PART I: Perspective on Development

Paling celaka, seorang pengarang bukan seorang talibarut, bukan seekor kuda tunggangan, bukan seberkas perkakas, bukan pengikut buta tuli dan bukan pencatit upahan.

—Shahnon Ahmad, Malaysia’s National Literary Laureate

(My translation: Damn it! A writer is not a rumormonger or someone’s hobbyhorse; nor is he the party’s apparatchik, a blind follower, or a hired hand.)

Chapter 2: Why Some Societies Progress, Others Regress

Man is the child of customs, not the child of his ancestors.

—Ibn Khaldun, 14th century Muslim historian

The development of human societies can be analyzed from three perspectives: biology, geography, and culture. This classification is arbitrary, adopted for the convenience of discussion. In reality the factors are interrelated.

Briefly, the theories that favor biological factors posit that there are inherent differences among humans such that certain groups are favored or better endowed with capabilities that facilitated their progress. Conversely, others are less fortunate. Stripped of its sophistry, these are essentially racist viewpoints. It was such thinking that gave rise to Hitler’s fascist regime, with its attempted extermination of not only members of the “inferior” races but also Germans deemed not “up to snuff.” In Australia it was manifested in its discriminatory “White Australia” immigration policy; in South Africa, its abhorrent and now defunct apartheid rule. In ancient times it was the Chinese who proclaimed they were the best, smugly declaring that they had nothing to learn from the barbarians of the outside world.

Theories based on geography emphasize the role of the physical environment and climate in human development. Intuitively one can be easily persuaded by this argument. A nation blessed with abundant natural resources would be more likely to thrive and prosper, compared to one that is barren and harsh. Civilizations are not likely to thrive in extreme climatic zones like the tundra, rather in fertile alluvial plains of great rivers like the Nile and Indus.

The third of the series of theories presume that human progress is more a function of the social institutions and culture. Some cultures are resistant to changes and new ideas, others more receptive. The latter would be more likely to develop faster.

It is also easy to see the how these three main elements are interrelated in charting the course of human history. It is not coincidental that the major monotheistic faiths – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – originated in the desert of the Middle East. In the vastness of the barren sand, with the stark contrast between life and death, desert and oasis, the scorching heat of the day and the frigid cold of the night, one sought a unifying theme to relate these profound differences. Thus the belief in an omnipotent deity took hold, to bridge the polar extremes and to link the present world with the hereafter.

Faiths like Buddhism and Hinduism that began in warmer climes view the cosmos differently. Inhabitants of the lush tropics with their different hues of life forms instead of the stark, dichotomous contrasts of the desert developed a belief in multiple deities and in reincarnations. The dead tree in the forest is not really dead, but gives rise to multiple life forms – fungi, ants, and worms. The variety of colors and sounds of the jungle make absolute silence impossible. This richness in the environment is reflected in their belief in the different deities – thus a god for this, and another for that.

Similarly there is a close relationship between known biological traits and geography. For example, the sickle gene trait common among African Blacks confers certain survival value in the tropics. With it the human hemoglobin takes a particular form that makes it resistant to malarial infection. Also, the dark skin of tropical people protects against the cancer-inducing ultraviolet rays of the sun. Melanoma, a deadly skin cancer, is predominantly the disease of fair-skinned individuals.

If biology affects such physical attributes as forms of hemoglobin and skin color, it does not take a huge leap of imagination to extend it to other human qualities, including intelligence and the propensity to progress. Geography thus operates through the process of natural selection, by enhancing the survivability of those with particular favorable traits and gradually eliminating those less fortunately endowed.

The difficulty with using biology and geography to explain the progress of human development is their limited utility. Members of a society are either lucky to possess the inherent “good” biological attributes, or lacking that, they would be trapped and doomed. Likewise with geography; a country is either blessed with a balmy climate, endowed with rich resources, and located in a desirable strategic area, or be cursed with a barren desert, devoid of precious minerals, and located at land’s end. Nothing can change those fundamental facts.

Granted, air conditioning has turned the hot humid American Southeast into “sun belts” and central heating makes living in Canada more bearable, but beyond those simple adjustments there is nothing much that can be done to alter the environment. That being the case, there is not much sense in studying such factors, as we cannot alter them; it would be purely academic. Human societies would then be at the mercy of their biological and geographical attributes – a form of predeterminism no less crippling than the more familiar religious one.

Next: Biology in Human History

[Presented at the Third Annual Alif Ba Ta Forum, “1Malaysia Towards Vision 2020,” Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, December 5, 2009, organized by Kelab UMNO NY-NJ. The presentation can be viewed at www.youtube.com (search under “Bakri Musa RIT”) or through this link: http://www.youtube.com/user/alchemistar ]

Part Six of Six: Q&A Con’td

Q 10: Can you give us examples of successful countries we can emulate? In one of your books you suggest South Korea, but it is so far ahead to make it a valid model for us.

MBM: Did you know that in the 1950s the Philippines was sending foreign aid workers to South Korea? How the world has changed! Today it is the Philippines that is an economic basket case. That is precisely my point; countries can change quickly, for better or worse. To re-emphasize, if you do not strive to reach Montreal, you would quickly slide back to Tijuana. Standing still is not an option.

In my book Malaysia in the Era of Globalization I gave three examples: Ireland, South Korea, and Argentina. Argentina is a negative example, of how quickly a nation could slide backward. I agree with you that South Korea is not the best model for us, but for different reasons. That nation, unlike ours, is culturally, linguistically and ethnically homogenous.

The better example would be Ireland. The Ireland of 1950s, like Malaysia today, was wrecked with its own Catholic-Protestant division, with the minority Protestant English dominating commerce and the professions while the Catholics were busy reciting their rosaries and making babies. The English schools and universities were also superior, but the Catholic Irish who attended those institutions risked being excommunicated!

Substitute Irish for Malays, English for non-Malays, and you have similar dynamics in Malaysia today.

Today Ireland is a different nation; its economy robust, the Celtic Tiger. Imagine, Ryan Air, a discount Irish airline, at one time attempted a takeover of the venerable and regal British Airways! I need not go over here how Ireland achieved her remarkable transformation as I have covered that in my Globalization book, but suffice to say that they did it by first freeing the Irish from the tight grip of the clergy class.

A noteworthy observation is that Sean Lemass, the leader responsible for the Irish transformation, did not become prime minister until 1959. It took the Irish at least two generations before they could escape the yoke of the church and began their trajectory of development to lead Ireland away from being the chronic “sick man of Europe’ to where it is today, a vibrant member of the EU.

So if Malaysia were to be blessed with her own Sean Lemaas today, it would not be until at least 2050 before we could hope to achieve ‘developed’ status. To make it even gloomier, Najib Razak has not demonstrated himself thus far to be anything close to Lemass in terms of his leadership ability and vision.

That is the bad news. The good news is that we do have a Malaysian Lemass in waiting in the person of Anwar Ibrahim. For one, he is the only leader with the courage and credentials to take on the Islamic establishment, as he did with the “Allah” issue. For another he is the only one who is not insular and has worldview more in tune in this current era of globalization. Lastly, like Lemass, Anwar is able to corral many bright young Malaysians to his cause.

The big question is whether our Malaysian Lemass would be given that opportunity.

Q 11: What do you think of the institution of Malay sultans?

MBM: Let me throw that question back. What do you think of the Malay Rajas? No response? Well, let me rephrase that. How many think that the sultans are a positive influence? [Few hands went up] Negative? [Many more hands shot up.] Wow! I am amazed! I did not expect that.

On reflection however, I am not totally surprised. I read the thousands of comments posted on the web regarding our sultans, especially after the Perak political fiasco and the battle between the Johor and Negri Sembilan princes. I was stunned at the contempt and venom spewed.

I grew up in the royal town of Sri Menanti, but I try not to let that influence my thinking. Whether our sultans remain relevant and respected, or be reduced to the status of the Sultan of Sulu, depends not on what is inscribed in our constitution rather on how they perform their duties and how they behave personally. In these days of the Internet and cell phones, their shenanigans abroad or in private would easily be exposed. Contrary to their enticing tourism ads, what happens in Vegas no longer stays just there. The many recent negative accounts of members of the royal family do not advance their cause.

When I lived in Johor Baru in the 1970s, it was interesting to observe the behaviors of these Malay princes and princesses. In Singapore they behaved like ordinary mortals, observing the traffic laws and being civil in public. Once they crossed the causeway to return home, they suddenly transformed themselves and regressed to their infantile forms. My conclusion is that we are partly to blame for we tolerate their childish tantrums.

Royal peccadilloes, while titillating and headline-grabbing, do not interest me. My concern is that these sultans squat at the apex of the special privileges heap. Their every whim and demand is acceded too readily. They get monopolistic business licenses and granted prime state land literally on demand; their every gluttony and avarice satisfied, at state expense of course. How can we ask ordinary Malays to give up our special privilege crutch when our sultans are getting the biggest crutch of all, and a golden one at that?

My other concern also relates to their being role models. In my book The Malay Dilemma Revisited, I describe the Sultan Syndrome, of ministers and department heads behaving as figureheads like our sultans instead of being the chief executive. They are consumed with the trappings of their offices while delegating the heavy lifting to their underlings. I truly believe that the deterioration of our public institutions is attributed in large part to this Sultan Syndrome.

Beyond that I have nothing against the institution of sultans.

Q 12: Don’t you think that the institution of sultans serves to anchor our diverse citizens? Political leaders come and go, but our sultans by being apolitical and above the fray, provide stability, commonality, as well as continuity.

MBM: Many would argue with your assertion that our sultans are above the political fray, especially after what happened in Perak and Trengganu. Even if we were to accede to your argument, do we really need nine sultans plus the Agong? Actually we have 13 if we include the four sultan wannabes – the governors of the non-sultan states who also have regal tastes and aspirations.

