Quantum Budget?

Last Friday, our Prime Minister presented the budget for 2025. Being non-economist, my attention was probably not on the various details of the budget, apart from possible increase in pension pay that would be of considerable help in my personal life. However, there is one part of the budget speech that really caught my attention. A video of this part of the speech can be found in this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp5YE7iYQV0

As expected, the announcement will cause some stir among some. One comment that I've heard from a respected colleague was, "I can't believe it", perhaps alluding to the thought of other aspirant 'quantum leaders'. There are indeed a few groups scattered in the public and private universities that wish for leading roles in quantum research. A more serious problem, however, is the information captured by some media, as if the announcement was made for quantum computing. I think if one reads the text more carefully, it would be clear that it is more on cybersecurity, particularly on post-quantum cryptography (PQC). I am very much aware that there is a team in the institute that I was in, has been pushing for PQC for some time now and I'm not surprised that this team's work has been highlighted given that they have put much effort in this.

For quantum enthusiasts, they might point out that PQC is not a quantum technology but to put them as totally separated or isolated from progress in quantum technology is too simplistic and certainly not realistic. For a start, PQC is spurred by developments in quantum computing or more specifically in quantum algorithms (these days, it has become necessary to narrow down scope of the science discussed due to too much hypes and claims). I have always put forward the idea that PQC needs to know the progress in quantum algorithms. As far as I know, quantum algorithms have yet to be fully understood and don't take this from me (a non-expert in quantum algorithms); listen to Scott Aaronson here. What if another potential 'Peter Shor' comes along and the landscape of quantum algorithm will undergo more revolutionary changes (see here for a typology of quantum algorithms). Anyway, like many sciences, the big field of quantum science and technology is open to all to explore and if some particular group and individual wish to lead, they may want to go an extra mile. In a way, I subscribe to this general view, though there should be precautionary steps to avoid (widely acceptable) falsities or unnecessary problematic assertions (and there are many for quantum physics with all the stirred fashions and fantasies around it, using the labels made by Roger Penrose). For me, I would like to see quantum computing as a new computing paradigm to understand science further as imagined by Feynman, instead of simply just being the boogey man for cryptologists. I hope that our local scientists will be humble; it will be unfortunate if there is a feeling among us that thinks of being the rightful heir to (making) any progress in Quantum S&T in the country (or for that matter, any sciences). No science can be developed by an exclusive group of a few; we need all of the help we can get for progress. We should avoid the mentality of 'if my group can't get it, then others should not'. Celebrate the various opportunities that are on offer.

Please note that I write this post not to give total unquestionable support to any group nor to hinder anyone from getting opportunities to excel or even lead in their own research (certainly not my purpose). As a retiree, I only wish for a good progress in the science I once pursue and will certainly watch with interest from the sidelines. If there is a need, I will throw my help and support, no matter who leads, though I understand my help may or may not be needed.