from a

very low base. GDP per capita stood at US$ 769 in 2009,

placing Cambodia just ahead of Timor Leste for this

indicator. The country currently ranks 111th on the world

trade merchandise export index. Merchandise exports are

concentrated in manufacturing, primarily clothing.

Although Cambodia has been progressing rapidly both

economically and socially, the country does not compare

well in terms of knowledge-based development. On the

World Bank Knowledge for Development Index for 2009,

the Cambodian economy still lags well behind all other

East Asian and Pacific countries. The country has fallen

further behind on the knowledge index with a normalised

regional score of 2.8 in 1996 declining to 1.15 in 2009. Thisis in spite of the presence of many other positive social

and economic indicators.

There is currently no competitive funding programme to

support scientific research, although proposals are in

place to establish a National Research Commission for

Education. Consequently, there are, as yet, no clearly

defined research priorities but, with renewed efforts to

establish a national science funding system, these are in

the process of being developed. Publications are growing

from a small base with output almost totally dependent

on international co-authorship. The USA, France andJapan are the three main partner countries contributing

to this output. Output is almost entirely concentrated in

the life sciences, with three-quarters of publications

relating to the biological, biomedical or medical sciences

(Figure 2). Internet usage is in its infancy with just 0.5% of

the population having access (Figure 1).


There is currently no overt national strategy for S&T.

As a consequence, S&T policy remains fragmented and

dispersed across the various ministries responsible for

social and economic management and development.There are, however, some nascent structures emerging

that could provide the basis for a national strategy.

The supply of scientists and engineers has been growing

and there is potential for further development. Their

number remains limited, however, because of a

comparatively weak institutional capacity and a higher

education system that has grown faster than its capacity to

deliver quality control across a highly diverse range of

institutions proposing higher education. Responsibility for

university-based professional training rests with the

Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport and technical

training with the Ministry of Labour. As the higher

education system continues to grow, the country faces an

immediate, pressing challenge to co-ordinate institutional

strengths in order to entrench national quality and achieve

policy objectives across the entire higher education system.

As yet, there are no defined priorities for scientific research.

Cambodias private sector remains weak and very much

dependent on both foreign direct investment (FDI) and

overseas development aid (ODA). Consequently, it is the

public sector which shoulders most of the burden for

national investment in knowledge-based development,

including R&D. As the private sector becomes stronger and

more innovative, the policy challenge will be to find waysto stimulate the development of R&D and innovation in

the private sector. While S&T is not specifically mentioned

in the countrys development plans, S&T issues are

directed to an ad hoccommittee composed of

representatives from eight ministries and co-ordinated by

the Ministry of Industry, Mines and Energy.

Future trends and challenges for Cambodia

The future challenges for Cambodia are immense, with

institutional and human resource-building a major priority.

At present, there are a number of internationally

supported initiatives underway to help the countryovercome institutional barriers. For example, the World

Bank is supporting an initiative with the Ministry of

Education, Youth and Sport to enhance the research

capacity of the higher education system, and the Asian

Development Bank is supporting the elaboration of a

technology adoption framework with the Ministry of

Industry, Mines and Energy. There are also plans to develop

the nations research funding system and reviews are

underway to revitalize science and engineering education.

The country is at an early stage of developing an industrial

private sector. FDI is being sought and will probably bylocated in one or more of the 21 special economic zones

that have been proposed by the government.


449



15/28

The growth areas at the moment are the garment,

tourism, construction and property development

industries. The growth in garment manufacturing is

related to the influx of FDI due to low labour costs.

As S&T policy becomes more national in focus and is

directed towards the development of a national

innovation system, it will be necessary to monitor and

review national progress. At present, no single agency has

the mandate or the resources to evaluate S&T policy or

develop indicators for monitoring S&T and innovation. A

critical challenge will be to build some institutional

capacity to carry out this work and to resource periodic

data collection and analysis.