I would be satisfied with just the Agong; he is expensive enough to maintain, what with the new billion-ringgit palace. If we were to have all those other sultans, their consorts, raja mudas, raja bendaharas, and the whole slew of princes and princesses on the civil list, then I would impose strict rules. If they receive any royal allowance, then the moment they enter business, be gainful employed, or in any way earn an income, then their state allowance would be reduced in the amount of that income. That would encourage them towards voluntary services. I would put all those allowances saved in a trust fund towards scholarships for deserving kampong kids.

We have a few members of the royal family who have had the benefit of superior education, having gone to such august institutions as Oxford and Harvard. I challenge them to come up with a better idea than what I have presented here so they would remain relevant and be respected when they ascend to the throne.

* * * * *

As there are no more questions, let me close by again expressing my sincere appreciation for your staying right to the very end! I am sure there are many other places you would rather spend a Saturday evening than a lecture hall. I have thoroughly enjoyed the sessions; most of all I have enjoyed your company.

You have asked many penetrating questions, and I do not pretend to know the answers. However, finding the solution begins with asking thoughtful questions, and you have certainly done that. You have asked many of the probing questions that needed to be asked. It is through such open discussions and the tapping of many minds that we would hope to find the best workable solutions.

During your stay here do take time to enjoy Upstate New York and the surrounding New England states. The region is attractive and wonderful at any time of the year. I wish you well in your studies and in the pursuit of your individual dreams.

M. Bakri Musa

December 5, 2009

Next Week:  The Labu-Labi Team of Najib and Muhyyiddin (In Three Parts)

Introduction and Overview

The Outline

This book has two parts. The first, “Perspectives on Development,” begins with the chapter exploring why some societies progress while others regress. The chapter following recaps the lessons of past societies that successfully overcame their stagnant conditions and then went on a trajectory of progress. The examples I choose are early Islam, the European Reformation, and the Meiji Restoration. The chapter after that covers three contemporary model states: two are positive examples—the “Asian tiger” (South Korea) and the “Celtic tiger” (Ireland) – while the third is a negative one, Argentina. I conclude this first part with a chapter on globalization, the prevailing and dominant force shaping the world today.

Globalization is now a reality. While there are many imperfections and inequities with the system, nonetheless for small nations like Malaysia it is best not to dwell on them. Suffice that Malaysia should concentrate on avoiding and minimizing the pitfalls, and on better preparing her citizens to face this new reality and its associated challenges. Once Malaysia is a full and active participant in globalization, then it will be in a better position to improve the system. Until then it would be presumptuous for Malaysians to presume to preach to the larger world. Besides, there are greater minds elsewhere now addressing the many inequities and translocations associated with globalization.

The second part, “Transforming Malaysia,” deals specifically with how Malaysia can best position itself for the next stage of development by taking full advantage of the many opportunities afforded through globalization and free trade. I begin with Chapter VI by taking stock of the nation, its assets and liabilities, paying particular attention to those factors that must of necessity be either assets or by default, they will become liabilities. For example, Malaysia’s plurality can be considered an asset if we leverage that to prepare our citizens to be tolerant of and adapt to the different cultures. That would prepare our citizens for globalization. On the other hand, our multiracial society could easily trip the nation into becoming another Bosnia if we allow our differences to divide us.

The chapter following that deals with how best to enhance our most precious asset – our human capital. The chapter “Culture, Institutions, and Leadership” examines how those elements could be enhanced in preparation for globalization. As Islam is a major influence on Malay culture, I have a separate chapter examining its impact on law, education, and the economy. Because of the centrality of the institution of law, I devote an entire chapter on Freedom, Justice, and The Law. The last but one chapter is my plea for Malaysia to adopt the only economic system that has proven to be successful in alleviating poverty in the greatest number of people: free enterprise. I conclude with my specific prescription on how best to transform Malaysia. This is in the format of an open letter to Prime Minister Mahathir.

Malaysia’s goal at this stage should be a modest one. That is, how best to prepare its citizens to meet the challenges of and to benefit from globalization. This book is my small contribution towards this goal.

Next: Part I: Perspectives on Development

Chapter 2: Why Some Societies Progress, Others Regress

Towards A Developed Malaysia

M. Bakri Musa

[Presented at the Third Annual Alif Ba Ta Forum, “1Malaysia Towards Vision 2020,” Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, December 5, 2009, organized by Kelab UMNO NY-NJ. The presentation can be viewed at www.youtube.com (search under “Bakri Musa RIT”) or through this link: http://www.youtube.com/user/alchemistar ]

Part Five of Six: Q&A Con’td:

Q 4: How can we unite Malaysians when we have these separate school systems?

MBM: The underpinning of the national school policy, as articulated in the Razak Report of 1956, was that if young Malaysians were to learn the same language, read the same books, study the same history, then we would all idolize the same heroes and subscribe to the same values. With a common base and shared goals, national unity would be that more readily achievable.

It was not an unreasonable assumption. Tun Razak’s national schools were a definite improvement over the then existing vernacular schools. At least Malaysians now know more about Tunku Abdul Rahman than Nehru or Chiang Kai Shek, and can speak the national language, an achievement that should not be belittled.

Instead of building on that, we have over time corroded the noble values of the Razak Plan such that today we are even more segregated racially then we were during colonial rule. There are many factors contributing to this sad affair, among them the increasing Islamization and the de-emphasis of English in our national schools. I have elaborated on this in my book An Education System Worthy of Malaysia and elsewhere. Today young Malaysians may be reading the same books or learning the same facts, but they are not doing it together in class as they have voluntarily segregated themselves, with the Chinese attending Chinese schools and Malays, national schools. That is the crux of the problem.

I have a different perspective. I could not care less if we have a thousand school systems, as long as young Malaysians from the different races are learning together in class, playing together on the school fields, and participating in the same school plays and bands, then we would more likely end up as a nation less segregated and consequently more united. I would focus on making our schools integrated; the student body must reflect the general community. How that is done is for each school to decide. To encourage that effort, I would reward through generous funding those schools that are fully integrated so they could enhance their programs to attract a broad spectrum of Malaysians.

Q 5: What school system is best for Malaysia?

MBM: I do not know. That is not an attempt at false modesty on my part. I cannot honestly say that I know what is best for the children of a fisherman in Ulu Kelantan as compared to the needs of the children of a diplomat at Bukit Tunku.

This certainty I do know. Our schools must have a function beyond only educating our children; they should also serve as an instrument to bring our young together; dwifungsi (dual functions) as the Indonesians would say of their military. Otherwise we would have a highly educated but divided society, another Northern Ireland.

So if we were to have a single school system, then it should have only the two requirements. One, the enrolment must reflect the community; two, its curriculum should have the core of Malay, English, science, and mathematics. Beyond that, each school should be given the latitude to chart its own course, including choosing its language of instruction.

Q 6: Can you comment on the recent policy reversal with respect to the teaching of science and mathematics in English?

MBM: I do not wish to go over the various arguments except to point to two incontrovertible facts. One, we are better off knowing two languages instead of just one. Quite apart from enhancing our marketability, being bilingual offers other significant cognitive advantages, like being able to see things from different perspectives. I would leave it to the professionals on how best to make our children bilingual.

Two, the bulk of the literature in science and technology is in English. If we have to depend on translations, that means we are putting an unnecessary barrier in getting to the forefront of scientific knowledge. I support the teaching of science and mathematics in English because of these two realities.

There is no point in saying that the Japanese learn science in their language. They have had centuries of experience; we do not. Besides, they are already so far ahead of us. If we were to “Look East,” the Japan we should emulate would be the Japan following the Meiji Restoration. Then realizing how far behind they were as compared to the West, the Japanese sent thousands of their senior officials abroad for extended study tours to learn and absorb the best practices. Additionally, Japan imported massive number of teachers and scientists from the West. Even today thousands of young Americans go to Japan to teach English (the JET Program).

I question the relevance to Malaysia of the UNESCO report favoring the use of mother tongue. That report was concerned with the languages of small tribes and the fear that those languages would disappear. Malay is the native language of over a quarter billion people; there is no likelihood it would suffer such a fate.

I would go beyond being bilingual and make Malaysians trilingual, or at least have a working knowledge of a third. Non-Malays are already trilingual: Malay, English, and their mother tongue. Malays could too: Malay, English, and Arabic. In truth I could not care less what the second and third languages are, but I presume for most Malays, English and Arabic would be the easiest to learn.

Apart from the cognitive advantages, there are other benefits of knowing another language. According to the Sapir-Whorf theory of linguistic relativity, the way we look at reality is shaped by our language. Thus we think and behave differently because of the differences in our languages. I will illustrate this with a seemingly unrelated account.

A few years ago Korea Airlines suffered through a series of terrible crashes such that the authorities were considering banning the airline from American airspace. These accidents were all due to pilot errors. The tragedy was that often the first officer and flight engineer were fully aware of the dangers they were in but were too scared of contradicting their captain. This fear subordinates have of their superiors is a feature of many Asian cultures, ours included.

To remedy the situation, the airline hired an American consultant; he immediately recognized this major cultural impediment to effective cockpit communications. As a foreigner he had little hope of changing Korean culture. Instead, he prevailed upon management to impose an all-English rule in the cockpit. Once the crew enters the plane, all communications must be in English. He justified that on the basis that English is the language of aviation. He also instituted other changes, like enhancing their communication skills.

A remarkable thing happened. He found that junior officers were now more open, direct and most importantly, clear when communicating with their superiors. Whereas before they would convey their disagreements with their superiors in the most indirect and obtuse way, now those junior officers had no difficulty expressing them forthrightly.

How did that happen? Apparently in Korean language there are multiple ways of referring to “you” and “I” depending on the status of the speaker and the person addressed. Just like Malay language, when a commoner addresses a royalty, he would refer to himself as patek (slave) while the sultan refers to himself as beta (royal “we”). In English, it is only “I” and “You,” so the status barrier, or what cultural anthropologists refer to as power distance, is eliminated. Today, directly as a consequence of the English-only cockpit policy, Korea Airlines is one of the safest airlines. A remarkable transformation!

