発表資料
パネルセッション１
Dr. Mignonne Man-Jung Chan, Co-Founder and Chief Sgterategy
Officer, Forum on Humans

Prof. Gary Hawke, Emeritus Professor, Victoria University of
Wellington
Asia Pacific Forum
Kuala Lumpur 16 October 2019•

what are the components of sustainable and inclusive growth that countries in
the region should focus on in the medium to long yet, and what are thechallenges to achieving them.

•

What are the sources of sustainable growth in the region? Can trade still be thevehicle for equal prosperity?

•

How do we ensure that inclusive growth is achieved by all in the region?

I am glad that this Forum continues to focus on fundamental issues. It would always be apleasure to rejoin longstanding friends in the Japan Economic Foundation and its
networks, and to have an opportunity to see more friends in KL, but it is especially good
to do so in a context such as this Forum.

We could have talked about trade wars, retreats from globalisation, the rise of populism,
and so on, but all of those issues are incidental to the fundamental questions posed here.
As a member of NZPECC, and with colleagues from Malaysia PECC, I have been
engaged in proposing what should succeed the Bogor Goals as the vision of APEC. You
will remember that "Free Trade and Investment for the developed economies by 2010
and for the developing members by 2020" or•Trade and investment liberalization•

Trade and investment facilitation•

Economic and technical co-operation

were adopted in APEC in the early 1990s and the Bogor Goals have served as
aspirations since then. It is mostly the mention of specific dates which makes revisionnecessary.
We might also reflect that the mere existence of the two formulations I used shows that
aspirational visions do not need to be complete and entirely agreed. Debates on themeaning of "free" and the question of whether ecotech was to assist all members toachieve liberalization and facilitation or supported a wider field of cooperation weresterile.
APEC will deliberate through 2020 and adoption of a revision of the Bogor a Goals isscheduled for the Leaders' Meeting here in KL towards the end of next year. However,the consultations led by NZPECC and Malaysia PECC among all the regional
stakeholders, officials in a private capacity, business and researchers, reveal a strong
wish to emphasise inclusivity and sustainability.
There will be reservations. The core of "Sustainability" is providing for the long-term
future. It cannot be the preservation of everything as it is, still less how it was, since wewant to sustain an experience of progress. It must however include conservation of what
is highly valued in what we inherit. The real challenge is in accurately predicting what
has yet to be discovered as alternative ways of achieving what we currently achieve byusing non-renewable resources. The deepest challenge is maintaining politicalconsensus that we are striking the right balance between relying on the currently
unknown and denying possible improved living standards.

Agreement on subsidies on fossil fuels or on management of fishery resources may seema long way from this abstraction, but the region can benefit from exchanging views andexperiences on all aspects of valuing the future.
Inclusivity generates a different challenge. In the APEC context, the question is theextent to which member economies want to internationalize their social policies. Thereis no one right balance between relying on families to support the aged and choosing
among the many available processes of social security. International migration ensuresthat there will always be tension between countries that make different choices but hey
can be managed. The international policy issue is to minimize the extent to which
implementation of a national policy bears negatively on trading partners. The key tothat is international dialogue and a commitment by governments to facilitate adjustment
and change rather than to protect existing activities.
We hear less about the East Asian Miracle than we did. The world changes and our
problems are no longer those of the 1970s and 1980s when we were preoccupied with"flying geese industrialisation". But we should remember that a key to that success was
not a simplistic idea of Washington consensus, but a common understanding not thatgovernments should not intervene, but that they should assist movement of people tomore productive sectors and should not seek to protect what had been valuable activities
in the past.
The greatest challenge to achieving inclusivity is a misplaced desire to protect what
exists rather than encourage participation in what will be valuable in the future.
In practice, this question is usually related to technology-induced unemployment. My
background is that of an economic historian and I cannot refrain from speculating on
our societies had our predecessors decided that accommodating railways was too big arisk for all those who employment rested on the demand for horses. Until we inventmachines which have the ability to learn and to reproduce themselves (withimprovements) and with a desire to indulge themselves to the exclusion of humans, I
shall remain an optimist on technology.
The sources of sustainable growth in the region are the same as they have always been,
the stocks of useful natural resources inherited from the past, the structures of all kinds
built by human endeavor which continue to contribute to generating valued goods andservices, the human skills and knowledge which make this possible (including
recognising some natural phenomenon as a resource), and above all, the ability togenerate new knowledge. (Note that new knowledge may mean something is recognised
as a natural resource for the first time.) Trade not only can still be the vehicle forprosperity; prosperity depends on the continuation of trade. It is a fairly simple mental
exercise to contemplate our regional societies reduced to relying on subsistence inisolated pockets.
I silently altered the prescribed question then by leaving out "equal". We can see thatmost discussion of equality is simplistic by asking equality of what? Equal lifetime
incomes - even if restricted to those whose life expectancy is not cut short - will vary as
experience, accumulated knowledge, and energy follow different life patterns. (Inaddition, incomes will vary with social customs about childrearing.) Then there arequestions about different degrees of commitment to producing what has social value aswell as all the questions about how well-being relates to measured income. We cancontinue to refine our understanding of well-being, but I anticipate that we willcontinue what has been general experience in modern societies - we will seek equality ofopportunity - social mobility - though this cannot be attained in the absence of equality
since home backgrounds matter - but we will take social action to limit inequality only
when it impinges greatly on opportunities.
Which implies that we will actually seek something less than that "inclusive growth isachieved by all in the region". We will aim for a region where we avoid putting barriersin the way of others and where all have a reasonable opportunity to participate.