The global economic recession since 2008 threatens to

staunch the flow of international support. However, there

are promising signs for Cambodia in terms of natural oil

reserves. At present, agriculture and fuel comprise just

5% of the countrys merchandise exports. The discovery

of potentially lucrative oil reserves in recent years may

lead to growth in raw production but the capacity to

process the raw product onshore will depend upon theavailability of skilled personnel and funding for industrial

development.

Indonesia


Indonesia is the most populous country in Southeast Asia;

it also comprises 45% of the total population of the

countries studied here. Since the Asian financial crisis in

the late 1990s, the economy has struggled to recover. The

Indonesian economy is now well down on the World Bank

Knowledge Index scale, above only Cambodia. However,

due to the overall size of the economy, it ranks 31st

in theworld merchandise trade value index. Manufacturing and

fuel (36%) and mining (38%) comprise the main

merchandise export category groups. GDP per capita in

2008 came to US$ 2 247. The GERD/GDP ratio has

languished, recording only 0.05% in 2005. I t fares only

better than Cambodia and Viet Nam for the share of GERD

contributed by the private sector.

In previous decades, Indonesia placed great emphasis on

building S&T institutions. Apart from the university sector

and departmental R&D organizations, there are currently

seven national R&D agencies (see next section). In 2005,these seven agencies were working on a series of priority

programmes: food and agriculture, energy, defence,

transportation, ICTs, health and pharmaceuticals.

With the onset of the global recession, the policy effort

has been directed toward sharpening the S&T investment

focus on those areas that have potential for economic

transformation. Consequently, there is a determined

effort to establish intermediate agencies, such as business

innovation centres, business technology centres and

incubators. In the university system, there has been a

strong focus has on improving quality.


The Ministry of Research and Technology (MoRT) is

responsible for driving S&T policy. In 2005, it announced a

20-year vision statement. In this vision statement, S&T is

portrayed as a main force for sustainable prosperity.

Seven R&D agencies come under the direct authority of

MoRT. These are: the National Institute for Scientific

Research (LIPI), the Agency for the Assessment and

Application of Technology (BPPT); the National Institute

of Aeronautics and Space (LAPAN); the National

Co-ordinating Agency of Survey and Mapping

(BAKOSURTANAL); the National Standardisation Agency

(BSN); the National Nuclear Energy Agency (BATAN) andthe National Nuclear Energy Control Board (BAPETEN).

A set of additional institutes and centres reside under the

jurisdiction of various ministries.

Four key science programmes were identified for

development in 20052009: (1) R&D; (2) diffusion and

utilization of S&T; (3) institutional capacity-building and;

(4) increasing the industrial capacity of S&T. For 2009, a set of

thematic programmes were also identified (Firdausy, 2006):

I tsunami early warning system;

I open source (software development);I agro-technology;

I marine science;

I defence from bioterrorism;

I bio-ethics;

I DNA forensic technology;

I natural resource accounting.

Since 2002, a number of presidential decrees have driven

the development of the science system, for example: the

2005 decree for Technology Transfer of Property Rights and

Outputs of R&D and the 2006 Decree of Permission for

International Researchers, Bodies and Institutions toConduct Research Activities in Indonesia. The latter reflects

an overall strategy to develop international collaboration.


450


16/28

The numbers of researchers in the system appeared to

slip back around the mid-2000s but there has since been

a concerted effort to build up numbers of research

personnel in national S&T institutions. Publication output

has only progressed modestly, thanks to a high level of

international co-authorship. Japan is the primary country of

origin for collaborators, followed by the USA and Australia

(Table 5). Output has been dominated by biological,

biomedical and medical sciences, presenting a pattern

somewhat similar to that of Cambodia and New Zealand.

In 2009, there were 2 600 institutions providing higher

education, including universities, academies and

institutes. The emphasis has been on strengthening the

research capacity and quality of just a fraction of the top

universities.

Indonesian patenting activity has remained limited

throughout the first decade of the century, with

essentially no growth in the patent system. Developing

IPR centres and technology transfer institutions are part of

the national strategy to stimulate patenting activity.

