 Welcome to the closing session of this World Economic Forum in East Asia. And I first have the pleasure and honor to welcome Prime Minister Abhisit among us. Prime Minister, we appreciate very much your participation. We know you are in the midst of an election campaign. The World Economic Forum is an impartial, non-political organization, but I think I can state that you have many admirers in this room looking at the economic progress of this country in a difficult situation after the crisis has been made under your leadership, but also the political stabilization which has happened after the turmoil which we witnessed in your country. So again, we are very grateful that despite all the burden on your shoulders, you are here with us today. And I hear it must be like a relaxation because normally you make seven to eight speeches a day in this election campaign. So today it's one speech at the end of this panel discussion. I also have the pleasure to welcome a figure which a political figure or international figure whom I don't have to present very much, who plays a major role in the world. It's Pascal Lamy, the Director General of CWTO. Now, we have the co-chairs assembled here. And I just run again through the list of our distinguished co-chairs. It's Karin Agustavan, the President, Director General, Chief Executive Officer of Pertamina, Dominic Barton, the Worldwide Managing Director of McKinsey and Company, Stuart Gulliver, who is the Group Chief Executive of HSB, Paul Pullman, the Chief Executive Officer of Unilever, and Shehat Sutarja, the Chairman and President and Chief Executive of Maxwell, Technology Group. So we have all kinds of industries here. My first question would be, what do you take out as a conclusion of this meeting? So you can think about it. But before you take the floor, I would like Pascal Lamy to tell us the latest about where we stand in global trade issues. Thanks, Klaus. Well, let me start with your first question. What did I learn listening to this Indonesian-hosted session of the web? This is one main conclusion, which is that open regionalism works. This is not an oxymoron. Countries in this region have succeeded during, let's say, the last two decades, both in integrating their economies thanks to technological progress, thanks to a series of measures that have to do with trade, while keeping the diversity of their identities. And this is something which in many ways can be a lesson for the rest of the world. Now, of course, countries in this region have not done it the sort of EU way. There was not a sort of grand design of political integration, hence economic integration, hence trade integration. They've done it in a very pragmatic way, sort of step-by-step, the Asian way. And if you look at trade, they've successfully combined progressive market opening, trade facilitation, i.e. customs, procedures, streamlining, simplifying visa requirement, making sure that professionals in architecture, health can circulate more freely, and in building trade capacity among the less developed countries of the region. If I take the example of WTO accessions, for instance, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand shouldered the accession of Cambodia and Vietnam to the WTO. And now, Vietnam is shouldering the accession of Lao PDR to the WTO. So there is a capacity, an experience of experience sharing, which I think works very well. Second lesson, and this brings me close to your second question, the way this region has integrated trade-wise, teaches us lesson of what the multilateral system should be about in the future. I.e. of course, opening markets, market access, reducing tariffs, avoiding quantitative restrictions, both on the import side and on the export side is very important. But what sometimes is more important is the rulebook that goes with that, that ensures a sort of more level playing field. And you know, this is what the World Trade Organization should be in the future. But the truth is that for the moment, the World Trade Organization is still trying to address trade issues, the agenda which was built in the 90s. And for a variety of reasons, which have to do with political problems at home, our members are not yet in a position to conclude this big negotiation. But what happens in this region, again, should tell us something about the future. What really matters, if you want to open trade and to benefit from the sort of welfare impact of opening trade, you have to cope about new issues, which are mostly non-tariff barriers, food safety requirements, certification requirements. And this is something which we will need to do in the future. And this region, again, probably tells us the direction where to go, which also means that what has been done regionally here in the future will have to be multilateralized. And that's an issue which I think we will have to address one more reason to try and conclude. Difficult as it is because of classical problems of vested interest resistances, which trade opening creates everywhere, one more reason to try and conclude this negotiation. We know now that, contrary to what the G20 said last year, it will not happen this year. Basically because of a huge difference in positions between U.S. on one side and emerging countries on the other side on one of the issues which is industrial tariff reductions. For the moment, there is no way this big difference can be breached. So in the meantime, what we are trying to do, and I'm not sure it will work, is try and extract a part of the agenda, the one that is mostly focused to poor developing countries' benefits and to see whether a sort of early harvest, which would address specifically these developed countries' interests, plus maybe a few other topics like this huge trade facilitation agreement which we negotiated in WTO, whether this could be agreed before the end of the year, still too soon to say whether it will float. But I think the two options we had were wait for the hope that political stars could be better aligned in the future depending on electoral cycles here and there, or we sequenced the negotiation in trying to front-load part of the benefits that will come from this negotiation, and that's the option which for the moment we are testing. Thank you, Baskar. Mrs. Agustia Van, from an Indonesian point of view, what is your main, I mean, you are an Indonesian top business leader, what is your conclusion, what do you take out? I think being the