Dr. Wisarn Pupphavesa, Senior Advisorm Thailand Development
Research Insitute (TDRI)

Dr. Vo Tri Thanh, Vietnam National Committee for Pacific
Economic Coperation (VNCPEC)

パネルセッション２
Dr. Zhong Feiteng, Head and Professor, National Institute of
Iternational Sterategy, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CASS)Amb Murray Mclean AO, Chairman, Dunmore Mclean Pty Ltd
Asia-Pacific Forum 2019
Public Symposium on“The Future of the Asia-Pacific Economies Beyond 2020”
Panel comments: Murray McLean – 16 October 2019
Panel Session 2:
Progress of Regional Integration in the Asia-Pacific Region and its Outlook“Guiding questions” addressed generally in these remarks:
1. What is the mid-term and long-term outlook for regional trade amidst tradetensions?
2. Should countries in the region continue pushing for trade liberalisation going
forward beyond 2020
3. Which type of mega-regional trade deals are needed to reinvigorate further tradeliberalisation and facilitation efforts in the long-term
We are facing a pivotal point in world affairs, particularly in our own Asia/Indo/Pacificregion.
We are all familiar with this dynamic and fast-changing world situation, which ischaracterized by trends such as:• shifting strategic power balances,• major trade disruption principally stemming from the US/China trade dispute,• widespread disruption of accepted international institutions and norms,• cross-border threats from terrorism and cyberspace and• rapidly increased use of, and dominance in our economies, of new technologies
such as artificial intelligence, smart cities, social media and e-commerce.
In managing the challenges at this pivotal time and attempting to forecast the medium
to longer-term outlook for regional trade, the first and most important point to note isthat the Asia/Indo/Pacific region remains the most productive source of global
economic growth.
Moreover, the relative strength and resilience of Asia-Pacific economies which we haveexperienced over the past decade, is a trend that has continued in 2019, even if at a
slowing pace. And despite a slowdown this resilience looks certain to continue for someyears to come.