Future trends and challenges for Indonesia

MoRT has identified three key challenges: overcoming the

mismatch between public sector research output and the

demands of industry; enhancing R&D capacity in the

private sector; and overcoming the structural barriers

between the public and private sectors.

Science networks have been identified as a mechanism

for responding to these challenges. Current policies focus

on fostering national co-operation in the key areas noted

above, in order to share resources, utilize economies of

scale and build both virtual and actual centres ofexcellence. International networking is being encouraged

to increase the quality and quantity of researchers

engaged in international research.

Like many other countries in the region, Indonesia has

also identified the need to broaden community

acceptance and understanding of how S&T serve to

enhance development.

Human resources are likely to remain a major challenge.

Balancing efforts to augment the pool of researchers

against budget constraints from the global recession willmake the task of network-building all the more

imperative.

Malaysia


Malaysia has made rapid progress in science, technology

and economic development, recovering rapidly from the

Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s. The economy is

dominated by a high ratio of manufacturing (65%) among

exports, ranking 21st in the world merchandise export value

index. As with the Philippines, much of this is a product of

foreign firms located in the country. GDP per capita in 2008

amounted to US$ 8 197. The GERD/GDP ratio has grown

from 0.49% in 2000 to 0.64% in 2006 (Table 1).

Growth in business expenditure on R&D as a proportion of

GERD has been a major contributor to this expansion,

rising from 58% in 2000 to 85% in 2006. For the immediate

future, this may be a double-edged sword, as contractions

in R&D investment by many multinational firms following

the global recession may leave a vacuum that might not

easily be covered by the increase in public expenditure.

In terms of the Knowledge Index, Malaysia has remained

stationary in 48th position. The economy ranks

comparatively highly on the ICT and innovation variables,

with education remaining the key challenge. Internetusage has grown dramatically, with 56% of the population

enjoying access in 2008 (Figure 1).

Publication output has risen rapidly over the past decade,

very much led by domestic capacity. The international

co-authorship rate for Malaysian scientists was of the same

order as for Australia and New Zealand. Interestingly,

China was the primary contributor to international

co-authorship. In contrast to most other countries in the

region, chemistry dominated Malaysias scientific output.

Numbers of S&T personnel have continued to climb. Sotoo has the number of patents. Malaysia has recorded the

fastest growth in patenting activity of all countries in the

region, from only 63 USTPO registered patents in 2000 to

over 200 in 2007. Consistent with these data is the good

national performance in high-tech exports(see page 445).


The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation is the

leading national institution, drawing STI policies towards

a common goal. The second National Plan for Science and

Technology Policy 2002-2020, adopted in 2003, set out a

clear strategy of developing institutions and partnershipsto enhance Malaysias economic position. Underpinning

this strategy are four specific capacity-building targets:


451



17/28

S&T institutional capacity, commercialization of R&D

output, human resource development, and generating a

culture of techno-entrepreneurship.

The National Plan presented a vision for 2020 centred on

those areas that could yield the highest economic pay-

off. This included policy considerations of: demonstrated

need, availability of national advantage, relevance and

the capacity to achieve objectives. This approach to

strategic planning is common across many of the

industrially advanced economies, such as Singapore,

Australia and New Zealand. However, Malaysia has been

more explicit than many other countries in identifying

industrial targets for the science base.

These include:

I advanced manufacturing and materials;

I micro-electronics;

I biotechnology;

I ICTs and multimedia;

I energy;

I aerospace;

I nanotechnology;

I

photonics;I pharmaceuticals.

In addition, Malaysia has announced plans to engage in

roadmapping-type exercises in key industrial sectors.

Future trends and challenges for Malaysia

Over the past decade, there has been a clear shift towards

demand-driven R&D. However, a shortage of skills is likely

to hamper development efforts. In spite of considerable

growth in human resources in S&T overall, there is some

evidence of a net loss of scientific personnel across many

fields, with the notable exception of agricultural scienceand chemistry.