Recently Mahathir lamented that his greatest failure was not being able to change Malay culture. It is pure hubris on his part to think that he could change our culture. If he had been more modest, he could have effected significant changes in Malays by making us learn English. At least then we could address ourselves as “I” or “we” and not as slaves when addressing a member of the royalty. Then we would not have witnessed the incongruity of our language as demonstrated by Mentri Besar Nizar of Perak when he respectfully disagreed with his sultan, “Patek memohon derhaka … ” (I, your slave, beg to be treasonous with Your Majesty!) Malay language is just not equipped for such direct or frontal communications.

Many of our sultans sit on the governing boards of important institutions. How could there be robust discussions in such meetings when everyone would be deferring to the sultan? Senior scholars, seasoned politicians, and hard-nosed corporate captains suddenly become meek and genuflect to the sultan. That cannot be good. One way to overcome that would be to communicate in English. It would be so much easier to say in English, “I am sorry Your Royal Highness, I respectfully disagree!” I challenge anyone to say that in Malay and then be brave enough to say it to a sultan! It just cannot be done; that is the constraint of our language and culture.

Q 7: You have these wonderful ideas like air-conditioning our schools and equipping them with modern laboratories. Those are expensive propositions. How can we afford them?

MBM: You are sounding like a politician or civil servant already! “No funds lah!” is their chronic excuse. We have the money, but we spend it foolishly, as in the billions wasted bailing out those GLCs.

I will illustrate the misplaced priorities of our officials with this small incident. A senior official was visiting California recently. At a private conversation I noted to him that our officials do not carry laptops when they travel abroad and wondered how they would keep in touch with their offices back home. Besides, what do they do on the long trans-Pacific flights and the hours waiting at airports?

His response was to blame the government for not supplying its senior officers with laptops. My rebuttal was that that if they had traveled business instead of first class, the government would have plenty of leftover cash to buy them fancy laptops! That demonstrates the priorities of our officials at the micro level and involving only a few thousand ringgit. The same misplaced priorities occur at the macro level, and with a price tag of billions.

Along the same point, if we have open competitive bidding, our schools and their laboratories would cost considerably less. We have the resources if only we use them wisely.

Q 8: How can we use our schools specifically and education system generally to open up Malaysian minds? Malaysians today are better educated than ever, with many ministers having impressive degrees from leading universities, but their mindset is still kampong.

MBM: That is a profound question and observation. I will try to answer by stating a few simple and obvious facts. First, schooling does not equal learning. If you were to ask the many who dropped out why they did so, invariably their answer would be that they were not learning anything at school.

Second, the classroom is not the only place where you can learn. The boy who helps his father at his kedai kopi is learning many things, like customer relations, cash flow, and inventory control. He may not know them through such terms but he is still absorbing the essence of those concepts. If he had stayed in a Malaysian school he probably still could not balance his checkbook.

There was a study many years ago of those kampong girls working in the factories of multinational companies – the Minah Karans (Hot girls!). Most had attended only primary school, hence the derogatory label. Yet after a few years of working, those girls had a social profile associated more with those who had completed secondary schooling. Meaning, they marry late, save more, and have fewer children. Obviously working in a factory taught them many lessons such as to be punctual, value time and money, and be independent. Those are useful lessons of life, and they will never learn that in school, at least not our schools. Working in those factories of multinational companies made them escape their kampong mindset far more effectively than had they completed their local schooling or even attended local universities.

As for opening up Malaysian minds, you would automatically achieve that if you are not intent on closing them. What goes on in our schools today, especially religious schools, is nothing more than indoctrination masquerading as education. We are intent on closing minds. Children are by nature curious; they have an innate desire to explore. All we have to do is leave them alone; we would of course go further if we equip them with the necessary tools.

One such tool is language skills. I would like our students be fluently bilingual for reasons discussed earlier. The two natural languages for us would be Malay and English. Then we should ensure that they have the necessary quantitative skills so they could think with some degree of precision and not merely agak agak (wild guesses). Meaning, emphasize mathematics. Lastly, I would encourage critical thinking through reading literature, even our simple folktales.

Consider my favorite childhood story, Batu belah, Batu melangkup. You know, the story of the mother who sulked and ran away to disappear into a cave because her children had eaten all the food and left her with nothing. If after reading that story in class, the teacher would ask the girls to imagine themselves as the mother. She is now in the cave alone and a jinn would appear to grant her one final wish: to deliver her last letter to her children. Now ask the girls to write that letter. For the boys, imagine that you, being the eldest and now responsible for your siblings, the jinn too had also given you a similar wish. Now write that last letter to your mother.

Imagine the different responses! That is the sort of classroom assignments that would encourage students to think creatively and explore their inner world. You can be sure that the answer is not given at the back of the book! Nor would there be any “prep” essays available for download! Such an exercise would really challenge and bring out the intelligence and creativity of your students.

Literature is exciting and helps develop our powers of critical thinking, but only if we go beyond the “who said what and to whom,” and, if I may add, on what page!

Our education system today succeeds only in creating an obsession with paper qualifications – credentialism. I am stunned at how many chief ministers and corporate chiefs who unabashedly display their “doctorates” from known degree mills. They are not even embarrassed. Worse, nobody in the media exposes their fraud.

Q 9: [Question from a hearing-impaired student; his question and my answer were translated by a sign language interpreter.]

When I was a student in Malaysia, my teachers would always ignore those of us at the bottom of the class. The teachers focused only on the top students. So I was pleased with your allocation and in not ignoring the bottom decile.

First, I want to make one point clear. When I label a part of the population as being at the bottom or top decile, I am merely referring to a particular attribute that I am measuring. It does NOT make any judgment on the whole person or his other abilities and attributes. I want to emphasize that, and that is why I specifically choose an attribute – the ability to fish – that has no emotive or other association.

In focusing on the “top” students, your teachers were making a value judgment, presumably based on test scores. Let me make a confession here. If I were a student in Malaysia today, I would have long ago been kicked out of school. In fact that nearly happened to me at my afternoon religious school, for misbehaving in class per the ustad’s standards. Fortunately my wise father saw something in me and took me out before I was expelled! If you live in a kampong, you know that took considerable courage on his part.

Your teachers back home assumed that you, being hearing impaired, were also dumb; hence their reactions to you. Here in America and specifically RIT, we do not use the label “deaf.” I am told that there are nearly a thousand hearing-impaired students at RIT diligently preparing to be productive citizens. If they had been Malaysians, ignored by their teachers, they would end up as Mat Rempits. They would be perfect for that as the roar of their machines would not bother them in the least!

Yesterday at Friday prayers on campus, there was a sign language translator interpreting the khutba. What a wonderful sight! I challenge anyone to cite a similar example anywhere in the Muslim world. To Muslims who are hearing-impaired, the Imam’s prayers and sermons are nothing but lips quivering and hands gesturing. Here on the campus of a private secular university in a Christian country, a hearing-impaired Muslim gets to ‘hear’ a khutba!

Next:  Part Six of Six: Q&A Con’td

Introduction and Overview

A Discussion on Causation

The numerous theories to explain why some societies develop and prosper while others languish and stagnate revolve around three broad themes: biology, geography, and culture. The first two factors are immutable; there is nothing that can be done to change a nation’s biological heritage or its geographical attributes. Culture on the other hand can and does change.

The popularity of the various theories varies with time. The prevailing view often coincides with the beliefs held by members of the dominant societies of the day. During the heyday of imperialism, biology took center stage. The Europeans, being the most advanced nations, easily believed that they were favored by nature and endowed with the most desirable characteristics: God’s perfection personified. The “White Man’s burden” mentality (they considered themselves divinely chosen to lead others) was a reflection of this belief in their inherent superiority.

Later, with the discovery of the importance of natural resources and trade, geographical attributes and strategic locations became popular explanations. The current favorite revolves around culture. That is, there is something in the cultures of the various societies that either predispose (or cause) them to develop; or conversely, impede their progress. In effect, culture is destiny. Economists emphasize the crucial role of institutions (an aspect of culture) in development; the backwardness of many Third World countries is caused largely by to their lack of effective and honest institutions.

Before proceeding, I will elaborate on the meaning of causation. When A causes B, it means that altering A will effect changes in B, or that without A, B will not happen. An opaque object blocking a ray of light causes a shadow, meaning, without that opaque object there will be no shadow. Substitute a transparent glass for example, and there will be no shadow. Further, by altering the shape, size, or position of the opaque object, we likewise directly alter the characteristics of the shadow.

Going further, by studying the physics of light, one can manipulate or eliminate shadows even if there is an opaque object blocking the ray of light. Experienced photographers manipulating the different angles of lights to neutralize and eliminate annoying shadows.

In life however, events are not always quite so clear. I illustrate this by using the example on the “cause” of malaria. In ancient times malaria was known as “black water fever,” an apt description as the disease was associated with brackish waters and swamps. This was a valuable observation, for by draining swamps we reduced the incidence of the disease. Fewer swamps, fewer cases of malaria! Thus the ancients rightly concluded that swamps caused the disease, hence the name. It did not matter what was the actual intermediary, for at the practical and operational level, the draining or eliminating of swamps effectively reduced the incidence of the disease.

Village Malays may attribute malaria to the hantu or spirits of the swamp, but it matters not. It is the swamp that ultimately caused the disease, the hantu being merely an intermediary, a vector in modern epidemiological parlance. Stay away from the swamps and their hantu, and you are spared the malady.

Later we discovered that mosquitoes “caused” malaria. Operationally that was a more valid and useful explanation. Get rid of the mosquitoes and we eliminate the disease. In terms of efficacy, this was a better and more specific explanation as it explained the household transmission of the disease and why it could occur in non swampy areas. It also provided a more efficient and cheaper way to control the disease. Instead of using expensive earth-moving equipment to drain swamps and upsetting the ecological balance, we could invest in cheap mosquito nets or insecticides. Thus this discovery was an improvement over the earlier model.