first web being held in Jakarta, the takeaways from the energy sector, in terms of building the architecture of the energy in Asia, we have defined that technology is one of the things that we need to pursue. So the triangle will be energy, the energy and the competitiveness and also the environment, underlying it will be the technology, but for the investments to come in for the oil and gas industry will be also another triangle, which is the investors, the government and the community, and underlying it is the social contracts. That's a takeaway from the energy sector. Thank you. Dominik, from the point of view of the service sector and your personal takeaway from this meeting. I find it difficult to pick one thing, but the sort of one word that comes to mind is optimistic. I mean, with all of these issues and risks that are going on, I think there's a lot that we can take from Asia, as Pascal Lamy mentioned, not only in trade, but I think there's a lot of wonderful examples here. We don't need to look to other regions to figure out how to do it. We need to look at topics like infrastructure reform. A lot of that, no one knows how to make that work exactly perfectly, including in the U.S. and other countries. There's, I said, $8 trillion of need. There's ways to share that across the region in terms of how to do that effectively. Education, I look at public sector reform, which we haven't spent a huge amount of time on in the broader groups, but it has been in some of the smaller groups. There's incredible examples globally from this part of the world. From Thailand, for example, Malaysia being beacons in a way of what governments and other parts can do. So I guess the overall feeling is that I think Asia has the right to and has the examples to sort of lead in how we can work in this new globalism that was talked about. Stuart, as a banker. I share some of Dominic's thoughts, which is there is some optimism around a recognition of the steps that need to be taken in order to fund the infrastructure development that I think everybody would be of a view is necessary here in Indonesia to free up the bottlenecks and let the economy to continue to grow. And those kind of changes require financial market development as well as changes to the approval process, as well as changes to title to land. But particularly the development eventually of a pension insurance industry so you get the longer duration assets to fund it. And there's a sense and a recognition across both the private sector and the government that that's what's necessary to happen. I mean our own view is that Indonesia's on the cusp of being upgraded to investment grade. It's those kind of changes that need to take place to actually achieve that. And I think I'm certainly encouraged by the recognition from the government ministers who I've met that actually that road is recognized and those changes are seen as necessary as well. Thank you. Paul? Yeah, we did mainly food security. Not a small topic, obviously a multi-dimensional. A world that already uses 1.3 times its resources then it can replenish. A world that has over a billion people now suffering from malnutrition and the numbers going up again is not a world that we obviously want to live in. And as the Chinese say, if we don't change direction we likely end up where we're going. So what it requires of us is different business models, different ways of working, and that is what we concentrated on these last few days. Next to the enormous hospitality of the Indonesians and the Indonesian government, which is obviously the thing that we would like to recognize first and foremost, I'd say that three brief conclusions class. The first one is like my previous speakers, one of positiveness and hope. The president talked about that on pro-growth, pro-pure and pro-sustainability. And I think we've seen many examples during the last few days. Concrete examples also of the Indonesian government and the other countries in the Southeast Asia that are represented here at the summit, that it's not only words but many actions as well. So I'm encouraged by that. The second one is a message of partnership and trust. It's very clear that we cannot solve it individually or sectorial or antagonistically, and the concept of partnership, trust, transparency is clearly coming through, and the third message is start now. I was very encouraged by concrete examples that we have in the areas of new fission of agriculture, which is sponsored by the WEF, where there are concrete projects in Vietnam. Now the Indonesia Sustainable Agriculture Initiative that Minister Baio has launched during this conference, 14 companies have signed up. Other countries in Southeast Asia are committed to learn from these things and also expand it in their countries. Sustainable consumption, small-hold farmers are at the roots of this, absolutely needed for food security. The second one we worked is a more difficult thing. It's the one billion that are not being fed today and that is actually going up. 600, by the way, 600 million are in this region. We launched this morning project, Laser Bean. Again, a project in this case in West Timor. People with less than $2 a day wish the government an accelerated growth plan with the World Food Program, and many companies, including Indonesian companies, signing up to concentrate their efforts in that area, to hopefully lift these people out of poverty more than just feeding them for the rest of their lives. Very encouraged by that. And then the last thing, Indonesia very fortunately is one of the G20 countries and rightfully so. Klaus, we've been working hard, also again with the government to provide some input to the debates that are happening and as you know the next meeting is the 25th and 26th in Paris. So again an initiative sponsored by the WEF that we were happy to put into concrete action here. Thank you very much Paul. I'm particularly encouraged by what you are saying because it shows this is not only a meeting, this is a catalyst for action, for initiatives and particularly taking up what has been mentioned before for public-private partnerships. So if you take the Sehatzi high technology point of view, what is your take home value? My take point is having discussion with various people through the WEF as well, talking to ministers and government officials is that, okay, despite the fact that Indonesia has grown tremendously over the last decade, benefiting from