Another major challenge for Malaysian S&T will be to

maintain and nurture growth in public sector investment

in basic science through the current period of global

economic downturn.

The Philippines


The Philippines has struggled to maintain and develop its

science system since the Asian financial crisis. For many

indicators, it has barely kept pace with regional S&Tdevelopment. GERD as a proportion of GDP has actually

fallen, as has GERD per capita. Only Indonesia and

Cambodia record lower GERD/GDP ratios (Table 1). With

the second-largest population in the region, the economy

ranks 56th in terms of merchandise exports. GDP per capita

amounted to US$ 1 856 in 2009. Manufactured goods

comprised 83% of merchandise exports in 2008 but this

was largely because of the dominance of foreign firms

operating in the economy. The activity of many of these is

concentrated in electronics manufacturing and assembly.

The National Science and Technology Plan, 20022020

describes the economy as sluggish or slow moving with

uncontrolled urbanisation.

Although the business sector share of GERD is high,

this is misleading. As in Malaysia, it is due to a high level

of foreign manufacturing. A clear challenge for S&T policy

will be to seek ways to leverage technological capacity

into local firms and into sectors other than the assembly

of electrical components.


The Department of Science and Technology is the key

agency in the Philippines, with policy development co-

ordinated by a series of sectoral councils. The NationalScience and Technology Plan, 20022020 sets out the short-

and long-term strategy for deriving greater benefits from

investment in science. Strategic emphasis is placed on

raising GERD to 2% of GDP by 2020 and doubling the share

of business R&D investment. Strategic emphasis is also

placed on promoting technology transfer, improving

human development indices, promoting S&T advocacy

and expanding science networks.

The Philippines is also seeking to identify key areas for

innovation-led growth. Biotechnology and ICTs get a

particular mention. There is an expectation that, by 2020,the economy will have developed a wide range of globally

competitive products with high-tech content. Strategies for

achieving these goals included clustering an approach

successfully adopted by Singapore (see overleaf) and

targeting human resource development in S&T. The Plan

targets small and medium-sized enterprises as loci for

stimulating local S&T spill-overs. The Philippines has also

been pursuing a strategy for communicating science to the

broader population through various media-based strategies.

This vision for the future foreshadows the Philippines as

carving out niches in selected S&T areas that could be

described as world-class. Specific longer-term sectoralpriorities defined in the 20022020 plan are farther-

ranging and broader than, for example, in Singapore.


452


18/28

They include:

I agriculture and forestry;

I health and medicine;

I biotechnology;

I ICTs;

I micro-electronics;

I materials science;

I the environment;

I natural disaster mitigation;

I energy;

I manufacturing and process engineering.

Future trends and challenges for the Philippines

High-tech manufacturing exports are tied to a small number

of very large multinational corporations. A key challenge will

be to maintain the broad range of desired priorities within

the financial constraints presented by the global recession.

Many ambitious targets are set out in the national plan for

20022020. Although these targets are very clear, the

institutional and economic capacity to deliver them has not

been forthcoming. In particular, the goal to raise the

Philippines global ranking in key areas is challenged by thehigh achievements of many other countries in the Asian

region. For example, the Philippines has actually fallen

16 places on the World Knowledge Economy Index, from

65th to 89th position. Although still ranking above Indonesia,

the economy is well behind those of Malaysia and Thailand.

Singapore


Singapore is one of the smaller countries in the region with

a population only slightly larger than that of New Zealand.

Despite its small geographical size and population, it has

demonstrated considerable success in developing aglobally competitive science system. In 2008, Singapores

economy recorded GDP per capita of US$ 39 423, the

second-highest of the countries covered in the present

chapter after Australia. It ranks 14th in terms of world

merchandise export value. According to the World Bank,

Singapore is one of only two countries in the region (Viet

Nam being the other) that improved their world ranking in

the Knowledge Index between 1995 and 2008. Singapore

outranked all countries covered in the present chapter for

the related variables of economic incentive regime, ICTs

and innovation. The countrys growth in publications may

not have not been as dramatic as some of the countriesstarting from a smaller base but, significantly, growth has

been strongly driven by Singapore-based scientists.


