2010 unesco science report-southeast asia
Post on 07-Apr-2018
221 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
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
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
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
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
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
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
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
SoutheastAsiaandOceania
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
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
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.
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2010
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
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
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
Southeast Asia and Oceania
441
SoutheastAsiaandOceania
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(%)
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
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
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2010
442
Table 4: English-language scientific articles by authors from Pacific islands, 19982008
Selected countries and territories
Source:Thomson Reuters (Scientific) Inc. Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded), complied for UNESCO by the Canadian Observariore dessciences at des technologies
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(%)
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
8/28
Source:Thomson Reuters (Scientific) Inc. Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded), complied for UNESCO by the Canadian Observariore dessciences at des technologies
Figure 2: Publications in Southeast Asia and Oceania by major field of science, 2008 (%)
Southeast Asia and Oceania
443
SoutheastAsiaandOceania
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
(%)
Source:Thomson Reuters (Scientific) Inc. Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded), complied for UNESCO by the Canadian Observariore dessciences at des technologies
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
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
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.
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2010
444
Table 6: Scientific papers and citations of authors from
Southeast Asia and Oceania, 19992009
Selected countries and territories
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
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
10/28
Figure 3: High-tech exports from Southeast Asia and Oceania, 2008 (%)
Selected countries and territories
Southeast Asia and Oceania
445
SoutheastAsiaandOceania
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
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
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
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2010
446
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
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
Southeast Asia and Oceania
447
SoutheastAsiaandOceania
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
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
S&T and economic status
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.
Structural arrangements, priorities and policies
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.
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2010
448
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
14/28
COUNTRY PROFILES: Southeast Asia
Cambodia
S&T and economic status
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).
Structural arrangements, priorities and policies
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.
Southeast Asia and Oceania
449
SoutheastAsiaandOceania
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
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
S&T and economic status
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.
Structural arrangements, priorities and policies
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.
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2010
450
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
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
S&T and economic status
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).
Structural arrangements, priorities and policies
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:
Southeast Asia and Oceania
451
SoutheastAsiaandOceania
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
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
S&T and economic status
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.
Structural arrangements, priorities and policies
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.
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2010
452
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
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
S&T and economic status
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.
Structural arrangements, priorities and policies
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
Southeast Asia and Oceania
453
SoutheastAsiaandOceania
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
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
S&T and economic status
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.
Structural arrangements, priorities and policies
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
UNESCO SCIENCE REPORT 2010
454
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
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.
Southeast Asia and Oceania
455
SoutheastAsiaandOceania
-
8/3/2019 2010 Unesco Science Report-southeast Asia
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
S&T and economic status
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
top related