Now biologists know that mosquitoes do not “cause” malaria, rather it is the single-cell parasite, the protozoon Plasmodium that is the real culprit. The mosquito is merely a carrier. Again this is a far more accurate explanation. It explains how the disease can be transmitted in the absence of mosquitoes as in rare cases through blood transfusions; and why some Africans with a particular trait (sickle cell anemia) are more resistant to malaria.

Is Plasmodium then the ultimate truth or cause? Perhaps in the future scientists will discover something else. Maybe it is a virus within the parasite, or perhaps a protein component in the coating of the parasite that is responsible for the fever and disease.

For now however, the knowledge that Plasmodium causes malaria is very useful as drugs could be developed targeting the parasite. But this explanation also raises hosts of other interesting questions. For example, why does the body not reject this foreign organism as it would a transplanted kidney? So the enquiry goes on. And if it is a virus within the protozoa or the protein coat of the parasite that causes malaria, then one could conceivably develop vaccines to prevent the disease. Indeed modern research in malaria is aimed towards this very goal of prevention by vaccination.

Meanwhile whatever the ultimate or true ‘cause’ of malaria is, each level of explanation, from the swamp spirit to the protozoal parasite, provides its own utility.

Many of the studies I will cite in this book are culled from the social sciences, especially economics. Unlike in the natural sciences where the findings and observations can be tested in a controlled environment of the laboratory, few such opportunities are afforded in the social sciences. Whereas in the “hard” science we can confidently proclaim that A causes B because by experimentally altering A effects changes in B, in the social sciences the statement is stated differently: A is correlated with B, with no mention of causation. This means that when A changes, so does B. It does not mean that A causes B; correlation is not causation. It may well be that whatever conditions that caused A to change also affect B.

This caution is necessary lest we fall into the ridiculous trap of trying to curb ice cream sales to prevent drowning, based on the study that increased ice cream sales (as in summer) correlate with rates of drowning. In truth of course the warm summer days cause many to consume ice cream as well as go swimming, hence the correlation.

Such spurious correlations may not always be so readily apparent. Studies show that students who graduated from elite universities consistently earn more than graduates of lesser-known institutions, leading many to credit those august universities. This seems to make sense too. But later studies comparing students who went to elite universities to those who were accepted but instead chose to attend a local lesser-known school, revealed no difference in their later earnings.

Thus it is those same qualities (diligence and intelligence) that enable the students to get accepted at the top universities that are important and valued in the marketplace, regardless of where the students study. In short, it is not the university that matters, rather the individual.

Unfortunately many social science findings are not so readily validated. For example, a recent study by the World Bank reveals that developing countries that embrace free trade and globalization grew nearly five times faster than those countries that do not. The Bank concludes that developing countries should embrace globalization in order to grow. Although I agree with that sentiment, there are other possible interpretations. It could be that whatever qualities those developing countries have that made them adopt globalization also promote growth, for example, ready acceptance of new ideas.

Likewise, many studies indicate economic development to be correlated with investments in education, leading many to emphasize spending on our schools and colleges. Again I agree with this, but for a different reason – it is the right thing to do regardless of the economic cost-benefit analysis. Nonetheless we should still be cautious and not be confusing cause with effect. It could be that because they are economically developed these countries have the resources to expend on education. This is certainly true with individuals. When you are poor and the immediate concern is where your next meal would come, the last thing on your mind is your child’s education.

In discussing the various factors in human social and economic development, I am using the term causation in the manner of Plasmodium causing of malaria. That is, I am seeking those aspects that we can modify in order to promote development. I am more concerned with those elements that have utilitarian values, that is, those that we can do something about. This caveat is necessary because although I will be quoting various theological and religious arguments, it is my conviction that the present state of affairs of the various societies is the consequence of the activities of man, and not the will of Allah. The important corollary is that those very same factors can be modified. If I believe that everything is predestined—the will of Allah—then we might as well close the book. No further enquiry is warranted.

Next:  The Outline

[Presented at the Third Annual Alif Ba Ta Forum, “1Malaysia Towards Vision 2020,” Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, December 5, 2009, organized by Kelab UMNO NY-NJ. The presentation can be viewed at www.youtube.com (search under “Bakri Musa RIT”) or through this link: http://www.youtube.com/user/alchemistar ]

Part Four of Six: A Bigger Fish Story

Returning to my original tale, I now have a bigger fish story to tell; the story that is, not the fish. Consider two villages. The leader of one was suddenly struck by the fishing bug; now he also wanted his people to be great fishermen and win coveted derby prizes. He wanted to put his village on the map for its fishing prowess. So he embarked on a crash program teaching his people how to fish, importing great fishermen as teachers, and subsidizing the fishing tools. He also made fishing compulsory in schools and forced every villager to learn how to fish.

He was successful; the village’s catch increased substantially, and his villagers were winning many fishing tournaments. His leadership was widely lauded, making the other villages envious. They yearned that if only they could have such an efficient, far-sighted, single-minded, and yes, even ruthless leader, then they too would be good fishermen and their village would be equally famous.

The leader of the second village on the other hand was not at all interested in winning praises for his leadership; of course he appreciated them but he did not specifically seek them out or made that his priority. He was for developing his people, whatever their talent. If some were caught by the fishing bug, he would support them. He would not however, force everyone to take fishing classes. If others were scared of the water or could not stand the fishy smell but were interested in woodworking or something else, he would also support them and let them be. He reasoned that if they were to become good craftsmen, they could always trade their carvings for fish.

So he encouraged his followers to purse their individual dreams. He did not profess to know what those dreams were or where they would lead, but he trusted his people and encouraged them. And yes indeed, a few of his people who were not interested in fishing pursued their dreams to be scientists. He helped them by building laboratories and importing science teachers.

As luck would have it, one of those villagers who became a scientist discovered an efficient method of fish farming. Now instead of going out in the ocean and risking his life in the storm, all he had to do was scoop up the fish from his pond. He was so successful that not only could he feed his entire village, he had some for export. Sure he did not win any fishing derbies, and those fishermen would mock him for his “fishing” skills. However, where it counts – putting fish on the table – our scientist readily beat those star fishermen.

If you were a villager, which leader would you prefer? The first who would force you to accept his dream, or the second who let your pursue your own?

We will reach a developed state not by chanting and coining cute slogans but through developing our people and equipping them with modern skills, and then granting them the freedom to pursue their dreams. If fishing or rice farming is their passion, let it be, only make sure that they do not do it in the same inefficient ways of their ancestors. Instead help them become as efficient as the Japanese fishermen or American rice farmers. Japanese fishermen have refrigerated ships equipped with canning facilities, while American rice farmers sow their rice seeds from low-flying planes.

We could readily achieve this if in developing our people we would allocate the bulk of the resources towards enhancing the skills of the large middle group while simultaneously emphasizing the top 90^th percentile by giving them twice the allocation on a per capita basis.

Once our people are developed, our nation would follow. Once we achieve that, then we could coin whatever fancy slogans we want.

Q & A Sessions:

Q1: What do you think of 1Malaysia, and what is your vision of a united Malaysia? I visualize it as a mighty river with many contributing streams, like the Nile. Can you comment on that?

MBM: I have never heard it put quite that way, but that is an interesting, and if I may add, original metaphor. I like it! The mighty Nile has its Blue and White Niles. I suppose Malaysia has its brown, black, yellow and a few other colors contributing to our Nile.

That metaphor presupposes that we would all mix it up and become undifferentiated, for at the Nile delta you could not separate the waters from the Blue Nile from that of the Red. Unfortunately, or fortunately I would argue, we humans are always proud of our culture, heritage, and even color. The more developed we are, the more conscious we are of our roots. Being conscious and proud of our heritage is very different from being obsessed or being defined by it. The former is positive and constructive; the latter, negative and destructive. Barack Obama personifies the former; Adolf Hitler, the second.

We all have this need to belong; we do not want to be part of a large homogenous mass. Incidentally, that is also part of Allah’s grand design; He could have made us all clones of each other. Life would not be much fun then, nor would it be beautiful.

Let me suggest a culinary metaphor instead. America prides itself with its melting pot model. There is however, no mistaking what is in the pot; it is essentially an English stew – an Anglo Saxon culture and ethos. Today that stew is enriched with the addition of Italian pasta, jalapeno peppers, and French wine, but in flavor, texture, color, and yes, even smell, it is still basically the old English stew. Even a hint of challenging that would throw things in a tizzy. Witness the frenzy of hysteria gripping the White extreme right to Obama’s presidency.

I once suggested the salad as the more appropriate metaphor for Malaysia. Yes, there are onions, black olives and other ingredients, but there is no mistaking that it is not a salad without the greens. Salads are not a regular Malaysian fare, so my metaphor fell flat. More appropriate would be the more familiar and universal favorite, rojak. The main if not defining vegetable there is taugeh (bean sprout). It alone however, does not make rojak; we need cucumbers, tofus, onions, black olives, and all the other ingredients. Without them it would not be rojak. They enhance the overall flavor. Nonetheless when you pick up a handful of rojak, you could still separate out the various ingredients, but once in your mouth, you taste only the complete rojak, not the individual vegetables.

That is my vision of a united Malaysia, the rojak. The Malays, Chinese, Ibans and others should be proud of their heritage; it is not Malaysia without them. As to what I think of 1Malaysia, I do not know as no one, least of all Prime Minister Najib, has clearly articulated what it means. Besides, I am more interested in the content, not the label. I am also not much for slogans; you should all read Shahnon Ahmad’s short story, Unggappan (slogans) about the leader consumed and intoxicated with his endless sloganeering.

Q2: Can we achieve Vision 2020? It is only a decade away.

MBM: Absolutely, nothing is impossible! However, I think your question is really this: Can we do it with the current leadership? I have not seen any evidence of bold leadership to answer in the affirmative. On major issues like the controversies on the teaching of science and mathematics and on Biro Tata Negara, Najib has remained curiously silent.