Singapores five-year National Science and Technology

Plan published in 2000 noted the need to increase the

number and quality of human resources in S&T

substantially. The Plan for 20052010 reinforced this

strategy, emphasizing the need to build on three areas

to achieve translational competency: nurturing local

talent; recruiting global talent and working with industry

to promote technology development and transfer (MTIS,

2006). Co-ordination for implementing the plan is

divided between the Agency for Science, Technology

and Research (A*STAR) for public sector activities and the

Economic Development Board for private sector

activities. Throughout the decade, Singapore has

remained focused on recruiting key world-renowned

scientists, offering them globally competitive salaries

and conditions. The success of this recruitment

campaign is reflected in a considerable level of growth

(nearly 50%) in the number of researchers per million in

the total population between 2000 and 2007.

Although the global recession has led to a tighter focus on

the development of S&T, growth since 2000 has beenremarkable. The national approach has been to cluster key

research agencies geographically to provide a national

knowledge hub with ties to institutes abroad that are

world-renowned for scientific endeavour in two key areas:

ICTs and biomedical research. To achieve this, the Science

and Engineering Council has drawn together seven

research institutions concerned with ICT to create

Fusionopolis and the Biomedical Research Council has

created a cluster of five key biomedical research institutes

to form Biopolis.These two clusters are at the heart of

Singapores drive to create global centres of excellence in

these two niche areas.

The Singaporean approach is very much policy-driven. For

example, ministerial-level steering committees have been

established to drive development in key areas, including

environment and water technologies, and interactive

digital media. While the general approach is to build close

links between public-funded science and business, there is

still a strong focus on basic research.

Future trends and challenges for Singapore

The government fixed a target in 2006 of achieving a

GERD/GDP ratio of 3% by 2010. A challenge for Singaporewill be to consolidate the significant scientific growth that

has occurred throughout the decade and maintain the


453



19/28

comparatively high levels of investment in the wake of the

global recession. The business sector was a major

contributor to GERD even before the turn of the century and

has increased its share over the past decade. Maintaining

the momentum in the wake of the global recession will thus

remain a challenge for the next few years.

Singapore has been highly successful in attracting foreign

scientists and technicians to its well-funded laboratories and

institutions. Another key challenge will be maintain this level

of human capital and further develop the countrys training

system to meet technical demands in the longer term.

Thailand


Thailand ranks 26th in terms of world merchandise exports

and, like Malaysia and the Philippines, these exports are

dominated by manufactured exports. GDP per capita in

2008 came to US$ 4 187. The GERD/GDP ratio for Thailand

is low and actually fell marginally from 0.26% in 2001 to

0.25% in 2007. On the World Banks Knowledge Economy

Index, Thailand ranks 63rd, well behind Malaysia and

Singapore but well ahead of Viet Nam.

Objectives in three key areas have been identified for

national development and improving overall economic

performance. The first goal is to increase the total number

of firms undertaking innovation. The second is to improve

management skills and the third is to raise the countrys

competitiveness in S&T against international benchmarks.

The targets for development cover three main sectors:

I the industrial sector, comprising industries selected by

the government and those possessing future potential,including the food, automotive, software, microchip

and textile industies, tourism, health-related services

and the bio-industry;

I the community economy, focusing on quality upgrades

of the One-Village-One-Product programme . This

programme has now been in place for two decades.

It is directed towards improving communities access

to finance and management skills;

I the social sector, covering environmental development,

support for children and the underprivileged and soforth. An additional focus after the present Abisit

Goverment came to power in 2009 was to make

Thailand a creative economy based on the creativity,

talent and unique culture of the Thai people.