the economic growth of the world, I felt that, my personal felt, having the discussion, reading between the lines is that people are worried about seeing the rapid changes in the world. The technology is making these changes happening even at a faster rate despite the fact that this technology in certain parts of the world is creating tremendous wealth. At the same time this technology also creating unique challenges to many countries such as creating more transparency, creating uneven wealth distributions and sometimes even creating revolutions in certain parts of the world. So while Indonesia, for example, has been blessed with strong natural resources and young populations, they are creating jobs. Indonesia is also concerned about how to participate more in the world economy that is based on technology development. So there was a lot of questions on how can we use technology to further enhance the growth, economic growth of Indonesia. And I felt that question related to the concerns of these, the things I just mentioned earlier. So we have discussion obviously about that, how to, I made some suggestions on how we can accelerate some of these economic developments that is based on technology. And in order to spur the innovations there will be in the economy that is traditionally based on mining of agriculture, so any other types of industries. So this is an exciting challenge I think that we all have to face. It is not an easy thing to solve, but I think through the partnerships of private industries and governments we could actually learn from some things from other countries such as China, for example, on how they lure multinational companies to China to develop the economy that is based on manufacturing. So some of these things I think could be good for further discussions down the road. So you made a recommendation and we shared our conclusions. I may ask the other panelists, if you had a recommendation, what would be your recommendation, which still, let's say, you feel should come out? You made already one. I'll come back to you. Any recommendations to be made? I see some of the ministers sitting in here. No recommendation? I think I'll speak from the energy sector. We did have discussions on how to move forward on the alternative energy and we have discussions with the ministers as well from the other countries from the region and I think we need to be brave enough to take one alternative energy as the branding to move forward. I think we have discussions with Thailand and also with Malaysia and Indonesia how to get this action plan moving forward so that this region can be considered not only for food security but also for energy security but from non-fossil and another alternative energy. Dominic, any recommendations? One thing I would say is reference cases. If again I take the infrastructure and I defer to Stuart on this but if we could pick one example and make it work from a speed, have the financing and use that as an example versus working on 25. So in number of these areas pick one and make it work right and then replicate it. Paul? This part of the world has a unique opportunity for companies like ours and looking at the total world 78% of the gross is happening here and it still has to be invented to some extent much like you see in places like China for getting the landline and moving directly to mobile phones you see the same happening here in technology and other adoptions. So as we talk about doing things differently and looking at sustainable consumption to feed the world this part of the world can actually set an example. If you look at Indonesia itself where we are kindly being hosted for their food supply or if you look at the whole issues of deforestation and sustainable forestry we can set standards that are the example for the rest of the world and we can invent them now not only for moral and ethical reasons to just simply do the right thing but also for competitive reasons I believe where we show that we have a future not only short term but for many years to come and if we can work that together constructively as we move forward on some of these projects I think we not only do ourselves a favor but we do it also for our future generations. Thank you. Stuart do you have any? I just think it's really important that we take it from a discussion to actually operationalizing some of this. There is obviously a crying need for infrastructure here there are very clear ways to build the financial structures required to underpin the building of roads, bridges, power and to Dominic's point rather than boil the ocean dry I think if we pick one or two and actually create real life working examples of the private sector working with government here to do it then we've got some concrete results to show for the discussions that we've had because my fear would be that post this as everybody leaves it becomes condemned to a jolly nice discussion as opposed to public and private sector trying to work together to overcome some of the obstacles and there are clear examples from other Asian countries as to how you can do this kind of thing. Yeah. We had as a seam towards the new globalism and I was looking into the definition the world was first used by the president of Indonesia when he came to Davos so I was curious what is the difference between globalization and globalism globalization is a process globalism means to have your own identity but to submit your own identity to global needs now what Pascal I would ask you how would you define globalism and afterwards I will ask each of the panelists to take up maybe one issue which hasn't been yet discussed in depth during the last 36 hours. Well that's a formidable difficult question Klaus I think what's missing is not the reality of globalism we now live in a global world which is more and more interconnected we know that issues like environment migrations human rights cybersecurity are global issues so the reality is there but our own capacity to think this reality is not there so you can define globalism in describing the planet we live in but you cannot define globalism from the traditional national way of looking at identities and belongings what binds citizens of one country together what binds them is basically trust they trust their co-nationals more than they trust the foreigners that's a reality now why is it so because they share an identity which is made of values culture, symbols, beliefs which are sort of