If Malaysia were to register near double-digit growth in the next ten years, that would put us in the developed category by 2020, at least by economic indices. That is not impossible, as China had demonstrated. However as mentioned earlier, high per capita income alone does not equal developed status. Brunei would quickly disabuse one of that delusion.

As for the other criteria – like respect for the rule of law and an honest police force, or at least the perception thereof – those too could be readily achievable. If Najib were to recruit from Scotland Yard or the FBI for his next police chief and head of the anti corruption agency, the impact would be immediate and dramatic.

Similarly, in making the next senior judicial appointment, if he would canvass practicing lawyers, legal scholars, heads of leading NGOs, and then heed their recommendations, that too could have a significant impact.

I pose this back to you: Is Prime Minister Najib capable of making those bold moves? Your response is the answer to the question on whether we could achieve Vision 2020.

Q 3: We all had high hopes for change following the political tsunami of the March 2008 elections. With the ongoing mess in Perak, Penang, and Selangor however, we are disheartened. It seems that these politicians, regardless of party affiliations, are the same animal. What hope is there for the nation?

MBM: If by change you mean things that you could see, yes, I share your pessimism. It seems that the same cast of lousy actors is back on stage except that this time they are wearing different costumes. They are not even good actors because they still display their old characters.

Let me suggest that you view the situation differently. The Barisan coalition, specifically UMNO, lost four states. Those are no ordinary states. Selangor, Perak, and Penang are the most developed, their economies constitute (I guess) nearly half of the nation’s. If Federal Territory with the capital Putrajaya had its own Assembly, Barisan would be thrashed there too. That is significant, symbolically. Likewise Kedah; it is rural, conservative, and very Malay. For UMNO to lose that state means that the party could not automatically count on Malay support. This is a seismic shift.

To me the most significant but not readily apparent change is with the voters. For the first time they realized that they could actually change their government simply by putting a mark on the ballot paper. There is no need to risk your limb and life by partaking in armed insurrections or demonstrating on the streets. Once citizens get that sense of empowerment, you cannot take it back. That is why in subsequent by-elections even though they would not shift the political calculus, voter turnout had seen record highs.

Other changes follow from that. Now leaders too, recognize that they could be thrown out of office. That definitely has a salutary effect. In the election of 1999, Najib Razak was nearly kicked out in Pekan. As a result he became a better politician because of that near-death political experience.

Do not give up; the March 2008 election was a political tsunami. Unlike the Asian tsunami which radically changed the physical landscape, the political tsunami of 2008 radically changed the mindset of our people. Those who ignore that would definitely be made to relearn its painful lesson come the next election.

Next:Part Five of Six: Q&A (Cont’d)

Introduction and Overview

A Father’s Query

Growing up in colonial Malaya, my father insisted that his children attend English schools. This was surprising as my parents were Malay school teachers and the country was then in the grip of intense nationalistic fervor, anticipating independence. Malay teachers were at the vanguard of this movement, specifically in UMNO.

In his later years my father would confide to me his reasons. He wanted us, his children, to learn the ways and secrets of the English, and to discover what it was that made them so successful that they could control an empire. What was it about Britain, he wondered, an island half the size of Sumatra that it could produce a race that would control a vast portion of the globe? Why was it that the British who colonized Malaysia and not Malays over Britain?

My father was not the first to ponder such matters.

The American biologist Jared Diamond in his Pulitzer prize-winning book, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies, recounted his experience with a tribal chief in Papua New Guinea at the end of the Second World War. At that time the Allied Forces were regularly dropping supplies and other “goodies” to the troops and natives on the island. These cargo drops were much anticipated. To the Stone Age natives, these precious gifts were literally falling from heaven.

Their chief Yali, as befitted a true leader, went beyond simple wonderment. In a pensive moment he too wondered why it was that Diamond’s people (that is, White man) who were dropping the cargoes on the natives and not the other way around. The chief may had been in a Stone Age surrounding and culture, but his insight and curiosity were on par with past and modern thinkers and philosophers.

Yali’s question, as Diamond referred to, was also on my father’s mind during another major event in his life. During World War II the Japanese briefly colonized Malaya. He could not help but notice the vast difference between the behaviors of the Japanese masters as compared to the British. While the English were very successful in making Malays and others eager to learn and ape their ways, there was no love felt by Malaysians for the Japanese, despite their much-hyped profession of Asian solidarity. To be sure the Japanese were much respected, but that was out of fear and intimidation. Unlike the British, the Japanese were very much hated for their brutal and savage ways. There wasn’t a Malaysian tear shed when they surrendered.

My father wanted to know why these two races, the Japanese and British, would turn out to be very different as masters. Even more important, what was it that made them venture beyond their shores while Malays were content to stay at home. This last point has not always been the case. After all, his father had migrated across the Strait of Malacca from Sumatra. Many in fact ventured far beyond the archipelago, landing on such distant shores as Madagascar and South Africa. Malays back then were famed as seafaring people.

Historians, ancient and modern, have attempted to explain the rise and fall of great civilizations. Unfortunately I am no fan of that discipline, perhaps the result of botched teaching during my high school. History is unfairly stamped on my mind as only dates, persons, and events; a narration of who did what to whom and, of course, when. Rarely is the fundamental question of “Why?” asked. And when it is, the answer would depend very much on one’s (or the historian’s) perspective.

Events of World War II would undoubtedly be interpreted much differently from the current version had the Japanese and Germans won. To the victor goes the privilege of writing history, observed Churchill. This bears emphasis. Today Westerners, that is members of the developed societies, write much of the literature on development. Rightly so, for few would want to hear the views and theories of development propounded by socialists and communists. Theirs is a failed system. We must however, be careful to separate propaganda on the virtues of the West from empirically proven successful strategies. Another useful caution is that what works in the West may not be necessarily be so elsewhere. That however should not be the excuse for us not to study Western ways, for if they are not applicable to our society, then at least we should at least find out why.

A more problematic issue with the study of history is that human societies and conditions change. Thus factors and conditions considered favorable for development in the past may no longer be appropriate today; indeed they may well prove to be obstacles. This caution is necessary in view of fundamentalist Muslims’ obsession to enforce 8^th Century laws onto modern society.

A more fruitful pursuit in understanding the fate of societies lies in the sciences, both the social and natural sciences. Science after all attempts to explain phenomena with a view to predict and or alter subsequent events. That essentially is the focus of my enquiry.

Variations in the level of progress occur not only between but also within societies. Having lived in three different countries, I am very much aware of this. In Malaysia we have the Malay/non-Malay dynamics; in Canada, the Francophone and Anglophones; and in America, the Blacks and Hispanics versus Whites. When I hear discussions in America on the lack of Blacks and Hispanics in higher education, all I have to do is substitute Malays for Blacks or Hispanics, and the debates might as well have been in Malaysia.

When I was living in Montreal in the 1970s, the passionate arguments then were on the lack of French-Canadians at McGill University. Those heated discussions eerily echoed the equally impassioned rhetoric of an UMNO Youth gathering. Only the geography and participants were changed, but the dynamics remained remarkably similar.

Malaysia’s Problems In Perspective

During my childhood I was very much aware of the gross inequities between the races in Malaysia. I was also keenly conscious of the racial undertones whenever minor social and economic conflicts arose. Even seemingly innocuous neighborly disputes could quickly escalate into major racial confrontations.

I remember how an innocent and inconsequential labor dispute at Malayan Railway in the late 1950’s quickly degenerated into an ugly racial confrontation, simply because most of the workers were Indians and the managers, Malays. It took the swift action of an economics professor, Ungku Aziz, to prevent that conflict from degenerating. A decade later in May 1969, a boisterous electoral victory parade by a predominantly Chinese party precipitated the nation’s worse race riot.

The successive governments of Malaysia, from the colonial British to the present, have long grappled with the race problems with varying degrees of success. Out of that 1969 national tragedy emerged the New Economic Policy, with its objectives of eradicating poverty and the “identification of race with economic functions.” The dangerous gaps separating the various communities in Malaysia have now narrowed considerably; nonetheless inequities still exist and continue to be a major source of social instability. Malaysia’s problems however, are not unique.

A year after the Malaysian riot and in the opposite end of the globe, I would once again be caught in the maelstrom of another interracial conflict. It was in Montreal, this time between the French- and English-Canadians. Although the number of casualties was nowhere comparable to the Malaysian melee, nonetheless qualitatively, the dynamics were similar.

That Canadian rage erupted when members of the separatist Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) kidnapped a Francophone provincial cabinet minister and the British consul. The diplomat was later released unharmed, but the minister was savagely murdered. That crisis precipitated a civil unrest the likes of which Quebec and Canada had never seen. The old War Measures Act was resurrected and thrust onto Canadians; overnight they saw their cherished freedom taken away. That conflict also saw armed troops marching and heavy tanks rolling down the streets of Montreal. The scenes were reminiscent of a banana republic rather than a modern nation.

Canada, like Malaysia, has come a long way from those ugly days of a generation ago. In many parts of the globe today however, we still see ugly ethnic conflicts, and the participants in each of those disputes insist on the righteousness of their claim and on the uniqueness of their particular positions.

Malaysia has the added problem of its socioeconomic cleavages paralleling racial lines. Again this is not unique. With the massive migrations and arbitrary drawing of political boundaries in the last century, many countries have ethnically and culturally diverse populations, and the attendant inter-communal inequities. Much of the world today is still consumed with irrational ethnic and racial hatred, from Europe (Northern Ireland and the Balkans) to Africa (Nigeria and Rwanda), and Asia (Sri Lanka and Fiji). Thus Malaysia’s experience in dealing with her interracial problems has worldwide relevance.

Canada, like Malaysia, had its own sets of interracial problems. The socioeconomic differences between the French and English there were obvious, at least a generation ago. The province of Quebec may be overwhelmingly French, but signs in that language were practically non-existent in downtown Montreal. The executive suites there were more likely to be filled with a Baker, Smith, or Wilson, rather than a Beauchamp, Dumaine, or Poirier. At least that was the situation back in the 1960’s.

These differences extended beyond the social and economic arena. I remember being perplexed by a case of fever in a young French-Canadian girl. A senior English-Canadian doctor casually suggested that I look at the patient’s teeth and remarked rather crudely that French-Canadians had “rotten teeth.” Sure enough, she indeed had severe cavities and gum disease. Thus even oral pathology follows racial lines. To what extent such differences reflect differing socioeconomic status or merely the function of genetics, diet, or culture is not known.

A decade later in California, I was again struck by the glaring inequities between the different communities. The dynamics were more complex involving Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics. Every so often America’s race problems would explode, as in the Watts riot of 1960s and the Rodney King of 1992. That second eruption followed the acquittal of four white policemen who were caught on videotape senselessly beating up an unarmed black man, Rodney King.

Even when the citizenry of a nation is relatively homogenous, differences can occur, for example, between regions. Coastal regions of China are more developed and readily adopt free enterprise, while its central regions remain mired in totalitarianism. And conflicts between the two occur regularly.

Thus the study of how societies develop is relevant to understanding inequities not only within but also between nations.

Next: A Discussion on Causation

Towards A Developed Malaysia (Part 3 of 6)

M. Bakri Musa

[Presented at the Third Annual Alif Ba Ta Forum, “1Malaysia Towards Vision 2020,” Rochester Institute of Technology, NY, December 5, 2009, organized by Kelab UMNO NY-NJ. The presentation can be viewed at www.youtube.com (search under “Bakri Musa RIT”) or through this link: http://www.youtube.com/user/alchemistar ]

Encouraging Malays Entrepreneurs and Scientists

The Malaysia of today under the leadership of Tun Razak’s son is a very different country. With the overall elevation in the level of the education, the needs and aspirations of the citizens have also changed; the curve has shifted to the right. We have to respond to this new reality of higher needs and much greater aspirations.

Today our major dilemma is the lack of Malays in science and technology, as well as in business. Actually these are old dilemmas but because they have been incompetently handled, they are again resurfacing, over fifty years after independence.

I was young during Tun Razak’s time. Yes, the lack of Malays in science then was palpable, with fewer than a dozen Malay science graduates. The prevailing wisdom – and not just among non-Malays – was that we Malays did not have what it would take to handle science and mathematics.

Let me review how our leaders handled the issue then. In my Form Five science class in Kuala Pilah in 1960, there were 22 Malays out of 35, a good reflection of the community. However, because of the severe limited slots in Form Six, only four of us managed to get in, of whom two were Malays. All four went on to university.

Six of my Malay classmates who did not get into Sixth Form eventually also managed to get their degrees though various circuitous routes. On received a graduate degree from Cornell, another, an Australian PhD. Additionally, if I were to compare my other Malay classmates in Kuala Pilah to my fellow undergraduates in Canada, at least another half a dozen could have easily handled university work.

Thus had there been enough Sixth Form slots then, we could have increased the number of potential Malay science undergraduates from 2 to 14, a seven-fold increase. Transformational if not miraculous!

Instead, what happened was this. The government responded to the community’s anguish by establishing a royal commission headed by the then new Minister of Education. After months of hearings, the Rahman Talib Report blamed the poor performance of Malays in science to our culture, and our students being infested with worms!

At another level, the response was equally unenlightened. Feeling that the then University of Malaya was insensitive to the needs of Malays, we agitated for a new “national” university, one that would presumably appreciate our aspirations.

Thus the Universiti Kebangsaan was born, at a cost of hundreds of millions of ringgit, real money then. At its first graduation ceremony in 1973, there were only a few Malay science graduates.

A Sixth Form at Kuala Pilah a decade earlier would have cost a tiny fraction and would have produced more potential Malay science undergraduates. It would be 14 years after I left in 1960 before my old school had its Sixth Form. The building of a university catered to the top percentile, while having more Sixth Form slots would have met the needs of considerably more students (a shift towards the center of the curve).

Consider the other pressing issue: the lack of Malays in business. We have obviously not learned anything here too, for we still approach the problem in the same ineffective manner. We poured hundreds of billions into government-linked companies in an effort to jumpstart Malay participation in the private sector. The results only embarrass us; most GLCs are perennial money losers.

Meanwhile stroll down any street and you would be hard pressed to see signs like “Tahir Tailoring,” “Salmah Saloon,” or “Mahmud Mechanic.” If the pipes in your home were to burst or if you were in need of an electrician, chances are the repairman who showed up would be non-Malay. This is the sorry state today despite the government, controlled by Malays, pouring billions of ringgit to help Malays enter the private sector.

This dismal failure is predictable based on my fish story analogy. The government focused on the top percentile instead of the huge middle. Those huge sums of money were expended not on small and medium enterprises, or to equip Malays with skills needed in the marketplace, rather on creating mega billion-dollar corporations like Pernas, Petronas and other ‘Nases. Earlier you heard Ambassador Jarjis’s struggles to borrow RM50K to start his engineering consultancy business. This was at the time when the likes of Tajuddin Ramli and Halim Saad were given mega loans to acquire our GLCs without even having to sign any loan papers!

All we have to show for the billions spent on those GLCs are the many ersatz entrepreneurs and crony capitalists who survive only through repeated bailouts. We were and still are repeating Nehru’s mistakes. At least Nehru’s IIT’s graduates thrive elsewhere and the Indians get to share in the reflected glory of their achievements. Our crony capitalists sans bailout are back in the kampong with nothing to show for all the billions expended on them.

Yet those precious billions lost were not the most expensive part of the failure. There are other more damaging and long-lasting consequences. For one, it reinforces the negative stereotype that Malays cannot handle businesses more complicated than the roadside kedai kopi (coffee stall). Conveniently forgotten is that the failures of these GLCs do not reflect the failure of Malays rather of those who depend on their political connections for their success and not their entrepreneurial skills. Similar pseudo entrepreneurs, whether in China or India, suffer the same fate.

The most destructive damage they wreck upon our community can best be illustrated by my resorting to a kampong metaphor. The constant scourge facing kampong farmers is that their fields would be inundated by the tenacious weed lallang. They suck out the nutrients from the soil, leaving it barren for generations. Once a field is inundated with lallang, that land is gone; no other useful crop could be grown again.

Our strategy with these expensive money-loosing GLCs is akin to what my late father used to say, membajakan (fertilizing) lallang. These lallang would be destructive without our help; when we nurture them by adding fertilizer we would ironically be hastening the death of the land and its useful plants. The pernicious influence of the likes of the Tajuddin Ramlis and Halim Saads is analogous to membajakan lallang. It sets back the cause of genuine Malay entrepreneurs for generations.

There are many other ready examples of such flawed strategies. The government through Petronas pays extravagantly to attract foreign musicians for the KL Philharmonic Orchestra. Again, we are focusing on the top percentile. Had that money been spent on music education in our schools, it would not be long before we would have our own Itzhak Perlman or Sergio Ozawa. It may be slower but a more sure, genuine and enduring strategy.

A Strategy for Developing Malay Scientists and Entrepreneurs

If I were to allocate our scant resources towards developing Malay scientists and entrepreneurs, this is what I would do. I would allocate 10 percent towards the low end of the population, 20 percent to the top decile, with the bulk (the remaining 70 percent) spent on the large middle group.

Is this fair? Fairness, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. In per capita terms, the bottom decile gets the fairest deal; ten percent of the resources spent on about ten percent of the population. The middle would get less than its fair share (70 percent spent on 80 percent of the people), but then they get the biggest chunk.

The super achievers would get the most favorable treatment on a per capita basis, getting twice as much (20 percent of resources spent on 10 percent of the population), but not the bulk of the allocation. That is the way it should be. They are our best, our talent seeds; when they excel they bring glory to the group and inspire others. They will set the trend and establish the standards for our society.

Let me apply these considerations to our old twin dilemmas: the lack of Malay scientists and entrepreneurs.

To encourage Malays to pursue science, I would spend the bulk (70 percent) of the funds on science teachers and laboratories, especially in rural areas. I would even air-condition the labs so students would linger after class. I would have them perform their own experiments and not be satisfied with merely watching the demonstrations. Science is like sex, the fun part is in doing it yourself, not in having it demonstrated!

Today, many of the experiments that used to be done by the students during my days are now merely demonstrated because “we cannot afford those students breaking the test tubes!”

In the universities I would ensure that the science-related faculties would get the biggest allocations and their professors the best paid. Similarly, the students would get the most generous scholarships and other support.

I would support the top decile differently. Any Malay student (undergraduate or graduate) who gets admitted to any of the top-ranked universities would automatically get a scholarship. I would go further and grant them the freedom to pursue their own path. I would not demand of them to serve in any particular government entity or even to return home. If we provide them with fulfilling opportunities at home, they will return, with little need for onerous contractual obligations.

To reward those science professors and other scientists, I would appoint them to the boards of the GLCs. That would be the best way to supplement their income. The companies too would benefit from their technical knowledge and generally higher intelligence. A scientist would contribute more as a director for Petronas than a retired civil servant or worse, a discredited politician.

Imagine the impact! Every Malay student would work very hard to secure admission to top universities and a chance to go abroad without the fear of being indentured to the government. Malay scientists would now have a great incentive to remain productive so they could be appointed to the boards of our GLCs.

Likewise in developing Malay entrepreneurs; I would spend the bulk of the funds training Malays to be chefs, carpenters, electricians, and skilled tradesmen. When they have acquired those skills, I would grant them credit facilities to start their own businesses. Then I would make sure that school canteen contracts be awarded to these chefs, and Petronas grants its gas station franchises only to these certified mechanics and not to incompetent UMNO chiefs.

I would demand of our GLCs to groom their suppliers and subcontractors from among these Malays. These GLCs could emulate Fed Ex, for example, in having its drivers own the trucks and then contract to the company for delivery and transport. That made those drivers not employees but self-employed businessmen and women. Many of them would later venture out on their own, starting their own trucking companies. How many employees of our GLCs have ventured out on their own? Then just to remind these GLCs of their mission, they would be banned from competing against Malay entrepreneurs.

We have failed in developing Malay scientists and entrepreneurs because we subscribe to Nehru’s strategy instead of our own Tunku’s.

Next: Part Four of Six: A Bigger Fish Story

Suflan Shamsuddin qualified as a barrister at law from Middle Temple and has been called to the Malaysian Bar. He is currently working in a Fortune 500 company as a senior counsel and is based in London. He is also author of the book “RESET: Rethinking the Malaysian Political Paradigm”.

Time for a Malay Counter-Movement?
Suflan Shamsuddin

FEB 21 – With the ever-increasing profile of racially divisive rhetoric spun to purportedly protect the interest of Malays, shouldn’t the alternative point of view be made equally forcefully, by way of an effective and organised Malay counter-movement?

Although right-wing Malay NGOs would like you to believe that Malays are united behind the notion of Ketuanan Melayu, there are actually a very large number of us who view this ideology as being immoral and unIslamic, and therefore unacceptable.

We also believe that it actually serves to weaken our community because it prevents many from developing a sense of personal accountability, it impedes the development of the capacity for critical and informed analysis, and it promotes short cuts and patronage.

In addition, this approach discourages playing by the book, it prevents an understanding of the value of diversity and inclusiveness, and it creates an excuse to avoid becoming competitive and achievement orientated.

Today many Malays share a concern with other Malaysians that even though time-limited means tested affirmative action programmes have value, perpetual handouts and special privileges are like drugs.

This is because it creates an addiction to receiving from the “hand that feeds”, that which poisons them and affects the growth and well-being of the beneficiaries. With this comes elitism and cronyism, encouraged and supported by those who need, or offer, such protection and patronage.

With resources quickly drying up, there is a real fear of a rude and potentially violent awakening when this habit can no longer be maintained.

So, the idea for this Malay counter-movement has begun to germinate. If this movement were to materialise, it would look to advance a Malay culture and mindset, which rejects Ketuanan Melayu, and that is instead built on Islamic and universally held values, virtues and ideals, which include integrity, self-motivation, self-determination, a quest for knowledge, a desire for self-improvement, tolerance and respect.

It would operate on an independent and non-partisan basis so that it can stay true to a morally robust set of principles by which to pursue the cause of improving the welfare and condition of the Malays.

It would study and promote an understanding of the concerns that could impede the progress of the Malays. It would also seek to inform policy through consultation with all stakeholders such as the Government, political parties, and civil society.

It would look to help develop new ideas to address the concerns relating to why the Malays, in general, have not been as successful and self-actualised as they ought to have been, given the opportunities they have been afforded over the last fifty years.

Finally, it would look to make and market a convincing case to the Malays, as to what is it for them to gain, in life and in the hereafter, were they to lead their life by the values and principles espoused.

For this movement to be impactful, it must be structured as being wholly Malay, and its membership must be fairly representative of the community whether by reference to gender, age or background. This is because its ultimate aim is to win the hearts and minds of the Malays themselves.

This, of course, might hinder the participation of those who do not feel it right to associate themselves with a wholly Malay-only movement, although there will be some who will see its value in countering the rhetoric of the hardliners in right-wing Malay organisations.

Nevertheless, it might appeal to others who feel it crucial, and might want to help, to work together to promote meaningful change in their own community as an end in itself, and as a means to a better Malaysia.

Ideally, “towering” non-partisan Malays who are universally respected by all Malaysians should play an active role in the movement. These individuals would have achieved success in their own fields without the ill effects of Ketuanan Melayu, and should ensure that the movement has credibility, maintains its independence and moral compass, and remains unsoiled by the vested interests of any individual or political party.

Even though non-partisan, the movement should also attract members of all Malay-centric political parties who share the same ideals for their community. They might wish to support this movement because they all share a desire to get rid of an antiquated and bankrupt Malay political paradigm built on religious and racial intolerance, patronage and insecurity.

They would be united in wanting to replace it with one that builds the confidence and capacity of the Malays to compete and contribute fairly and successfully.

However, in order to maintain the credibility and independence of the movement, leaders and active members of such political parties should accept the need to confine their participation to a supporting role, and not expect to lead or influence its decision-making.

It should follow that Malay leaders of all parties who desire a united and workable Malaysia ought to fully support the creation of this movement, since the greater is the movement’s support from the Malay community, the less will they need to pander to the sentiments of extremists and racists inside and outside of their party.

Finally, such a movement should not be seen as serving to perpetuate an “us versus them” mentality, separating Malays from non-Malays. It must not become in anyway a threat to an inclusive Malaysia.

Instead it should be seen as doing the exact converse, i.e. helping to prepare the Malays to take the first and important steps to embrace the creation of the illusive Bangsa Malaysia, over the longer term.

Today, this movement is nothing but an idea. If you are interested in its development, please sign up as a member of the Facebook group Tabung Idea Mengukuhkan Martabat Melayu, which I have only just set up, to log ideas and comments about this proposal.

Tiba Masanya Untuk Pergerakan Melayu Alternatif?

Dengan keberleluasaannya retorik perkauman yang kononnya diajukan kononnya demi kepentingan orang Melayu, bukankah elok jika suara yang memberi pandangan alternatif, melalui satu pergerakan yang berkesan, diberikan dengan kelantangan yang setanding?

Walaupun badan-badan NGO Melayu yang berhaluan kanan inginkan supaya orang ramai percaya bahawa orang Melayu semuanya bersatu menyokong konsep Ketuanan Melayu, tetapi sebenarnya ramai daripada orang kita yang memandang ideologi itu sebagai sesuatu yang tidak berwibawa dan tidak berlandaskan ajaran Islam, dan oleh itu tidak boleh diterima pakai. Ramai dari kita juga perpandangan berpandangan bahawa falsafah ini cuma akan melemahkan masyarakat Melayu itu sendiri, kerana ia menghindar penerapan nilai keteguhan dan akauntabiliti diri, ia menyekat pembangunan pemikiran kritikal yang berasaskan maklumat, dan ia mendorong pendekatan mengambil jalan yang senang dan bergantung kepada system naungan. Selain dari itu, pendekatan sedemikian tidak memberi dorongan positif supaya bermain bersifat adil, ia menyekat pemahapan pemahaman betapa mustahaknya perbezaan pemikiran dan bertindak secara inklusif, dan ia mewujudkan sebab kenapa tidak perlu menjadi kompetitif dan berkerja keras.

Hari ini, ramai orang Melayu berkongsi pandangan dengan orang Malaysia yang lain, bahawa walaupun program kerajaan memperimbangkan ekonomi berasaskan keperluan yang dihadkan dari segi masa mempunyai nilai, pemberian yang tidak ada hujung pangkal berasaskan hak-hak istimewa adalah seperti dadah. Ini adalah kerana ianya menimbulkan satu ketagihan dengan pemberian berasaskan naungan dari ‘mereka yang berkuasa’, yang akan membantutkan dan meracuni hidup mereka yang menerima. Dengan itu, maka wujudlah sistem elitisma dan kronisma, didorong dan disokong oleh mereka yang memerlui, dan yang memberi, perlindungan dan naungan tersebut. Dengan sumber-sumber mulai ketandusan, terdapat satu perasaan takut bahawa akan adanya satu detik waktu tegang, mengancam dan berkemunkinan ganas di mana kebiasaan kemewahan ini tidak dapat dikecapi lagi.

Maka timbullah satu idea untuk menubuhkan satu pergerakan Melayu alternatif untuk menyuarakan pandangan tersebut. Jika pergerakan ini dapat dijadikan kenyataan, ianya akan cuba memajukan budaya dan pemikiran Melayu, yang menolak Ketuanan Melayu, dan yang dibentuk berlandaskan nilai-nilai murni dan mulia Islam dan universal, seperti kewibawaan, keteguhan diri, keberdikariankemampuan berdikari, keinginan memperbaikki keadaan diri, toleransi, dan perasaan saling hormat menghormati. Pergerakan ini akan beroperasi sebagai satu pertubuhan yang independen dan tidak menyokong mana-mana parti politik, supaya ianya pergerakan ini dapat bertindak berasaskan prinsip moral yang lengkap dan teguh untuk membela nasib masyarakat Melayu.

Ianya akan mengkaji dan mempromosi kefahaman mengenai masalah yang menghindari kejayaan orang–orang Melayu. Ianya akan cuba mempengaruhi pembentukan polisi-polisidasar-dasar dan akan bertukar-tukar fikiran dengan badan-badan kerajaan, parti-parti politik, dan masyarakat sivil dan seterusnya. Ianya akan cuba melahirkan idea-idea baru untuk menangani masalah kenapa orang Melayu tidak seberjaya dan sematang sebagaimana sepatutnya, memandangkan banyaknya peluang-peluang yang diberi sejak lima puloh tahun yang lepas. Akhirnya, ia akan membina dan menampilkan satu kefahaman baru kepada masyarakat Melayu mengapa tatacara hidup sebegini akan membawa kejayaan dan kebahagian, baik di dunia mahupun di akhirat.

Untuk Pergerakan ini betul-betul berkesan, ianya perlu dibentuk sebagai satu Pergerakan untuk orang Melayu sahaja, dan ahli-ahlinya mestilah terdiri dari segenapan lapisan masyarakat Melayu, baik dari segi jantina, umur, atau latarbelakang. Ini adalah kerana perjuangannya adalah untuk memenangi pemikiran dan perasaan masyarakat Melayu itu sendiri. Ini, sudah tentu, akan menghindari penglibatan mereka yang tidak berasa senang untuk menyokong satu Pergerakan yang hanya dikhaskan untuk orang Melayu sahaja, walaupun mungkin ada di antara mereka yang akan melihat nilainya dalam memberi tentangan kepada suara-suara ekstrim yang datang dari pertubuhan Melayu haluan kanan. Walaubagaimanapun, ianya pergerakan yang dicadangkan itu mungkin dapat menarik minat dari mereka yang merasakan perlu, dan ingin tolongmembantu, berganding bahu untuk mencapai pertukaran perubahan pemikiran mind-set yang bererti di dalam masyarakat mereka, sebagai satu matlamat tersendiri, dan juga sebagai satu jalan untuk mencapai satu negara Malaysia yang lebih baik mantap dan murni.