The main strength of the Thai system can be found in

private firms. More intense competition in the global market

and the Asian financial crisis of 1997 have, to some degree,

led to a behaviour change among Thai firms. After the 1997

crisis, they abandoned their long-standing attitude of

relying on off-the-shelf foreign technologies in favour of

developing in-house R&D capabilities. Several large

conglomerates recently expanded their R&D activities and a

number of smaller companies have begun collaborating

with university R&D groups to develop technology. Another

new phenomenon is that multinational corporations are

now engaging in more technologically sophisticated

activities than before, such as product design. In the

automotive industry, for example, several Japanese car-

makers, such as Toyota, Honda, Isuzu and Nissan, have set

up technical centres in Thailand. Toyotas technical centre

employs 600 R&D engineers.


The main objectives of the current National Science andTechnology Strategic Plan (20042013) are to enhance

Thailands capability to adapt to rapid change in the

globalization era and strengthen the countrys long-term

competitiveness. The vision statement in the Plan is

consistent with the governments development goals of

sustainable competitiveness, a strong community

economy, a knowledge society, healthy environment and

better quality of life. The Plan emphasizes four fundamental

development factors for achieving these goals: a strong

national innovation system, robust human resources, an

enabling environment for development and capacity in

four core future technologies: ICTs, biotechnology,materials science and nanotechnology.

The cluster concept has been the main policy for industrial

collaboration at the local, national and regional levels ever

since the Thaksin Government (20012006) and remains

so. The government declared five strategic clusters for

Thailand to pursue: automotive industry, food industry,

tourism, fashion and software. These are not conceived

simply as geographical clusters but rather as virtual

clusters with innovation links that can be supported

through policy. Visions for these five clusters have been

defined as: Kitchen of the World (food cluster), Detroit ofAsia (automotive cluster), Asia Tropical Fashion (fashion

cluster) , World Graphic Design and Animation Centre


454


20/28

(software cluster), and Asia Tourism Capital. At the

regional level, Thailand has been divided into

19 geographical areas. Each area has had to plan and

implement its own cluster strategy, focusing on a few

strategic products or services. Each has been supervised

by the so-called Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Governors,

who have been given authority by the central

government to act like provincial CEOs. The cluster

concept has also been applied at the local level to build

the capacity of the grassroot economy in the name of

community-based clusters, especially to help the

One-Village-One Product programme succeed.

An innovative nation with wisdom and a learning base

was one of Thailands Dreams projected by the Thaksin

Government within attempts to make this dream (one of

seven) come true, several strategies were devised. These

include: continual investment in R&D, an environment

conducive to attracting and stimulating innovation, high

accessibility to knowledge and information across the

nation, fluent English as a second language, possessing a

stronglearning basis, such as a passion for reading and

greater access to cheap but good books (Phasukavanich,2003). The issue of competitiveness has also been made a

high priority, as illustrated by the establishment of a

National Competitiveness Committee in 2003 chaired by

the prime minister.

The ten-year National Science and Technology Strategic Plan

(20042013) placed the concepts of a national innovation

system and industrial clusters at its heart by highlighting

concrete measures to stimulate their development. This

plan marks the countrys official transition from an S&T

policy to an STI policy. However, to date, neither the

National Science and Technology Strategic Plan nor theBasic Law on Science, Technology and Innovation has

adopted, in practice, the innovation system approach as

the main policy content (Intarakumnerd, 2006).

Future trends and challenges for Thailand

Several key weaknesses in the Thai policy-making process

have been identified by local analysts. These include:

ineffective supra-ministerial cross-cutting policy processes

and a lack of inter-ministerial co-ordinating mechanisms;

an imbalance in the STI policy-making process between

the key science ministry, the Ministry of Science and

Technology (MoST), and other ministries with aneconomic mission; and the limited participation of the

private sector in the policy-making process.

In Thailand, there is no structured mechanism for

co-ordination between ministries. The national plan for

20042013 creates the position of Chief Science Officer in

every relevant ministry to co-ordinate S&T activities and

interact with the National Competitiveness Committee.