specific to each country and each nation now what we need to do in my view if we want to harness globalization adjust our way of governing globalization our way of thinking it what we need and what's missing is the sort of value platform that should bind us together explicitly and sort of you know if I had a sort of a fairy wish to make would be that the G20 for instance or the UN system instead of spending hours of bureaucratic preparation on very complex topics have a serious discussion about what binds us together now we had that after the Second World War the organization of the international system which dates from the Second World War was based on the sort of platform of values UN Charter and what goes with that but the reality is that these values were Western values and for many emerging countries on this planet they don't really own them they were not really part of the serious discussion that took place in explicitly what values bind us together so if you look at this issue no globalization globalism my sense is that we better focus more attention on the sort of basement of this institutional international system we spend a lot of time and through there is a lot to do to make sure that international governance systems are more coherent which by the way has a lot to do with whether countries are coherent or not in the various remits of this international system but I think in doing so we remain within the street lamp my advice would be let's try and open a more philosophical ideological debate that then if there is convergence and agreement would give the necessary legitimacy to international issues as opposed to the one they have the reality we all know it we've got global problems we've got local politicians and we have local politicians where they are accountable is to their own population how do we create a sense of global belonging that would then help building sort of a global legitimacy that's I think remains to be done and I think a country like Indonesia with its huge diversity is in many ways a good example of how this can be done progressively but the reality is that this necessitates a debate which I'm afraid for the moment is taking place nowhere let's stay in this context of globalism, regionalism and nationalism now natural resources Mrs. Rusty Aman are unevenly distributed how do you and we all should have access to it and we know that we will probably live in a time of resource scarcity now how do you see the whole complex of natural resources inside this framework of globalism, regionalism and nationalism Thank you I think I do agree with the understanding of globalism I think before we start going to be fully globalized we need to start from what we have in the country and then from what we have in the region and come to one consensus you know I think being able to come with one consensus then we can be able to help the other parts of the region but not until then then you know globalism I see as a face-to-face approach I think in this forum if I identify how we can move forward in terms of resource balancing natural resource balancing but we need to be very transparent of all the energy balances that we have in this region and what are the gaps and how can we each of the country can fill in the gaps and what are resources that is you know successive in this countries that we can help the other parts of the world so until then you know we need to have an open dialogue between the countries in this region you know what is the energy balance in each of the country and where in each of be it a fossil or non-fossil that we can develop together and optimize what we have But Paul some countries have no access to certain resources so a national policy will not succeed in any case because there is such like I mean energy maybe water and so on how do you see this scarcity in this new context of globalism? Yeah and especially where the gross is is in the areas where you have the scarcity of water or food or the full effects of climate change and with the events in the Middle East which to some extent I call it the revolution of the internet but it started with food crisis so the issue was pertinent I had the benefit of thinking for two seconds when Pascal was talking and it is an interconnected world so I wrote down that this globalism to me is about shared responsibilities and that goes beyond boundaries shared responsibilities for equitable and sustainable growth but respecting the local solutions and respecting everybody involved if we can get that equitable and sustainable growth with respect and local solutions but if we take co-responsibility of that beyond our boundaries that requires the common values that you talked about and I think in a company like ours for example that operates in 180 countries I'm amazed when I go around the world how common values are the glue that make us successful if we would do that with rules and laws and be out of business by now so I firmly believe that these common values permeate many other things and we should leverage them more and talk them more but I also want to use this opportunity to say that it requires courage it requires courage to finish though our rounds it requires courage to have climate change agreements it requires courage to make international institutions work and likewise for companies like ours it requires courage to be part of these solutions even if it doesn't mean again to the bottom line in the next six or nine months and that's why a company like Unilever we put out a vision to double our turnover we want to grow, we want to help in that prosperity creation but we want to decouple that from environmental impact we don't have all the answers we certainly need to do it in partnership but it is that courage that we need to put other business models out there we have these values and that courage I think we can get to that new globalism that you're seeking that hopefully gives us that better world we're after I take what Paul said and I mean you have three key words sustainability, inclusion and partnership are those the pillars of the shared values yeah, although these are words and concepts which everybody can agree with but with I'm not sure of the same understanding of what it means so it's a useful approximation but at the end of the day I think we have to go back to very fundamental issues like freedom security human rights environmental sustainability and my own experience in discussing this with many people on this planet is that what we've had until now which is the sort of prominence of western values and the sort of western civilization will not be enough we have to enter into deeper discussions I wouldn't say negotiations negotiating values is philosophically suspect but with churches civil societies different philosophies in order to dig a bit under these global notions of sustainability partnership and that's difficult to make because depending on where you come from you know if you come from a western philosophical matrix individual freedom is the number one if you come from a Confucianist matrix collective positive results is the number one now you adjust this into something which would be of a more global nature is for sure different and you just took the example of natural resources the truth is that because of nature and history the musical chairs have unevenly distributed natural resources on this planet and there is a sort of distribution problem the normal solution to that you know is markets if there is scarcity if there is an imbalance between supply and demand this should lead to a price that reflects this scarcity now once you've done that you haven't addressed the problems of trading raw materials to death energy whether it's food we all know that markets do not price scarcity for instance in energy to the environmental externality which energy consumption results in if you want to address this you will have to have a fundamental agreement that access to natural resources should be free is this an easy concept to agree on I'm not sure about that so those are in my view the sort of questions which again are below the sort of usual discussions on global governance but which at the end of the day matter because if individuals do not agree with a sort of this basic set of value their governments will be weak in international negotiations and we need strong governments in international negotiations so this legitimacy issue in my view needs to be taken up more clearly and in a way more energetically we have made a kind of very important excursion into the philosophical framework let me come back now to the business side and when you look at the new globalism there are three issues which really come to my mind which have changed and I think we have three people here on the podium who can best respond to those issues so first is we the whole assumption of global competition was based on the one hand high quality high cost and on the other hand low innovation low cost countries and this is completely changing now now I would like to know from you Dominic how does this translate into the new globalism I have a similar question which goes into the same direction we were used that we had in the east high savings and we had in the west I simplify metals high debts and high consumption now can this be sustained and in the new globalism don't we have to change it and finally I think we have this issue of our world was very much based we spoke about markets but it was also very much based on intellectual property now we go into a situation where everybody knows everything so we have three people and Dominic we are going to start with the first one with the change in the paradigms for global competition I will try we have a very deep conversation up here I am still reflecting on what Pascal talked about in values but I do think that I have to try and simplify it for my own simple mind but I do think the world has become more complex where we used to have the model of the east was the manufacturing place low cost labor going to the west with the consumers and I think that is definitely over and we are seeing an incredible amount of innovation that is actually occurring in the east even in places like Morocco you wouldn't imagine this with technology and all of the changes that is all changing I think we are also seeing within countries differences I think you could also argue that cities are becoming more of the competitive parts within China between the coastal cities and the tier four cities within even I would argue parts of the United States so the thing I think about is the number one that is recognized that it is a very different world and the actors in it are also thinking more broadly they have much more degrees of freedom and if I just think about companies they are not thinking about national boundaries anymore they are looking at where can I do innovation the best where can I find my lowest cost manufacturing where is my supply chain going to be and they are just much more flexible and distributed than they ever have been and one of the consequences of that I get to the shared responsibility on globalization is the safety nets that used to be in the case in countries are no longer valid because if I decide to fire people in Boston where we have a research center and build it in Poland I just do it but if I need to start thinking as a corporation about the shared responsibility and how that moves because the disruptions are now being held in the national level and so I think our institutions are not fit for purpose on that side Stuart this paradigm in the financial world has to change I think everybody agrees but can we do it without any further disruptions and systemic risks of the whole financial system you are probably best apt to give an answer to this question because if I'm not mistaken you are the bank with most which is most spread in the world in terms of local implantation there we are I think in a way we have gone through two stages from a financial markets point of view the first stage was probably western industrial companies seeking cheaper labor in the emerging markets to sell their products still in the west stage two was as you just described which is local companies in the emerging markets effectively selling consumer products to the west and in essence providing what could be described on a national scale as vendor finance I mean in essence the eastern countries with very high savings rates have in essence finance the western countries either at national level and then ultimately a consumer level to buy their products it's a very large piece of vendor finance and actually it is at the root of the financial crisis or part of the many causes of the financial crisis that we've just been through is this very significant global imbalance of the east being a huge creditor to the west that clearly isn't sustainable because it hasn't been sustainable because we've just been through a significant financial crisis which has really been a western financial crisis I mean it really has impacted the UK and the United States primarily and the impacts back into Asia have been a second order impact it's really been again about the globalization of investment flows so that model I don't think is sustainable and I think that you can see evidence of shifts taking place just the very enlargement of G7, G8 to G20 reflects the fact that the creditor nations are now in the what has been historically described as the emerging markets but probably should be described as the faster growing markets and the west needs to start to move away from being consumer based if you think of a journey and this is probably best shown in terms of China China's trying to transition from being an export dominated economy to build a domestic infrastructure and now infrastructure is probably 50% of GDP to eventually emerging as a continental economy with actually a domestic consumption that takes place within a continental economy it won't unhook itself from exports because the world is now structurally imbalanced because everybody for the last 30 years has followed the competitive advantage of nations and so individual nations can't retreat from being domestic barriers because nobody is self sustaining in every single industry it is the case possibly in the UK there isn't a car industry anymore so you would have to import that competitive advantage of nations has resulted in now if you like permanent barriers where world trade has to take place and if you look at the capital imbalances the deposits in the banking system of the world generally sit in China, Japan and Germany and the shortfall sits in places like the United States so that capital imbalance cannot be solved again by protectionism either at a capital flow level or indeed at a trade level but I do think what will happen is as the Asian countries march through this transition from being export led to creating a more balanced economic model of course a large part of the surpluses that exist will get recycled in Asia one of the odd ironies of course is that the Asian central banks of the world are having to change their capital and the other is that the European government wealth funds choose not to develop the bond markets and domestic infrastructure of their own countries but actually those of the western nations and ultimately that probably has to change and that capital needs to be redeployed in their own countries that does force a contraction in the west as savings rates have to come back up so I am about over a number of years and it's going to be very hard to unwind in anything over a number of years and the risk is therefore we have a prolonged period in the west of almost stagflation so high inflation coming from energy prices and food prices but low GDP growth as that transition sort of starts to take place. I may add a question here what does it mean for the monetary system? I don't think it does mean that you could go back to a Bretton Woods type of situation I think the world is too complicated and capital flows too freely with the information technology advances that we have now compared to the Bretton Woods you've got instant information price discovery around the world what I think it does mean for central banks particularly in the west is that they need to take a lesson out of the book of the central banks in Asia and use a lot more macro potential tools and not just rely on monetary policy and the capital ratios for their financial systems but to be involved in prescription as to how much you can lend against property the mix of portfolios within banks cash reserve requirements etc which Asian central banks learnt well in the 97-98 financial crisis and the western central banks would continue to rely on the blunt instruments of the official government and the capital within their banking system rather than the kind of macro potential tools that Asian central banks have used extensively since the 97-98 crisis we are coming to an end but say at a really short comment can innovation survive without intellectual protection well I consider intellectual properties or what you can call it no house to be just get a different kind of natural resources the traditional natural resources like having gold so cupers in your land is something that you are blessed with because you happen to be there there are other parts of the world where they don't have so much of natural resources such as maybe Taiwan Japan but they do have other types of natural resources which is called human capital and you can use human capital to do nothing or you can use human capital to produce something out of nothing and it's called intellectual properties no house so it turns out that people are starting to believe that this know-how this intellectual property after all is a very valuable resource it may be even more valuable than just the traditional natural resources or water resources I shouldn't say it's more valuable it's as valuable so what we are seeing around the world is that countries are starting to realize that they need to create this new kind of natural new kind maybe not so new kind new founded natural resources called intellectual property so you are seeing countries like China are investing heavily in universities to develop internal technology you've seen already in Taiwan for example the last 30 years where government invested in semiconductor industries to spur the Taiwanese semiconductor manufacturing and it turns out this natural this intellectual property has a different property when you have standard natural resources as you use it you deplete the natural resource but when you're talking about this intellectual property as you build new intellectual property you create magnets of other people to come to create even more intellectual property even more now house it creates a positive feedback of building more things out of again of nothing globally people are starting to realize that this is an important areas to invest people are trying to grab the claim that they are the one developing this know-how fighting for the for the stake for the claim that they are the one that develop this technology so this is probably the next battle of the next decade on how to get this who can grab the best I mean the most out of this resources we had a great panel we had great chairs I think in this last session we took up some of the issues not only as conclusions but we added some new points of view I if in one sentence listening to what you've just heard do you have any comment Pascal before I give the floor to the prime minister I think it would be more prudent to give the floor to the prime minister what we just heard including this last pitch on the intellectual property which by the way did not if I listen correctly address the essential problem which is how much intellectual property should be protected and if we agree that natural resources should be accessible why don't we agree that intellectual property should be accessible the big difference is that in one case God gave you your natural resources in the other case you had to invest to get there there is a price for investment and then there is a bit of a return this goes back again to this tension between the efficiency of globalization which is in a way nothing more than one more face of technology driven market capitalism expansion on the one side and on the other side feelings of people and how do you reconcile these two things because there are different individual feelings about these things is something which I think remains to be done I don't think de-globalization would work nor by the way do I believe it should work and on this I'm very much in agreement with what the president said yesterday but nevertheless we have to care about these feelings that globalization may not work for people and that's something which I think remains a question mark on which we haven't yet found the right answer it's good that we do not have answers to all questions because and we wouldn't need any meetings anymore you see so please join me in thanking Pascallami and our co-chairs and please welcome Prime Minister Abhijit here on this stage first of all let me say what a pleasure it is for me to be here although if they say all politics is local during the very deep discussions about globalism and what I was in the right place but I'm convinced that I am for two reasons first of all I am pleased to be here in Indonesia if you go out into the lobby there's a black and white photo of a much younger version of myself participating in the East Asia forum in 1998 then both Indonesia and Thailand from one of the biggest crises we faced in our generation we in Thailand in fact suffer double digit contraction and the reason I'm pleased to be here is to witness what has happened since then in Indonesia a remarkable turnaround with structural reforms in the economy and also remarkable progress in democratization that's certainly a good reason to be here to witness the success and the remarkable progress that has been achieved over the last decade the second reason I'm convinced I'm right to be here is that we are discussing the issue of globalism and the Thai people the Thai government also want to make our contributions to the region to meet global challenges at the same time despite the fact that we are in the midst of an election many of you here will also have remarkable influence on the lives of the Thai people over the next four years it's not just about the Thai government it's not just about the political the domestic political process that will determine the future of our people so when I asked about the difference between globalization and globalism let me offer my own version of an answer I think globalization has been a process driven by technological changes driven by market forces and for so many of us and particularly for our people we have been almost like passive observers on the receiving end of this remarkable process some positive impact obviously new opportunities more wealth but at the same time incredible challenges that have emerged and today we are discussing issues about fairness about sustainability about balance and globalism is really about how we can really respond to that process that we have been passively almost been witnesses or victims of and so I think we are certainly on to something when we talk about shared responsibilities and shared values as the key underpinning of this new globalism and the global financial crisis the recent contagious debt crisis in Europe and we are reminded that as a global community we need to find a solution that requires global cooperation and coordination we have not yet been able to achieve the kind of institutionalization of this global cooperation the G20 has emerged not through formal rules not through formal agreements but have been a very responsive and timely answer to the crisis that we faced then so therefore today what we are facing is to find solutions to those challenges that I've mentioned how to achieve greater balance how to achieve fairness and how to achieve sustainability and we cannot get around this problem unless we tackle head on of global governance I'm sure that Pascal has been very much frustrated by what he wants to achieve given the inheritance of the old rules the old structures the old institutions as far as global politics is concerned that we inherited from the last century but yet having to meet the challenges of this century and it's clear that if we are going to create this new globalism we have to aim for reform of a fair and equitable role of the games and the global governance system that really reflects the new realities and we are here in East Asia where we feel that our voice needs to be heard and that we should have a fairer representation given the influence given the economic powers that we are now enjoying in this region I think it's very important that this new global governance system reform takes shape and indeed I would support Pascal's idea that it has to come with a clear focus on what kind of values that we share which can move this reform process forward but equally important is that the process of regional and national development also needs to respond to the challenges how to make growth inclusive and how to make growth sustainable and here again I think we have to find new models for growth and new ways of working with one another Professor Schwab mentioned a third word when he talked about globalism it wasn't just inclusiveness but sustainability but the word partnership and again it's clear during the discussions in this session and I'm sure over the last 36 hours we've also been talking about some realities and lessons that we've learned yes the market system continues to be a powerful force and a force that if used constructively can also answer many of the challenges whether it's the issue of efficiency of providing incentives for innovation, technology which some of the panelists have referred to but there are also clear limits as to what the market can achieve but in the old days we left what the market couldn't achieve to governments and we've also discovered that governments by themselves cannot provide all the answers which is why when we discuss today about the issue of inequality when we discuss about issues of balance or sustainability we do not think that we can find answers just simply in more regulations in more taxes and spending by the government or even laws but we think more about how the public and private sectors must work together to make sure that we have a form of growth or a model of growth that is pro inclusion of people pro balance and pro sustainability and for us in Thailand we have embarked upon this new growth model we place people at the center of our development we feel that the creation of opportunities and the creation of sufficient safety nets is what will enable and empower people whether they are in the private or the public sectors to achieve the goals that we want to achieve we place high importance on enabling social policies so that equality of opportunity can be ensured and growth would not benefit just certain parts of society and we have to take that special care for the poor and the vulnerable in one way or another by also asking not just the private sector, the business sector but also civil society to work together towards new forms and new models of business as well I'm not just talking about corporate social responsibility but also I'm referring to the growth of social enterprises and also a number of initiatives that now the government and the private sector are working together in Thailand for instance on the issue of the fight against corruption and let me also say that all we are doing is very much in line with the sufficiency economy philosophies Majesty the King of Thailand where there is emphasis on moderation and reasonableness we've talked about the Asian economies being surplus economies accumulating wealth perhaps by producing too much and consuming too little and not yet using those savings for the benefits of our people in terms of building infrastructure and the welfare system we need to do that now but we must also fall into the trap that I think the economies that developed before us went into either building an unsustained model of a welfare system where there was too much reliance on taxes instead I think in Asia we should tap into the culture of high savings to make sure that people also contribute to the building up of this welfare system and safety net we mustn't fall into the same trap of encouraging our people to over consume and become deficit countries but rather place emphasis on moderation and reasonableness as I've mentioned as a key part of our philosophy so Thailand has experienced a series of unprecedented challenges in the last few years but as the figures speak for themselves we have proven that the Thai economy is robust and resilient and even despite the political troubles differences that we've been through economic development remains our shared goal and it's our determination to achieve this prosperity on the basis of inclusiveness and sustainable development and prosperity of life for all so we are also intent upon contributing to sustainable global recovery with the general election scheduled on the 3rd of July we are also at an important juncture but whatever the results of the elections the World Economic Forum on East Asia for next year is set on our program I'm pleased to be able to extend a very warm invitation of the Royal Thai Government and our people to all of you in Thailand to deliberate on the challenges that we have begun our discussions today and for you to see for yourselves the potential Thailand can offer as your reliable business and global partners Thank you very much Thank you Prime Minister Thank you Thank you Prime Minister this was a truly visionary and at the same time very pragmatic May I now ask Sushant Rao who had the responsibility for this meeting to close formally our World Economic Forum on East Asia 2011 Sushant Thank you Professor Schwab I'm going to follow the example set by the President of Indonesia last night in his remarks where he was asked by the First Lady to keep them short So even if I had more time to speak I don't know whether I could sufficiently express the impact of this year's East Asia meeting and the appreciation of the World Economic Forum for our partnership with Indonesia I'll give one interpretation from my side on the new globalism I think it's been described here as an imperative for collaboration and cooperation and thanks to international participants I think who were very committed to improving the state of the world this meeting produced many examples of collaboration between industry, government and civil society leaders I would however add to collaboration and cooperation a third imperative of connectivity ASEAN is a region of the world which is a living example of it a region of the world with such rich and religious diversity that nonetheless is working hand in hand toward economic integration in 2015 In Indonesia my colleagues and I have been very fortunate to have been working hand in hand with our 16 member companies in Indonesia the Office of the President the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the Investment Coordinating Board the Office of the Governor of Jakarta but in particular the Coordinating Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Trade I would like to thank you very warmly for making us a part of Team Indonesia and for sharing with all the participants why this country is rightly referred to as Remarkable Indonesia your team spirit your hospitality and your tireless engagement were truly remarkable Your Excellency Prime Minister Abhisit on behalf of my team and my colleagues I'd also like to assure you that we will take this example set by Indonesia and work very hard for a similar success next year in Thailand Ladies and gentlemen co-chairs of the meeting our friends in Indonesia and all of my colleagues at the World Economic Forum I think you will agree with me that after these past days in Jakarta we all now feel a little bit more Indonesian than those in Bahasa Indonesia by saying Terima kasih dan selamat jalan Thank you