Economic resilience will be fundamental element in offsetting the extent to which theregion’s economic growth may be adversely affected by global and regional macrodevelopments.
My second point is that economic resilience alone is not enough. The fact that the
US/China trade dispute has already impacted on the regional economy and its tradevolumes and patterns, including changing regional and global supply chains, means it isvery important that regional countries do not sit by passively, or as spectators. Working
together multilaterally and collectively to shape rules, norms and standards for theregion’s trade and investment is critical.
Such collective action needs also to be supplemented by what countries can do
individually, to preserve free and open trade, and to implement domestic reforms thatremove behind-the-border barriers to trade and investment to advance economic healthand growth.
A combination of collective multilateral action and individual action by countries for the
medium and long-term will be an essential ingredient of ensuring continued economic
development and growth.
Since our shared region’s economic strength is so fundamental to global economic
health, there is no more important time than now, for the region to take a leadershiprole, working collectively. This is especially so because long-established and broadlyaccepted multilateral institutions, international norms, rules and practices have beensteadily eroded in the past few years.
So my third point is that it is in our strong mutual interests that we, in our region, do
everything possible to counter that adverse protectionist trend wherever possible andmaintain openness, transparency and fairness in trade regimes.
It is not the subject of this conference, but the unfolding strategic competition between
the United States and China extends well beyond trade and investment and its direct
effect on the US/China bilateral relationship. Suffice to say the most obvious impacts
are that the trade dispute has slowed down global economic growth generally, and thatthe preferential/protectionist measures being adopted are impacting on the tradeperformance of third countries.
In this resort to protectionism which is basically a zero-sum approach, there isdiminishing reliance on all of the positive measures the global multilateral trade agenda
has achieved over past decades. It is critical that the countries of the Asia/Indo/Pacificregion do not simply wring their hands in despair or seek only to survive by navigatingthe cross-currents. It is essential to commit pro-actively and collectively to trying toshape the outcomes most beneficial to the region and to individual countries.
Accordingly, the region’s long-term interests will be best served if the RCEP
negotiations are concluded as soon as possible, in order to demonstrate to a global
audience, the benefits of multilateral liberalization that aims to ensure open and freemarkets and develops new momentum for ongoing reform.
A successful outcome at the planned November summit would demonstrate that thecountries of the Asia/Indo/Pacific are prepared to act in a leadership role in support ofthe ongoing value of the multilateral trading system.
Major regional economies notably China, India and Japan – as well as ASEAN countries
and Australia and New Zealand are now all generally committed to achieving a
successful RCEP outcome at least by year-end.
Looking into the medium to longer term, a successful conclusion of RCEP negotiations
should mean RCEP is well-placed not simply to help remove trade distortions and build
new regulatory arrangements for services, but also to enhance the region’s investment
climate and to set up new regulatory frameworks for international financial movements
and for areas of the new economy. If any or indeed all of this takes place, it will deliver a
powerful message against protectionism.
More broadly, the critical role of ASEAN, beyond RCEP, is for others present today to
speak about. But clearly, ASEAN’s continued central importance to the region’s
economic integration should be noted very positively.
With the realization of RCEP (potentially) and CPTPP, ASEAN is well-placed,consistent with the themes in its most recent “ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific”, towork collectively with other regional countries such as Japan, Australia, India, China andKorea. This for example, can be in the G20 or the WTO or APEC. Working together,regional countries can be standard-setters for new norms, rules and institutions or for
updating or adjusting regulations and institutions to make them more fit for purpose.
WTO is a clear case where action on making it more fit for purpose can be influenced by
the region with ASEAN/RCEP in a leading role. Collective work by regional countries in
the creation of new standards and norms for management of cyber-security, AI, smart
cities and regulation of social media are examples of future important cooperation.

Ms. Anita Prakash, Director of Policy Relations, Economic ResearchInstitute for ASEAN and East Asia (ERIA)

パネルセッション３
Dr. Ahn-choong-yong, Distinguished Professor, Graduate School ofInternational Studies, Chung-Ang University
The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) is growing out of the Third Industrial
Revolution (3IR), namely the digital revolution, but it is considered a new era
rather than a continuation of its predecesor. 4IR is categorized by its
disruptiveness, evasiveness, explosiveness and breakthrough of big data and AI.
There is a need to make a distinction between digitally advanced economies anddigitally backward nations, as what is needed varies by country depending on its
degree of information and communications technology (ICT) development andavailability of digital manpower.
Digitally backward economies need to expedite ICT hardware infrastructure andsoftware development by cultivating digital manpower. These economies alsoneed to benchmark the German experience, as evident in 4IR and the Japaneseexperience of factory automation of small and medium-sized enterprises(SMEs).

Digitally advanced economies face a hegemonic competition for new industries
due to the winner-takes-all nature of connectivity and explosiveness of 4IR. Thisis evident in the ongoing U.S.-China trade war and restrictions in internationaltransactions.
The countries that own big data are likely to own the future. In particular, theeffective fusion of information technology and biotechnology may determine
new industrial competitiveness.
A serious challenge in many countries is how globalization has broadened theunequally shared fruits of trade liberalization and worsened income inequality,
which, in turn, helped populist political leaders establish illiberal politicalregimes across several nations in this region.
Innovation and expansion are needed to promote inclusive growth and ensure an
ongoing regional cross-border supply chain. This will allow more active SME
participation, which will create jobs for those of relatively low income, raise theirincomes and elevate their socio-economic wellbeing.
In this regard, there is a need to ensure bottom-up SMEs through business-tobusiness (B2B), business-to-consumer (B2C) and the business-to-government(B2G) processes. To expand the regional value chain, trade rules need to beharmonized so that parts and components can freely cross borders. For this tohappen, standardization, an agreed-upon sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures,a mutual recognition system and a business-friendly environment for FDI are
critical. To broaden growth, quality improvements in logistic services and the
management of seaports and airports in low-income and middle-income
economies throughout Asia Pacific are also necessary.
The United States and China especially should work out the bottom line of free
trade rules. Smaller economies should not have to decide which country to alignwith. And like-minded middle- and low-income countries should pursue
plurilateral FTAs to ensure ongoing supply chains and minimize negative
consequences.
Digitally advanced economies should work out an environment in which people
focus on servicing and leveraging AI instead of competing with it. The job
market then in the long run would need human-AI cooperation rather thanhuman-AI competition. Investments in human capital to upgrade and expand

the talent pool are paramount as we prepare for 4IR.
Another major issue related to creating a level-playing field for a liberal tradeorder involves subsidies to state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and the protection of
intellectual property rights (IPRs).
For inclusive liberal trade, offline and online intra-regional connectivity is crucial
and must be enhanced.
Another serious challenge is that 4IR can be used to erode security and violate
privacy. In this regard, a broad multi-stakeholder alliance is necessary to create aplatform for sharing digital public goods, engaging talents, and pulling datasetsin a manner that respects privacy.

Dr. Yose Rizal Damuri, Head of Department of Economics, Center
for Sterategic and IInternational Studies (CSIS)Dr. Josef T. yap, Senior Technical Advisor, ASEP-CELLs Project,
Ateneo School of GovernmentAssoc Prof Simon SC Tay, Chairman, Singapore Institute ofInternational Affairs（SIIA）

Talking Points for JEF Asia-Pacific Forum 2019
The Future of the Asia-Pacific Economies Beyond 2020
Panel Session 3: New Challenges for Achieving Economic Prosperity
Simon Tay
Four major disruptions:(1) geopolitical, in the Sino-American conflict;(2) social cohesion, in the populism and increased potential for tension andunrest within countries;(3) technological, in what some call the 4th industrial revolution changing ways

goods and services are conceived, produced and delivered; and(4) climate and sustainability, as we face limits to the use of our resources andexistential and negatives threat in our environment.
Risky scenarios:(1) globalization gives way to protectionism and narrow strident nationalism;(2) efficient and rules-based win-win cooperation gives way to chaotic, beggarthy-neighbor policies and bullying;(3) technological and other advancements like infrastructure are concentrated
and lead to winner-take-all outcomes that sharpen inequalities between
countries and also within each society; and(4) climate concerns and carbon constraints lead to radically different priorities
among countries, companies and peoples without any agreed basis forcooperation and become reasons for conflict.
Priorities for the region:•

Engage both sides in Sino-American conflict•

Develop coherent and consistent frameworks to harness benefits ofdigitization while mitigating costs and risks•

Collective leadership in the region e.g. RCEP as a signal==
Panel Session 3: New Challenges for Achieving Economic Prosperity
New difficulties have arisen in realizing inclusive growth and achieving the
economic prosperity and stability of the AsiaPacific region. One of them is Digital Revolution and the other is political
populism. The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Digital Revolution are taking
place in this region and their negative impact is a matter of particular concern.
Regarding populism, the question is whether political populism causing antiglobalization movement is breaking out in this region.
In coping with these concerns and realizing the socio-economic stability andprosperity of the region, what should we do? In this session, human resource
development, infrastructure development, both software and hardware, andother relevant issues as their possible solutions are examined.
Guiding questions:⚫ What is needed for countries in the region to participate in the 4th Industrial
revolution?
⚫ How does quality infrastructure fit into the needs of a region in boosting its
supply capacity?
⚫ What can be done to offset the anti-globalization sentiment on the ground?

Dr. Priyadarshi Dash, Assistant Professor Research and Information
System for Developing Countries (RIS)