However, these posts still exist only on paper today. MoST

plays a more central role in STI policy planning and

implementation than economic agencies like the Ministry

of Industry. This imbalance contrasts with the situation in

Chinese Taipei, the Republic of Korea and Japan, where

economic agencies like the Japanese Ministry of

International Trade and Industry, the Korean Economic

Planning Board (EPB) and the Taiwanese Ministry of

Economic Affairs play significant roles in this area.

A further challenge is to overcome inconsistencies in the

amount of resources allocated to different strategies for

S&T development. For example, initiatives directed

towards enhancing S&T training capacity in the private

sector are dwarfed by the level of resources directed

towards new initiatives in the public research sector.

Systemic failures also need to be overcome, such as by

providing grants where they are needed or directsubsidies, as in the East Asian newly industrialized

economies, to help private firms develop their

technological capabilities.

Timor Leste

Timor Leste has the smallest population and economy of all

the countries discussed in the present chapter, with the

exception of some of the Pacific Island nations. It has been

defined as the poorest Asian nation. The country is still in the

early stages of recovery from socio-political turmoil since

gaining independence in 1999. Few data are available on

economic development and even fewer on S&T. However, itis known that FDI accounts for over 40% of GDP, an indicator

of the economys high level of dependence on international

funding. Unemployment is estimated to be around 70%.

Over 80% of the population is dependent on agriculture,

forestry or fisheries. Consequently, environmental issues are

of prime concern.

There is no designated agency with overall responsibility

for S&T but the Ministry of Education is the biggest source

of funding. After the turmoil of the late 1990s, the countrys

only university, the Universidade Nacional de Timor-Leste,

re-opened in 2000. There are currently five faculties thatreflect the countrys development needs: agriculture,

political science, economics, education and engineering.


455



21/28

The National Research Centre and the Institute of Linguistics

opened in July 2001 to support the work of the faculties.

Longer-term planning foreshadows the development of

tertiary studies in health, law, communications,

accounting, fisheries, architecture, physics and chemistry.

Broader institutional development for S&T is only now just

under way, with US$ 500 000 having been allocated in 2009

towards the establishment and maintenance of national

laboratories. National parks have recently been established,

including some marine parks. Their development will rely

on international knowledge-based linkages.

According to the president, the economy is faring well,

with more than 10% real growth at the end of 2008, in

spite of the global recession. Nevertheless, it will be a big

challenge to overcome the lack of educated or skilled

personnel. Weak public institutions and inadequate

infrastructure compound these difficulties. Significant oil

reserves offer a glimmer of hope for future economic

development but the technical resources required to

manage these in order to obtain maximum benefit

remain, as with Cambodia, a major challenge for thecountrys nascent technical capacity.

Viet Nam


The Vietnamese economy has been undergoing

considerable restructuring and transformation. This has

carried through into the area of STI. Viet Nam is one of the

few countries covered in the present chapter that has

been gaining ground in the World Bank Knowledge for

Development index; it currently ranks 51st on the world

merchandise trade index. However, GDP per capita of

US$ 1 041 reflects the considerable disparities in incomeacross the country. Investment in S&T in Viet Nam remains

low, at just US$ 5 per capita in 2007, compared to

US$ 20 for China in 2004 and US $1 000 in the Republic of

Korea in 2007.

S&T policies in Viet Nam have been described as comprising

two distinct types: explicit and implicit. Explicit policies

emerged in 1987 with the governments decision to remove

the state monopoly on S&T. This was followed by decrees on

foreign technology transfer (1988), organizational and

individual rights to enter into contracts or to co-operate in

S&T (1992) and on external grants in support of S&T (1994).A foreign investment law was adopted in 1995 that governs

S&T activities in economic projects.

To cope with the demands of fulfilling the requirements

for joining WTO, Viet Nam has enacted the Intellectual

Property Law (2005) and Technology Transfer Law (2006).

The aim of these two laws is to protect the rights and

responsibilities of people and organizations who own

intellectual property or invest in technology transfer,

according to international standards. Further decrees and

resolutions have been issued by the government give

Documents

2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia