Issue 21 Science, Technology and Innovation & Inclusiveness Jul 2012 by Noviscape Consulting Group

21 ISSUE

Science, Technology and Innovation & Inclusiveness Politicization of STI in the Era of ASEAN Community: Preaching, Policy, and Politicians

Clustering for Development Sustainable Development in ASEAN: Towards More Inclusivity?

Interview with Dr. Tatang A. Taufik Infographic: STI & ASEAN Community

EDITORIAL

3 BY DR. PUN-ARJ CHAIRATANA1

DR. PUN-ARJ CHAIRATANA P A G E

3 POLITICIZATION OF STI IN THE ERA OF ASEAN COMMUNITY: PREACHING, POLICY, AND POLITICIANS By Dr. Pun-Arj Chairatana

P A G E

6 CLUSTERING FOR DEVELOPMENT By Dr. Apiwat Ratanawaraha

P A G E

9 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN ASEAN: TOWARDS MORE INCLUSIVITY? By Dr. Zeeda Fatimah Mohamad

P A G E 12 INTERVIEW WITH Dr. Tatang A. Taufik

P A G E 14 INFOGRAPHIC: STI & ASEAN COMMUNITY By Infographic of the Month

Science, technology, and innovation (STI) have been the backbone of many social developmental or experimental platforms for decades. Although STI development is a well-established discipline in the academic world, a paradigm shift from STI development to STI for development just started only a decade ago. Social, economic, and environmental concerns and ideas are four major ingredients for “inclusiveness”. However, in a number of cases, inclusive development refers only to strategies where the environment plays a key role. More recently, the need for a balance between the other three dimensions has been re-emphasized. A good example can be seen from the ASEAN Committee on Science and Technology (ASEAN COST). In 2010, a strategic direction to raise competitiveness for sustainable and inclusive ASEAN using STI under the ASEAN Plan of Action on Science and Technology 2016-2020 (Krabi Initiative) was launched. There are eight thematic tracks as key areas to be pursued, namely: science and innovation for life; biodiversity for health and wealth; water management; digital economy, new media and social networking; ASEAN innovation for global market; green technology; and food and energy security (See Infographic). In this issue, with special reference to Southeast Asia, our journey into the new decade of S&T development for inclusiveness covers a discussion on emerging issues in the politics of science, technology, and innovation (STI), research in sustainable science, and urbanization - the three dimensions that will shape the ASEAN Community (AC). The first article, written by Dr. Pun-Arj Chairatana, exemplifies three signals for change in a politicization of STI from the contemporary crusade between religions and the scientific community. Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity give mixed signals against and ally with STI. Also, a new regime of STI policy for social inclusion and livelihood will face a challenge on the mechanism to engage all walks of life into a new innovation system. The arrival of the ASEAN Community in 2015 will start a new chapter of regional STI diplomacy. The second article by Dr. Apiwat Ratanawaraha gives an overview of selected trends in industrial clustering policies in Southeast Asia. The author argues that industrial agglomeration as a policy target will continue in this region. Even though in some countries the scale and scope are shifting to small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and high-technology and creative industries, other relatively less industrialized countries will continue to build large industrial estates to attract foreign investors. But most of these initiatives aim at industrial production, so they put little emphasis on building local capabilities and community development. The question is whether industrial clustering could be made socially and economically inclusive, and if so, how? The third article, by Dr. Zeeda Fatimah Mohamad from the University of Malaya, raises an issue on a paradigm shift of STI and sustainable development (SD) from an enviro-economic orientation to give more emphasis on social development. A stronger influence from various international forums led by UNESCAP, OECD and the more recent RIO+20 summit is the megatrend that attempts to move the global market towards a low carbon society (LCS); emerging issues on the degree of convergence of social development and aspects of inclusive development into the overall implementation of SD, and dimensions on fairness and inclusivity within this new policy set-up will be at the center of the discussion. Indonesia is getting back on track. In this issue, we interview Dr. Tatang A. Taufik, the Deputy Chairman of the Indonesia Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology, on the roles of STI in Islands Southeast Asia, and how Indonesia is reconciling and reuniting the country by using STI. An Infographic illustrates emerging issues from the Krabi Initiative and its impact on current S&T infrastructure in Southeast Asia. It proposes that the next chapter of regional S&T competitiveness and ambition will transcend from livelihood and digitization to support other thematic tracks.

Managing Director, Noviscape Consulting Group

KEYWORDS:

IDEA “Science” and “politics” have been interwoven since the beginning of civilization, especially for a mighty nation. Science, technology, and innovation (STI) are now three major ingredients of knowledge creation and utilization. Global trends on techno-globalism, open economy, and the emergence of modern society have increased the degree of involvement of scientists in public controversies, as well as social participation in the scientific world in Southeast Asia, following four decades of successful industrialization. The 2010s is the beginning of the latest tipping point in the politics of STI, particularly on the reinterpretation of the benefits from technological innovation for social modernity and wealth creation from the religious angle, a paradigm shift in policy framework from STI development into STI for development, and Glocalization of STI diplomacy under the forthcoming ASEAN Community platform.

SCENARIOS AND EARLY INDICATORS

Politics of preaching: A reason and faith divide Southeast Asia is home to three of the major World religions, Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism), along with Hinduism and Ancestor worship. There are two major streams of religion and politics in this region - the politics of Islam and the rest. Three crucial points in this relationship are: 1) the increased public role of religion in politics and civic life, 2) the way religion engages with national politics and posits itself as one of the pillars of the nation, and 3) how religion frames and harnesses modernity and capitalism with particular ideological (or spiritual) interpretations (Chong, 2010).2 For the first point, technological advancement in ICT and logistics are accelerating the interaction and visibility of STI and religion with the general public. Both religions and the scientific community in Southeast Asia apply ICT for their preaching and knowledge diffusion purposes; religion uses scientific knowledge to conserve the important sacred relics and documents, e.g. all of the major Southeast Asian language versions of the Bible are already available online, including 24 hours satellite channels for religions, while scientific programs have less representation. In this sense, the scientific world is falling behind their holy counterparts. The contemporary adversaries between STI and the three dominant religions can be observed from the second and third points, which are partly an outcome of the first. Religion still plays a very crucial role in all Southeast Asian culture. For the case of Islam, around 95% of Muslims in Thailand consider religion to have a very important role in their lives, the highest in Asia, and two 1 2

Disclaimer : The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of Noviscape Consulting Group or the Rockefeller Foundation. Copyright © Trendsoutheast 2009 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.

3 4

Politics; science, technology, and innovation (STI); religion; policy; STI diplomacy; ASEAN Community; poverty

percent higher than in Indonesia and Malaysia (PEW Research Center, 2012). These three Southeast Asian nations have higher percentages when compared with South Asia (Afghanistan and Pakistan), which are significantly higher than those in the Middle-East & North Africa. Although there is a strong public support for STI among leading countries in Southeast Asia, issues on public understanding and engagement in STI are still being marginalized. In the case of Malaysia, the reflection from MASTIC’s biennial public awareness survey findings illustrate that there are also dissenting views regarding acceptance of modern STI, particularly among the Malay-Muslim community (Hazim, 2004). So far, there have not been similar observations from Buddhism and Christianity angles. Year 2012 can be considered as having a very active political campaign from some religion leaders against the scientific world. Reason and faith debate in Southeast Asia will be more dynamic than ever. For Buddhism, an on-going religion strike back campaign on “Ignorance of science” led by Thai celebrity Buddhist Monk from the orthodox Theravāda sect, has affected and influenced his 900,000 Facebook fans and 600,000 Twitter followers, and is already impacting the social thinking on STI. For Catholics, in early August 2012, with fierce opposition from the country’s influential Catholic bishops, the Philippines House of Representatives ended debate on a reproductive health bill to move forward for a house floor vote next year (2013). The bill is part of President Benigno Aquino III’s antipoverty policy.3 For Islam, the Indonesian court jailed an atheist activist for 30 months for posting Prophet Mohammed cartoons on his social network, and the government is in the process of launching an Islamic version of Facebook in the near future.

Policy inclusivity: Emergence of new generation of innovation systems A new paradigm of knowledge and innovation policy has emerged, whereby the late-coming policy maker can learn from his/her neighboring partner. At the end of the last millennium, national innovation systems (NIS) of less successful developing countries in Southeast Asia were rather weak and fragmented, except for Singapore (Intarakumnerd & Chairatana, 2002). The new millennium marks a U-turn in paradigm shift among policy makers. Most new or up-coming policy will have an extensive technology foresight to extend the time period, including an integration of innovation into the scope of policy, except the national science and technology policy of the Philippines (2002 – 2020). Most of the new and up-coming STI policy in key Southeast Asian countries started in the early 2010s. These include ‘Vision and Mission 2025’ of Indonesia, the forthcoming Malaysia National Science, Technology and Innovation policy (towards 2020)4, and the National Science, Technology and Innovation Policy

The author would like to extend the most sincere appreciation to Dr. K. Thiruchelvam, Visiting Associate Professor at the Perdana Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, for his insight on Politics of STI in Malaysia and Grace Santos from Anteneo de Manila University on the information of Catholics in the Philippines. These are a synopsis from the international conference on “Religion in Southeast Asian Politics: Resistance, Negotiation and Transcendence”, which was held at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) in Singapore between December 11-12, 2008. House Bill 4244, titled Act providing for a Comprehensive Policy on Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health, and Population and Development. From an interview with Dr. K. Thiruchelvam.

5 2021).5

and Plan of Thailand (2012 – Singapore Research Innovation and Enterprise Plan 2015 (RIE2015) has a shorter time period as it mainly focuses on commercial innovation. There has been a shift of philosophy and goal of the policy from development of STI to STI for development. This new generation of STI policies treats society and environment as two new core functions. The new process has already taken private enterprise as its key partner. Still civil society and poverty dimension continue to be underrepresented. The issue on social inclusion is included in the policy, but it still lacks clear and dedicated pathways to eradicate inequality. The new generation of NIS has already emerged with a distinctive coalition of actors, but main objectives still have an imbalance between economic and social development and human development. Pro-poor, egalitarian, and fair innovation processes are not systematically included into the core of policy, yet. The “human development innovation system,” may need to be developed in parallel to the expanded version above (Cozzens, 2008). This means that the inclusive door for the poor and vulnerable is open, but there has not yet been developed enough lighting and a better corridor leading to the feast.

Until June 2012, the general public in Southeast Asia still did not realize that STI diplomacy had already penetrated into security and non-traditional security arenas. The report on the U.S.-Thailand alliance published by the National Bureau on Asian Research in June 2012, recommended the development of a regional hub for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief at the Thai military base of U-tapao, and the establishment of a bilateral dialogue on China and the impact of rising powers in the Asia-Pacific region (Dalpino, 2012). It was the same time that the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) requested to use this particular airport for a six week atmospheric research study, between August and September this year.7 Thai politicians, security agencies, environmental scientists, and the general public had a very extensive discussion on this incident. Finally, with geopolitical tension, the Thai government postponed consideration until it passed a viable start date and NASA withdrew the proposal. This was the first time that the scientific community and ordinary people started to rethink the importance of “STI diplomacy”. This plane just left the tarmac!

IMPLICATIONS Religions & STI • Religion and science are both on a journey to search

for truth, as Southeast Asia is trying to close a developmental gap among member countries by moving to a knowledge-based society and economy (KBS/KBE), various overlapping issues from a union of three religions and technological innovation will crucially influence social values and economic structure. A juggling between these two forces will shape social perception and movement on poverty eradication, which we will need to observe closely.

• The majority of Mainland Southeast Asia is influenced

President Barrack Obama of the USA and Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra of Thailand. Some rights reserved by Prachatai.

Politician new challenge:

by Buddhist culture, and more than half of the poverty within ASEAN is here as well. Recent political reform in Myanmar, and more active engagement of Buddhist Monks in politics, particularly in Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand, will be a new battlefield of religious and scientific and technological philosophies. The relationship between Buddhism and STI for development will need special attention.

STI Diplomacy in the ASEAN Community era In the beginning of the 2000s, a negotiation among the biodiversity rich Southeast Asia and the host countries of global pharmaceutical companies on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and Public Health could be seen as the first STI-related diplomatic exercise to define regional foreign policy goals to have their own ‘independent and active’ agenda, but it had not actively engaged the member countries to translate this initiative into a strategy (Hau, et al, 2012). With a long range vision of the European Union (EU), SEA-EU-NET (20082012) has been established as a platform for S&T cooperation between Europe and Southeast Asia under the EC’s Seventh Framework program (FP7). This is the first bi-regional STI diplomacy that includes policymakers and researchers in key strategic fields, namely energy, food, and health technology at the ASEAN-EU level. A major outcome from this diplomatic mission has been the future scenarios of 2020 SEA-EU S&T cooperation (Degelsegger & Blasy, 2011).6 5 6 7

The NSTIPP was approved by Thai Cabinet on April 17, 2012. The foresight workshop was held in Chiang Mai, Thailand at the end of May 2011. U-Tapao naval airbase is located approximately 100 miles southeast of Bangkok.

STI policy by the poor of the key players in the region have already embraced the STI-mode of innovation, which is appropriate for research and knowledge creation platform. A non-scientific learning style of social enterprise (SE), community and societal groups may lead to an active pro-poor STI policy and planning for these groups of dynamic economies, but the policy making process may need to explore for a different mode of innovation.

• For those late-coming countries, particular for the CMLV

a socio-cultural mobility within the member countries and the rest of the world.

• Decentralization of local administration and knowledge

maker mobility in the region will lead to the generalization of a ‘new normal’.

INHIBITORS

group, a review of an evolution of long-term challenges with a special reference on poverty eradication and social protection will be very crucial for narrowing the gap of policy development and implementation among the ASEAN member countries.

• A struggle between religions and the scientific world in

• At this moment, a well-established mechanism and chan-

• Limited STI understanding and proper communication

nel for the poor and vulnerable, to advocate and voice their ideas and demands, is still very inactive. This area of investigation will help both the policymakers and civil society to create a joint-understanding and orchestrate the strategy of STI for development.

From bottom to the top STI diplomacy • Diplomacy seems to be a very far-fetched act for the

poor and vulnerable. The issue that brings this underrepresented group into a regional diplomatic theater is how scientific knowledge and innovation can contribute to social inclusion and community sustainability (Lundvall, 2012).

• Tons of issues, ranging from democratization of knowl-

edge, big technologies (nuclear, hazardous waste, biomedical, etc.), and technological risk on environment, regulation, biodiversity, climate change, and so on have been extensively discussed at the diplomatic table by the traditional diplomat with a more collaborative support of expertise from STI experts. In contrast, the politician (policy decision maker) and people at the-bottom-ofPyramid (BoP) play a less significant role in a core process. There should be a mechanism to involve the people at the apex and the bottom of the pyramid to sit and talk together in this very new arena.

DRIVERS • Demand on major innovations in order to tackle societal

‘Long term challenges’, such as how climate change in the Asia Pacific will cause more droughts, floods, and crop failures and affect regional adaptive capability, demographic change, social disparities, and inequality.

• The new paradigm of science, technology and innova-

tion policy treats innovation in a much broader sense by bridging social and service innovations with technological innovation. It includes different stakeholders and societal dimension into a new innovation system. The user plays a crucial role in localizing and diffusing innovations and recognizing a dynamic evolution of a sectorial and thematic innovation model.

• BRICS countries are already key players in the global

research and innovation stage, and are quickly catchingup and strengthening their STI potential.

Buddhism version of Penance for abortion - a contemporary interpretation of sin and virtue in Thailand.

• Regionalization of Southeast Asia in 2015 will accelerate

• The current trend in the long-term policy process is that all

Southeast Asia to co-exist in harmony and a progressive manner.

among members of parliament (MPs) in developing countries.

• The concept of STI diplomacy is very new for both the diplomat and scientist.

• The closed and exclusive diplomatic negotiation structure

of the ASEAN Summit and other national and international multi-party hearings always exclude the poor and vulnerable from a key stakeholder formulation.

REFERENCES Agence France-Presse (June 14, 2012). Indonesian Atheist Jailed for Prophet Mohammed Cartoons, Jakarta Globe. Retrieved from http://www.thejakarta globe.com/home/indonesian-atheist-jailed-for-prophet-mohammedcartoons/524376 ASTV Manager Online (2009, November 19). “Buddhism and Science are conflicted: An aim is not for wisdom” Manager Online (In Thai). Retrieved from: http://www.manager.co.th/science/viewnews.aspx?NewsID=9520000138043 Cozzens, S. E. (2008). ‘Innovation and Inequality,’ Working Paper #30, Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy. Retrieved from: http://www.cas.uio.no/research/0708innovation/Cozzens_120208.pdf Chong, T. (2010). Religion and Politics in Southeast Asia. Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia 25(1), vii-viii. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/sojourn_journal_of_ social_issues_in_southeast_asia/v025/25.1.chong.html Dalpino, C. (2012). Old Alliance for the New Century: Reinvigorating the U.S.-Thailand Alliance, Washington D. C., the National Bureau on Asian Research. Retrieved from: http://www.nbr.org/publications/element.aspx?id=598 Day, N. and Bin Muhammad A. (2011). Malaysia: The Atlas of Islamic-World Science and Innovation: Country Case Studies No. 1, Retrieved from http://royalsociety.org/uploaded Files/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2011/4294976146.pdf Degelsegger A. & Blasy, C. (2011). Spotlight on: Science and Technology Cooperation between Southeast Asia and Europe: Analyses and Recommendations from the SEA-EU-NET Project, Centre for Social Innovation, Vienna, SEA-EU-NET. Retrieved from https://zsi.at/attach/SEA-EU-NET_Buch_Web.pdf Mohd Hazim Shah (2004) A Tale of Two Scenarios in the Development of Science and Technology in Malaysia. In Mohd Hazim Shah and Phua, K.L (eds.), Public Policy, Culture and the Impact of Globalisation in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysian Social Sciences Association. PEW Research Center (2012). The World’s Muslims: Unity and Diversity, PEW Forum from Religion & Public Life. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/Muslim/the-worlds-muslims-unityand-diversity-executive-summary.aspx Purnell, N. (June 24, 2012). U.S. Plans for U-Tapao Airfield Cause Stir. Politics, The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from: http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2012/06/25/u-s-plans-for-utapao-airfield-cause-stir/ Lundvall, B.-Å (2012). Preface, in A. Ratanawaraha, P.-A., Chairatana, and W. W. Ellis (eds.), Innovation Systems in Southeast Asia, Chulalongkorn Southeast Asia Innovation Systems Series, Bangkok, Chulalongkorn University Press. Royal Society (2010). New Frontier in Science Diplomacy: Navigating the Challenging Balance of Power. Retrieved from http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/ policy/publications/2010/4294969468.pdf Viehland, N. J. (August 16, 2012). Philippines reproductive health bill survives Catholic ‘Prayer Power’, National Catholic Reporter. Retrieved from http://ncronline.org/news/ global/philippines-reproductive-health-bill-survives-catholic-prayer-power Vom Hau, M., Scott, J. and Hulme, D. (2012). Beyond the BRICs: Alternative Strategies of Influence in the Global Politics of Development, European Journal of Development Research, Vol. 24, pp. 187–204. Retrieved from http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ejdr/journal/v24/n2/pdf/ejdr20126a.pdf

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Pun-Arj Chairatana is the Managing Director of NOVISCAPE CONSULTING GROUP and the Principal Investigator of TRENDNOVATION SOUTHEAST NEWSLETTER. He has been involved with various regional scenario buildings and future exercises since 2000. As a policymaker, he was Director of Policy Entrepreneur and Foreign Affairs Department at the Public Policy Development Office (PPDO), the Office of Cabinet Secretariat. He has a background in economics of technological change, innovation management, health and nuclear physics. His expertise is in the areas of strategic foresight, technology and innovation management, public policy, trend analysis, and political economy.

7 BY DR. APIWAT RATANAWARAHA

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Chulalongkorn University

KEYWORDS:

IDEA Policies to induce industrial and business agglomeration have been implemented in Southeast Asia for a few decades now. There are a variety of clustering scales and targets, ranging from industrial and business parks, technology and innovation parks, to creative precincts and village clusters. The basic idea is that by concentrating industries within defined boundaries, positive externalities will be generated in terms of localization and urbanization economies. Most of these development initiatives aim at industrial production, so they put little emphasis on building local capabilities and community development. Can clustering be inclusive then?

SCENARIOS AND TRENDS Industrial agglomeration as a policy target continues Deliberate industrial agglomeration has always been part of industrial policy in Southeast Asia. Governments have built industrial parks to promote export-oriented industrial development since the 1970s and 1980s. There are currently more than 200 industrial parks in Indonesia1 and more than 50 in Thailand, many of which are developed and operated by the private sector. One of the original objectives of industrial parks was to provide adequate infrastructure for multinational firms to invest in export-oriented manufacturing industries. Such policy instruments are usually accompanied by a wide array of investment incentives, such as tax credits and free repatriation of profits. The direct benefits to the poor are employment opportunities, even though they tend to be limited to opportunities for low-skilled factory jobs. Many of the industrial parks become magnets for further urbanization, as they attract a large of number of poor migrants from rural areas and small towns. Meanwhile, industrial parks have been accused of generating industrial waste and pollution that harms the surrounding towns and communities, as in the cases of Cavite in the Philippines and Map Ta Put in Thailand.

Clusters; industrial parks; science and technology parks; urbanization; creative economy; One-Tambon-One-Product (OTOP)

The concept of the industrial cluster came later in the 1990s, which aimed at promoting geographical agglomeration of inter-connected and competing firms that would share commonalities and complementarities. The concept has been applied not only to traditional manufacturing industries, but also to a variety of agro-based and service sectors. The clusters are often sector- and area-specific. For instance, in Thailand, there are automotive clusters in the central region, ceramic clusters in the north, and Halal Food cluster in the south. In Indonesia, there are textile and garment clusters in Bandung, a clove cigarette cluster in Kudus, a tourism sector in Bali, and palm oil clusters in Kuala Enok.2, 3 There are now an increasing number of smaller, provincial industrial parks in Thailand and Indonesia that target domestic, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) rather than large multinational firms.

1 2 3 4

The efforts have created policy buzz around creative industries and the importance of creativity in the modern economy. But the challenge still remains as to what extent the shift in policy interest toward creative industries truly benefits the majority of people in society. TCDC has drawn criticism because its headquarters and exhibition space is located in one of the most luxurious malls in Thailand, and its initiatives target the type of creativity that gratifies the wants of the urban middle class. Likewise, Bandung’s Creative City strategy has been questioned regarding the extent of its economic benefits. Some artists are even concerned that the policy could lead to government censorship and restrictions on free expression.5

In many cases, the clusters are in the settings of small towns and rural areas. While the main objective is to increase industrial competitiveness, another rationale is providing provincial development that would slow down migration to large cities. By promoting clusters of indigenous industries and local employment opportunities, as it is hoped, people will not move to megacities. Producers are encouraged to use local materials, and existing skill sets are utilized and properly enhanced with support from the government. Cluster policies in Indonesia and Thailand often include government support for labor training, product design, and marketing. Nonetheless, the concept of building large industrial estates still dominates industrial policies in other industrializing countries in this region. In the central coastal area of Vietnam, there are now 42 parks covering a total of over 13,870 hectares, while another seven with a total area of 9,850 hectares are under development.4 In Dawei, Myanmar, a megaproject to build a deep seaport and an industrial complex is under way, covering an astonishing area of 250 square kilometers.

From agglomeration of factories to that of R&D and creativity Industrial park in Indonesia. Some rights reserved by bernardoh.

Another policy concept that has been gaining support around the region in the past five years is the creative economy. Policies to promote creative clusters are popping up in many cities. To name but a few, Bangkok and Chiangmai in Thailand, Bandung and Bali in Indonesia, and Cebu City in the Philippines all promote a wide range of creative industries from traditional handicrafts and fashion design to software, animation, and movies and music. Policy instruments have been adopted, and new agencies devoted to promoting clusters of creative firms have been established, such as the Thailand Creative and Design Center (TCDC). Indonesia has even changed the name of its Ministry of Culture and Tourism to the Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy.

Since the early 2000s, emerging economies in Southeast Asia have attempted to transform their economies from resourcebased to knowledge-based economic development. Within this context, the target for clustering policy is shifting from manufacturing activities towards R&D for high-technology products and innovations. All middle-income countries in this region now have technology and innovation parks of some sorts. Most of them are open to any technology sectors, such as Vietnam’s Saigon Hi-Tech Park in Ho Chi Minh City and Hoa Lac Hi-Tech Park in Hanoi. But some of the parks are sectorspecific, such as Biotech Parks in Malaysia, and Software Park in Thailand. Even Myanmar now has an ICT/Software Park.

http://www.faculty.ait.ac.th/visu/pdfs/SWOP%20Analysis%20of%20Eco-Industrial%20Clusters%20in%20China,%20Indonesia%20and%20Sri%20Lanka.pdf Ibid. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/10/16/palm-oil-clusters-start-operation-2014.html http://industrialzone.vn/lng/2/news-event/1115/forgotpass.aspx

Despite the obvious connection between innovation, creativity and physical configuration in cities, the overall innovation policies in most ASEAN countries have not integrated innovation policies with those for urban development. The present conceptual limitation is evident at the policy-making level. The current innovation policies are primarily sectoral in scope and national in scale. Most policymakers in Southeast Asian countries appear to approach the formulation of innovation and urban policies as independent themes. Virtually all ASEAN countries have established science, technology, and innovation parks, but they were developed with little consideration of the urban environment as a whole. Science and technology parks are often geographical enclaves of scientists and engineers, located in the suburbs and exurbs. There is therefore a clear imperative to develop policy frameworks for integrating innovation policies with those for urban development. Policies and strategies for industrial clustering need to be translated into urban development requirements to fulfill specific targets that city planners must deliver.

IMPLICATIONS AND INTERVENTIONS The big question mark for the clustering effort is about its actual contribution to society, particularly the poor. The deliberate agglomeration efforts so far have aimed at industrial and business development. The idea assumes that the benefits will trickle down to the poor either directly through employment opportunities for low-skill workers, or indirectly and eventually through multiplier effects of associated economic activities. One concern is that the policy obsession on industries that require high skills and specific types of creativity would benefit only people who can afford to go to universities and design schools. The poor still do not benefit directly from the policy. Another concern is about bias towards megacities, which tend to benefit greatly from clustering policies, further encouraging migration. Even initiatives that attempt to integrate industrial clustering with urban development, such as Malaysia’s Cyberjaya in the Multimedia Super-Corridor, the attitude of “build it and they will come” has not led to an increase in innovative capacity and benefits for wider economic and social development.6

Thailand Creative and Design Center (TCDC) in Bangkok. Some rights reserved by chinnian.

The Urban Disconnect The deliberate efforts for industry clustering reflect the thought that creativity and innovation cannot take place in vacuo. They require physical space: innovative firms require and prefer physical proximity, creative minds enjoy livable space, knowledge flows require superb infrastructure, industry-university linkages demand efficient logistics and transport networks, etc. Innovation systems require processes and incentives to develop linkages among the various actors, and the closer the interactions among the many individual players, the more effective the innovation system as a whole. 5 6

Science and technology agencies will play critical roles in enhancing production capabilities of firms in industrial clusters. Technology transfer programs are often a major part of clustering efforts, while some of the research and development (R&D) initiatives of government and university labs have been adjusted to align with industry clusters. For instance, Thailand’s National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) has developed technology roadmaps for some of the industrial clusters, such as shrimp and rubber clusters, and has set up its internal R&D clusters with corresponding industries. As an indicator of how science and technology policies have become more concerned about inclusive development, a cluster within NSTDA is devoted to “resources, rural development, and the disadvantaged people”, with one of the missions being to develop and transfer technologies for rural clusters. It remains to be seen how socially inclusive this R&D initiative will become. Below is another note-worthy variant of the clustering effort that attempts an inclusive and comprehensive approach to economic development by integrating industrial clustering with other policy instruments.

http://www.geog.utoronto.ca/graduate/planning/student-work/field-trips/bandung/Bandung-Creative-City-Anderson-et-al.pdf Brookera, D. 2012. “Build it and they will come”? A critical examination of utopian planning practices and their socio-spatial impacts in Malaysia’s “intelligent city”. Asian Geographer, 29(1), 39-56.

8 OTOP: One Tambon One Product Implemented since 2002, Thailand’s One Tambon One Product program is a combination of promotion of local knowledge and entrepreneurship, clustering of micro-enterprises, quality control and standardization, and technical and financial support for product design, branding and marketing. The program encourages each Thai tambon (sub-district) to identify locally made and unique products and to market them as such. To encourage improvement of product quality, the government institutes a rating system, with the highest recognition being five stars. In order to qualify as OTOP Product Champion, a product has to meet several criteria, including exportability, continuity in production, maintaining product standards and quality, and ties to local communities. As for marketing, the government regularly organizes local and international fairs to promote OTOP products, such as OTOP City and OTOP Midyear fairs. The total sale of OTOP products has increased from about 16,714 million baht (535 million USD) in 2002 to more than 70,000 million baht (2,245 million USD) in 2011. As of 2010, 33,218 individuals, community groups, and SMEs have been registered as OTOP producers.7 Whilst the OTOP program was an initiative of the central government, the institutional setup was relatively decentralized. The national-level OTOP committee oversees the overall direction of the program, with the Community Development Department serving as the secretariat. There are OTOP committees at the regional, provincial, and district levels, which play critical roles in selecting qualified products, transferring information and knowledge, and building networks of OTOP producers throughout the country. The concept of “Citizen Park” has also been introduced, which encourages each province and district to establish their local OTOP centers where their products are marketed as cultural products and sold to visitors. Individual producers are encouraged to jointly set up enterprises or co-operatives to produce and sell their products. Since 2007, the OTOP policy has shifted its focus from single products to community products, stressing the importance of local communities. A number of initiatives have been introduced. For instance, a business-matching program, OTOP Select, links village producers with other domestic and international enterprises. Knowledge-Based OTOP (KBO) aims to build information and knowledge-sharing networks among village producers. “Smart OTOP” booklets and seminars are offered to communities that wish to acquire more knowledge and skills in marketing, branding, and other business knowhow. Young OTOP Camps are organized to promote awareness among the local youth about the local heritage and knowledge.8 As another significant step for OTOP products, Thailand Post Company has started its home delivery service for OTOP products for people who order the items through its OTOP Express Catalogue. People can pick up the catalogue for free at any of 123 post offices in Bangkok and 75 offices in the major tourist destinations around the country. They just need to fill in the forms to place an order, pay by cash or credit card, and just wait for the product to be delivered at home. Many of the OTOP products now are marketed through cable TV channels and online stores. Additionally, to set OTOP as part of the creative economy policy, the Thai government has assigned TCDC to implement the OTOP Store and Thai Pinto Project to explore ways to 7 8

http://www.otoptoday.com/about/otop-ten-years Ibid.

9 promote and increase OTOP products’ distribution channels in the global market, and to find how provincial cuisine can be developed in terms of quality and packaging to enhance consumer access.

BY Dr. Zeeda Fatimah Mohamad

The case of the OTOP program shows that clustering alone is never enough, particularly if the key policy objective is to promote economic development at the community level. It has to be accompanied by a wide range of policy instruments.

DRIVERS & INHIBITORS • Current global economic conditions, particularly in the United States and Europe, will force the ASEAN economies to rethink their industrial and economic development strategies. Clustering strategies for economic development will have to be adjusted accordingly. • Concerns for the environment and sustainability will become the key conditions that determine the location and size of industrial clustering. • The increasing integration of the ASEAN economies and transport networks may lead to agglomeration of industries in border towns and provinces.

REFERENCES

• Administrative and political decentralization may help foster industry clustering and economic development at the community level, provided that there are mechanisms to link the communities together to attain economies of scale and scope by sharing information, knowledge, and other resources. • Regionalization and decentralization of production and innovation systems, as is being attempted now in Indonesia, may allow agglomeration of local SMEs to generate wider economic and social benefits. • Advancement of information and communication technologies can promote industrial clustering in more remote villages and towns. The ease of setting up an online presence for local micro-enterprises will also be a key marketing factor.

KEYWORDS:

IDEA

Sustainable development; inclusivity; green technology; green growth; Malaysia

Due to its environmental historico-ethical genesis, sustainable development (SD) has been shaped by the predominant concerns in finding a balance between economic development and ecological sustainability - with lesser emphasis on the social development pillar. The latter is usually seen ‘in context’ to the former, rather than a priority in itself. For instance, in dealing with the sustainability challenge of Climate Change, major decisions are mainly determined by issues pertaining “Green growth” can be defined as “maximizing economic to natural resource use, carbon emissions, and their impact to growth and development, while avoiding unsustainable economic growth. While social impacts of climate change, e.g. pressure on the quality and quantity of natural assets” (OECD, poverty eradication and human well-being, are predominantly 2011). “Inclusive development” refers to strategies that adshaped by decisions already made on these overarching dress economic and social inequalities, and exclusion by economic-cum-environmental priorities. Another similar trend providing marginalized and vulnerable people and groups is in the move by Malaysia (KETTHA, 2010) and Singapore with the opportunity to contribute to the process and benefit (Tay, 2012) in using “green technology” as a new engine of from its outcomes (Chairatana & Carrillo, 2012). The three growth to drive their future economic development. Partly, this scenarios in this article will be based on how the future of is influenced by increasing international emphasis on moving the “Green Economy” agenda will be shaped, based on the towards a green economy (UNESCAP, 2012, 2012, OECD, different levels in which the issue of inclusive development 2010; RIO+20 Website). Although this trend is commendwill be addressed. The scenarios will be divided into three able from an environmental economics point of view, it also categories: Expectable, Challenging and Visionary (Bezold, raises an important question on how far the issue of social 2009).1 In developing the scenarios, I take inspiration from development (including aspects of inclusive development) can two classic frameworks: the “Ladder of Citizen Participation” be adequately incorporated into the overall implementation by Sherry R. Arnstein (1969) and the “Ladder of Sustainable of the SD. How can we ensure that the issues of fairness and Development” by Baker (2006). The scenarios will take their inclusivity are properly addressed, when facing looming departure from Malaysia as the primary example of the South environmental and economic challenges on the horizon? East Asian context.

SCENARIOS

Challenging: Non-inclusive Green economy

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Apiwat Ratanawaraha is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand, where he teaches infrastructure planning and finance, urban management, and economic development. His current research includes projects on city innovations in Southeast Asian megacities, infrastructure justice, and inequality in access to basic services in Thailand. He has been a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at MIT, teaching infrastructure finance and energy security. He was a Doctoral Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, conducting research on infrastructure, technological development and innovation policy.

Undeniably, Green Economy also raises an important question on how social and inclusive development can be adequately incorporated into sustainable development.

Green technology and climate change policies in countries like Malaysia are being implemented vociferously by policymakers, but the focus is more on using sustainability issues to support the country’s vision to achieve its high income country status by 2020. The strategy is to use green science and technologies as the latest catalyst for economic catching-up, especially in attracting more foreign direct investments (FDIs) and participation in the growing export market for green products. For example, in the context of Climate Change, more investment has been made to develop and commercialize technologies for global climate mitigation, but less effort has been put in place to tackle the more local issue of enabling local communities to adapt to the impact of climate change. As a way to speed-up decision making in accordance with their economic growth priorities, governments tend to manipulate and influence the views of their citizens (especially those who are marginalized) by placing them on advisory committees for the express purpose of “educating” them or engineering their support. Efforts on inclusivity remain a public relations vehicle by policymakers and the elites. Decision making is mostly top-down with very limited/superficial dialogue between state and the civil society.

The key elements of the scenarios consist of different levels and aspects of inclusive development: public participation, governance, transdisciplinarity, market, entrepreneurship and corporate responsibility.

11 carry out conducive policies and the institutional framework. The formation of green markets, social entrepreneurs, transdisciplinary knowledge networks, green businesses, and a deeper sense of public and corporate responsibility can also flourish, and become the norm rather than the exception. Under such a condition, one could now foresee the ASEAN region becoming a strong hub for entrepreneurial experimentation and innovation for the green economy.

Expectable: Partially-inclusive Green economy Governments in Southeast Asia have the intention and are conducting actual strategies to balance the environmental and economic dimension of sustainable development strategies with inclusive development. There are many efforts, at least on paper, to link top-down policies with programs on public participation and bottom-up solutions, with special attention on looking into the plight of poor people and the marginalized. Catching-up, as often reiterated in political statements, should not only be about achieving high-income, but also protection of the natural environment and enhancing the livelihoods of all citizens. Consequently, in dealing with climate change, attention is given equally to both mitigation and adaptation. There have also been open dialogues for citizens to envisage alternative futures for sustainability. However, these promising policy statements and programmes seem to fall short of their aspirations, as a high degree of ‘tokenism’ is being observed on the ground. Although citizens may be proffered by the power-holders to participate in decision making through various participatory platforms, citizens lack the power to insure that their views will be heeded by policymakers. Since participation is restricted to these levels, there is no followthrough, hence no assurance of changing much of the status quo. The ground rules may allow citizens from various levels to offer their opinions - but power holders retain the primary right to decide.

Visionary: Highly Inclusive Green economy Sustainability with inclusive development is the main agenda of most countries in Southeast Asia. Policies (as mentioned in the previous scenario) are not merely on paper, but are seriously implemented on the ground. National and regional sustainability-related policies are based on both top-down and bottom-up solutions, with a strong institutional framework to ensure effective integration and cooperation between different stakeholders to take place. Decentralization and citizen power are gaining strong acceptance in policy making. The role of green technology in the SD is not only perceived as the domain of the scientific elites and industrialists, but is also well appreciated by the public. In fact, members of the scientific community, the private sector and civil society work together with communities in an inter-disciplinary way (combining both formal and non-formal knowledge), to create holistic and sustainable programs that are economically, socially, and environmentally viable to the local context. This includes creative localized solutions for climate mitigation and adaptation. Due to the high level of trust necessary, the task of implementation and continuous improvement are shared and ensured by various partners. Politically, the ideas of economic catching-up that are ecologically sound and socially inclusive are also gaining acceptance by a large majority of the populace, and this agenda is becoming a strong determining factor for election results in most countries in the region. There are strong sentiments supporting the notion that a high-income country with a deteriorating natural environment and a failing social structure is unacceptable, and will eventually collapse. Hence, it is not the speed, but the ‘quality’ of growth that matters. Interestingly, unlike in the past, the citizens of Southeast Asia seem to share a deep ethos for the SD, and are leading the sustainability movement in the global scene.

Nurturing a Green Economy: Installed Solar PV system at Malaysia’s Ministry of Green Technology, Water and Energy office building. Source: http://www.undp.org.my.

IMPLICATIONS In the challenging vision, countries would tend to repeat similar mistakes from the past, where economic growth does not commensurate with genuine accumulation of technological and dynamic capabilities that are necessary for long-run competitiveness. This is because policymakers and businesses, due to their lopsided understanding of SD, have been less creative in creating lasting and holistic eco-socio-economic value from the new era of the green economy. National per-capita income may rise, but remains volatile due to its dependence on external economic forces, i.e. FDIs and the export market. Profits, new knowledge, and improvement in livelihoods only benefit certain sections of the community, and do not trickle down to the masses. This can create distrust and lack of cooperation among citizens, resulting into low confidence in the value of the green economy.

Obviously, the three scenarios and their implications are a simplification, but it helps to illustrate the point that different gradations of inclusive development can influence how far the SD could be achieved in the region. This article tries to elucidate the point that “inclusivity” is an integral part of the green economy, and cannot be tackled superficially by policy makers if ‘sustainable’ development is to be a reality. Inclusivity may require more effort and time, but it will eventually provide a more lasting and creative impact to the region as the knowledge, skills, aspirations and efforts by various groups in the region are harnessed and combined to mobilize the efforts needed for sustainability to take place.

DRIVERS

• The urgency of dealing with pressing environmental challenges, e.g. climate change mitigation and adaptation (UNFCCC website, 2012), may hasten the move towards non-inclusive green economy and put the preference on top-down and short-term solutions – while undermining the slower process of social inclusion in the ASEAN sustainable development agenda. • The rapid rise of China, India and other emerging economies places competitive pressure on ASEAN countries to speed-up their economic catching-up process. Accelerated economic growth through rising income is the main priority in development, with both the environmental and social agendas taking the back seat. • Competition in university ranking has been pressuring university researchers in ASEAN to place undue emphasis on publication outputs and frontier research, reducing the motivation and opportunities for conducting research and teaching that are more communitybased, trans-disciplinary, and action oriented.

• The institutional framework for participatory processes has been given increasing importance since it was endorsed as a legitimate process in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in 1992 (Lawrence, 2011). This framework has been further enhanced and strengthened by the Aarhus Convention in 1998. Such an institutional platform, if strategically employed, could provide useful support in legitimizing transdisciplinarity approaches, bottom-up movements, and communitybased knowledge networks.

• Corruption and rent-seeking is still an on-going obstacle to national development in most ASEAN countries (Transparency International, 2011). This could reduce the necessary political will to develop, implement and follow-through long-term policies that are more contributive to the welfare and greater good of the community.

• Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP) is increasingly viewed as an important group in society that needs to be uplifted, while being simultaneously a potential multi-million market (IBoP Asia, 2012). The former has led to the rise of social entrepreneurs, while the latter has influenced a number of companies, big and small, to deepen the meaning of corporate responsibility - redefining businesses to become more inclusive of the needs of the poor.

Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, vol. 35, no.4: pp.216-224. Baker, S. (2006). Sustainable Development. London: Routledge. Innovations for the Base of the Pyramid in Southeast Asia (IBoP Asia) (2012). Pathways out of poverty: Innovating with the BOP in Southeast Asia. Ateneo School of Government Publication. Lawrence, R. J. (2011) Challenges for Environmental Diplomacy: Moving Forward. LESTARI Public Lecture No. 11, 2011. Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water (2012). National Green Technology Policy. Komiyama, H, Takeuchi, K, Shiroyama, H. and Mino, T. (2011) Sustainability Science: A Multidisciplinary Approach. United Nations University Press. OECD (2011) Towards Green Growth http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/48224539.pdf RIO+20 Earth Summit 2012 http://www.earthsummit2012.org/ Tay, E (2012) 2012 Guide to Singapore Government Funding and Incentives for the Environment. Green Business Times. Com. http://www.greenbusinesstimes.com/tag/edb/ Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (2011) http://www.transparency.org/cpi2011/discuss United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (UNESCAP) (2012) Low Carbon Green Growth Roadmap for Asia and Pacific: Turning resource constraints and the climate crisis into economic growth opportunities. United Nations publication. World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987) Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

In the foreseeable vision, most achievements of the green economy are based on what has already been pre-planned by the governments of each country, with little injection of creative ideas from citizens. However, all is not lost, due to the existence of a clear policy framework for inclusive development, there is at least some institutional basis for pockets of real linkages and trust between top-down and bottom-up efforts to emerge – especially by those who are more visionary and creative in looking beyond the status quo, both from the part of the policymakers and general citizens. These pockets of social experiments can become a nurturing ground for a more holistic green economy. However, the impact of such efforts can be limited and too scattered, and it is uncertain whether the experiments are strong enough to influence the dominant institutional regime to move beyond ‘partiality’.

• The emergence of Sustainability Science as a new interand trans-disciplinary field of knowledge (Komiyama et al, 2011). The establishment of the “Sustainability Science” journal and strong networking in the field among researchers at a number of leading universities (such as Harvard University, University of Tokyo, and several European universities) has strengthened the prospects that this trend will be further strengthened. Trans-disciplinary research approaches such as Action Research are also gaining recognition.

Finally, the visionary scenario envisions an ASEAN region with a deep ethos on the SD, with countries being able to reap lasting value from their entry into the green economy. Through broad social participation in this new economy, many creative solutions are being applied to address pressing and difficult problems faced regionally, nationally, and within local communities. Due to the high trust that exists between different stakeholders, there is stronger commitment to follow-through on these solutions. In addition, the increasing public demand for the SD can lead to a stronger political will to set-up and

• The Southeast Asian region, with an estimated population of 600 million, is anticipated to join the ranks of China and India as a major economic growth force in Asia should its constituent countries succeed in integrating their economies by 2015. If the ASEAN regional economic integration agenda goes beyond economic objectives and taps into the region’s unique social and cultural wealth, tackling the issue of inclusivity will be one of our greatest challenges. Yet, it can also provide ample room for knowledge exchange and innovation.

INHIBITORS

REFERENCES REFERENCES

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Zeeda Fatimah Mohamad is a lecturer at the Department of Science and Technology Studies, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, Malaysia. She holds a B.Sc. in Ecology, a M.Sc. in Environmental Management and Policy, and a Ph.D. in Science and Technology Policy. Her research interest is primarily in understanding the relationship between the development of science, technology and innovation with environmental concerns, particularly in the context of sustainable development and associated challenges to late-industrializing countries. She also has a keen interest in developing synergies between different knowledge disciplines, traditions, and organizations in dealing with sustainability issues.

INTERVIEW BY DR. PUN-ARJ CHAIRATANA Managing Director, Noviscape Consulting Group

W I T H Dr. Tatang A. Taufik

Indonesia be able to reestablish itself as a new economic and social hub of the region, as it used to be in the past?

on the other side, some countries have benefits out of it. It is important for us to settle an agreement in which we can cooperate and develop mutual recognition. Having the agreement will give benefit to most of the ASEAN countries.” “In terms of migration and the future of Indonesia compared to other Southeast Asian countries, I think visa-free access can spur mobility, at least among ASEAN countries. We hope that easing the immigration requirement can help us to build a science and technology community to learn from and support each other.”

About

Dr. Tatang A. Taufik Dr. Tatang A. Taufik is currently the Deputy Chairman for Technology Policy Assessment of The Agency for The Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT) of Indonesia.

The forthcoming ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) will allow mobility, especially for people to move more freely. How will this movement have impact on social, economic and political platforms? And how and where will the grand migration mainly happen in the next decade? “That will be influenced, at least, by the readiness of Indonesian people to take advantage of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). For example, for the technological professions, I think we need to develop some sort of mutual recognition agreement on particular professions in engineering and other related fields so that everyone in this circumstance can take advantage of it and have some mutual benefits. Otherwise, there will be some countries in a disadvantage position, but

“Brain drain can happen if one country – let’s say Indonesia – cannot develop her attractiveness for the talented people to come to our country. I think this is our responsibility as a nation to develop our country to be attractive enough for those talents to come and share with us and vice versa. The mobility issue would not be a problem if the ASEAN countries support each other. Otherwise, again some countries would get the advantage while others would not. So, in conclusion, the migration of economic labor is still taking place, but it is not a big problem in terms of the knowledge workers.”

How will ASEAN integration shape people’s empowerment? How will it have an impact on conflicts in this region?

What is your perception of this terminology “Hyper democracy”? I have heard that Indonesia has these specific phenomena in that you have a lot of freedom and liberty. Some even say it’s too much and there’s no limit.

“I am not sure about that. But I think this is because we are moving so fast from the previous states to the present one. We hope that we can learn a lot from this process since democratization is not the ultimate goal. This is how we manage the country and develop the people at the present time. Hopefully, this experinece can provide us very good lessons for the future improvement.”

What we can learn from Indonesian political experiences for the past decade?

“Regarding to the rise of the politics in Indonesia, I think it is a mixed figure. In some parts, we have learned a lot from the dynamics of democratization and decentralization or regional autonomy. It has given us some very good lessons to measure ourseleves as a nation. But in some areas, it makes our development progress move slower due to everything needs to be determined in a particular way, so we waste so much time in the particular policy making process. We really hope our experiences can shape us better in the future on how we can catch up, especially in terms of the technological development and competitiveness.”

“We need to take a step-by-step approach. If we can develop an agreement on how to prepare our people in particular professions, and we develop as well some kind of a mobility agreement among the ASEAN countries, then we can learn from this process. This approach will be better for us rather than open up everything we have at once to outsiders. Although Indonesia is a very large country, we have to acknowledge that the educational level of Indonesian in general is very low. Therefore, Indonesia would have difficulties to take advantage of the mobility and need to take a step-by-step approach to develop intervention.”

The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) will shape up the roles of cities in Southeast Asia in a new platform and the region as a whole. In this particular setting, will

“In this current setting, there are some large cities in Indonesia that can take such roles. In most cases, if we cannot develop and adjust to current development, it will be difficult for some cities in Indonesia to take advantage of AEC. For example, in Central Java, there is a small town called Surakarta (Solo) which can play a role as a hub for the surrounding regions and regencies. It is very effective since it can connect economic cooperation or collaboration with other regions as well as other countries. However, Solo still has to compete with other cities like Singapore or Kuala Lumpur. Since now we are not yet really mobile, a city like Solo can enjoy the roles, but in the future we are not sure it would be maintained that way. Therefore, in this particular setting, it will be very uncertain for Indonesia.”

Advanced technologies and interactions between people from different routes coin their world views and paths of life. How would this emerging technological regime shape identity and lifestyles of people in this region and evolve in the next decade, particularly for “the Island Southeast Asia” like Indonesia?

“For a country like Indonesia, the basic strength of the technological capability for our society generally comes from indigenous knowledge and technology, although the Indonesians take lessons from imported technologies, for example, through the presence of multi-national companies (MNCs), and some of them also learn the emerging technologies from other countries. Realistically I think for Indonesia, what will be considered better compared to other countries is to strengthen the basic cultural and technological capabilities along with the utilization of relevant emerging advanced technologies, and to make serious efforts to develop uniqueness and competitive advantages. In that case, we can compete and also collaborate with other countries in the ASEAN. Therefore, in this kind of setting, we hope that the technological regime emerges from time to time and can strengthen the internal sources of our own technologies in Indonesia.” “Roles of higher education and R&D institutes are very important. We need to learn from foreign countries not only in terms of their technologies, but also on how to enhance our own technological capability. For example, now we have initiated to learn and develop herbal medicine in a formal manner at our higher educations, which was never happened before.”

What will be the future of regional innovation, and its impacts on current high-level economic competition, and particularly consumption, in the region?

“I am very optimistic that, among others, strengthening the regional innovation system is very important in developing Indonesia as one large country. Regions in Indonesia are very different from one to another – not only in terms of the physical geography and natural endowment but also in cultures or other locality factors. Therefore, in developing the unique regional innovation system, it can have impact on how a particular region can develop based on its own strength. In the future, I think among the most important factors that can determine the competitive advantage in international setting is the locality factors. If every region can develop its own best potential, then hopefully it can take advantage of how it can develop strategy for global competition. Otherwise, every region would be alike or similar to each other, which is probably good for one region or few regions but could be ineffective for most of regions.” “Regarding two levels of region – regions within the country and the region of Southeast Asia as a whole, regional innovation can play an important role for both levels. For example, the area near North Maluku can strengthen its cooperation among the regions surrounding North Maluku with, for instance, the Southern part of the Philippines, which probably bring a better result for that area compared to if they only cooperate with other regions in the Western part of Indonesia. I think a supra-regional innovation system can give us an advantage in term of developing the economy for the future – not only for the regions in Indonesia itself.”

Dr. Pun-Arj Chairatana Dr. Apiwat Ratanawaraha Mr. Kan Yuenyong

Co-Principal Investigator

Dr. Donald Arthur Johnson

Editor

Mr. Preeda Chaiyanajit

Project Co-ordinator

Mr. Pakpoom Saengkanokkul

Trend Analyst

Mr. Passapong Boonlueng

Graphic Designer

Regional Horizon / Environment Scanning (HS/ES) and trend monitoring for issues relevant to people. life, and regional transformation across the Sotheast Asian region. Dr. Pun-Arj Chairatana Dr. Apiwat Ratanawaraha Dr. Zeeda Fatimah Mohamad

Author

Dr. Tatang A. Taufik

Information Specialist

Trendnovation Southeast Newsletter is published by

Noviscape Consulting Group (NCG) www.noviscape.com Contact Us

contact@trendsoutheast.org http://twitter.com/trendsoutheast http://facebook.com/trendnovationsoutheast