Sepatutnya, individu-individu Melayu yang ulung, terbilang dan tidak berpolitik, dan yang dihormati oleh seluruh lapisan masyarakat di Malaysia, memainkan peranan dalam Pergerakan ini. Individu-individu ini, yang telah mencapai kejayaan dalam bidang masing-masing tanpa kesan buruk dari polisi-polisi berlandaskan Ketuanan Melayu, dapat menentukan supaya Pergerakan ini mempunyai kredibiliti, bertindak secara independen dan berhalukan berhaluan pegangan bermoral, dan tidak dicemari oleh muslihat mana-mana individu atau parti politik.

Walaupun Pergerakan ini tidak menyokong mana-mana partibergerak secara parti-parti politik, ianya patut menarik minat ahli-ahli parti-parti politik Melayu, yang inginkan perkara yang sama untuk masyarakat mereka. Mereka ini mungkin menyokong Pergerakan pergerakan ini kerana sama-sama berkongsi keinginan untuk menyingkir paradigma yang lama dan bankrap yang berasaskan sistem naungan dan perasaan tidak senang dengan kebolehan diri, dan yang ketandusan toleransi ugama dan perkauman. Mereka mungkin bersepadu ingin menggantikannya dengan sesuatu yang membina keyakinan diri dan kebolehan orang Melayu untuk berdayasaing dan memberi sumbangan, secara jujur dan adil, dan berjaya. Walaupun demikian, supaya kredibiliti dan status independen tidak tercabar, pemimpin-pemimpin politik dan ahli parti yang aktif mesti menerima hakikat bahawa penglibatan mereka dihadkan kepada peranan menyokong Pergerakan sahaja, dan bukan untuk memimpin Pergerakan ini ataupun cuba mempengaruhi tindak-tanduknya.

Sepatutnya, pemimpin-pemimpin politik Melayu yang inginkan satu negara Malaysia yang bersatu dan yang berkesan, akan menyokong penubuhan Pergerakan ini, kerana semakin besar sokongan yang diberi kepada Pergerakan tersebut oleh masyarakat Melayu, maka makin kuranglah perlunya keprihatinan terhadap sentimen-sentimen mereka-mereka yang ekstremis dan rasis, di luar dan di dalam parti.

Akhirkata, Pergerakan ini tidak patut dilihat sebagai sesuatu percubaan untuk terus mengasingkan orang Melayu dari orang bukan Melayu. Ia tidak boleh dilihat sebagai mencabari kewujudan satu Malaysia yang inklusif. Sebaliknya ia patut dilihat sebagai landasan untuk menolong orang Melayu supaya mengambil langkah awal dan mustahak untuk kecapi mengecapi pembentukan Bangsa Malaysia yang masih menjadi hanya bayangan, dalam jangkamasa panjang.

Hari in, Pergerakan ini hanya satu idea. Sekiranya anda berminat untuk menyokong dan menyumbang kepada idea ini, sila jadi ahli Facebook group Tabung Idea Mengukuhkan Martabat Melayu (TIM3) yang baru saja saya sediakan untuk mengumpul idea-idea dan komen-komen mengenai cadangan ini.

Introduction and Overview

I write because I have something to say, one person speaking to many.
—Pramoedya Ananta Toer, Celebrated Indonesian writer banished by Suharto.

In writing, I am mindful of the lesson imprinted on me during my freshman English class. That is, what is the author trying to say, and has he or she said it well. It is for readers to answer the second part of the question, but as to the first, my brief response is as follows.

Throughout the world and at all times there have been differences in the social and cultural development of societies. Today while citizens in the West are enjoying unprecedented wealth and material comfort, many in the Third World are struggling with subsistence living. This book explores why such differences exist, and more importantly, what lessons Malaysians can learn so that our society too can be counted in the future to be among the developed.

My first thesis is that there is much that the West (America specifically) is doing right that is worthy of our emulation. My second is that Malaysians should look upon each other as potential clients, customers, and partners, and not in terms or “us” versus “them,” specifically, Malays versus non-Malays. Thus what is good for one should be good for all. The converse, what is bad for one will inevitably adversely impact the others.

Likewise, we should look upon the rest of the world in a similar fashion and not in adversarial terms. One sure way to make the outside world our enemy is to treat it as a potential one. Colonialism is now long gone; there is no need to resurrect it. No benefit would accrue in making it into our new or phantom enemy. Malaysians are more likely to progress if we are in partnership with the rest of the world, including those who were once our colonizers.

Today globalization shapes the world. Malaysians must actively participate in this new arena if we want to be on the next trajectory of development. The September 11, 2001 terrorists’ attacks on America and the 2007 global financial crisis may have dampened the enthusiasm for globalization, but rest assured that the setback is only temporary. Globalization is still very much a dominant force, and will remain so. We ignore this at our own peril.

My third point is that current preoccupation with special privileges or Ketuanan Melayu (Malay hegemony) is precisely the wrong approach especially in this era of globalization. The more pertinent issue is how to make all Malaysians, Malays in particular, competitive. If we are competitive and productive, we will be able to contribute to our well being as well as that of the nation. Special privileges and other preferential policies serve merely to redistribute, not create, wealth. We should be encouraging our citizens to be makers, not takers in the economy. We have to first create the wealth before we can distribute it. Besides, excellence has never emerged from behind protective barriers.

Societies do not develop in a linear or predictable pattern, rather in starts and spurts, with many ups and downs as well as changes in direction. Often changes are forced upon them by specific stresses and events, from within as well as without.

The arrival of Islam emancipated the ancient Arabs out of their Age of Jahiliyah (Ignorance). In contrast, the arrival of Christian Spaniards to the New World devastated the ancient and highly-developed Aztec civilization. In the first instance the change was from within and the development positive; with the second, it was external, and the consequences, destructive.

Malaysia’s own recent history is instructive. Unlike many Third World countries that had to fight for their independence, Malaysia chose the more civilized route of negotiations rather than resorting to glorified wars of independence. (Honoring those killed in such struggles as “freedom fighters” or “national heroes” would not in any way lessen the loss felt by their loved ones.) Malaysia then went on, with some hiccups along the way, to be a successful modern state. Why was Malaysia’s experience with colonialism and its consequences so unlike that of Algeria or Indonesia? Where did Malaysia go right and the others wrong?

Returning to my first thesis, the enduring qualities of the West that are worthy of emulation are its commitment to personal liberty, civil and open society, representative government, and free enterprise. We must learn from the West to respect the dignity of the individual, and be tolerant of and receptive to new and differing ideas. We should be like Muslims during the Golden Age of Islam when they eagerly learned from the Greeks and Romans. Those early Muslims did not consider learning from the infidels sinful or wrong. They learned from the Romans and Greeks because they were the most advanced societies at the time. Far from being insular, those early Muslims strived hard to master the existing state of knowledge. That required of them to venture beyond their own language and to master Greek and Latin. Only after that could the Arabs then go on to make their own seminal contributions.

Consider the Arabic numerals. The early Muslims learned mathematics from the Hindus, Greeks, and Romans. The prevailing numbering system then was the Roman numerals, with their cumbersome letters – IX for 9, X for 10, and XI for 11. While that is easy enough for low figures, the system becomes extremely cumbersome once we get to larger numbers. Try putting into Roman numerals the year 1828! (It is MDCCCXXVIII.)

The Arabs came up with the decimal system that was so much more convenient and easy, and now universally adopted. Today Roman numerals are seen only on the parchment papers of provincial universities with classical pretensions, and to denote Super Bowl Championships. Equally worthy of note is that those ancient Greeks and Romans readily accepted the new Arabic numbering system because it was so much simpler. Try subtracting MCMVIIIII (1973) from MCMXCIX (1999)! The Romans and Greeks did not insist that their existing system was the best and that they had nothing to learn from the upstart nomadic Bedouins.

Similarly today, Malaysians must learn from the West simply because it is the most advanced and successful society. The fact that it is a predominantly White society of infidels is irrelevant and should not deter us. Our only concern should be what aspects of the West are worthy of our emulation.

I am reminded of the commercials of many “get-rich-quick” schemes where the promoters would earnestly (and with feigned hushed tone) expound on their secrets to success. The way to be rich, they would intone with such gravitas, is to study the rich and follow their ways! A revelation that at first blush seems both blarney and profound. To be successful, emulate those who are! I venture this is sound advice for individuals as well as nations.

The crucial question is this: What aspects of the rich and successful must we emulate? For if we begin by imitating their expensive lifestyles – exotic vacations, splashy cars, and fancy dinners – that would surely be the fastest way to the poor house, even if one’s brother were the Sultan of Brunei. Those are the superficial manifestations of success, and not the cause. They are merely the epiphenomena.

Consider Bill Gates, the American billionaire software genius. If all one sees is his massive lakeside mansion in Seattle or his hopping around in his private jet, then one is missing the crucial point. However, if were to read accounts of his being a studious student and smart enough to be accepted to Harvard, then may be we would be on to something useful. Granted, he dropped out of college but I would not recommend that course of action to anyone. Instead read about how hard Gates worked to market his first software, the disc operating system. (Remember old DOS?) Consider how committed he was to that project to the extent that he was willing to give up Harvard, and how he struggled to have IBM, then the sole industry giant, accept his software.

Fortunately for Gates, IBM did not buy but merely licensed DOS. What a bonanza that later proved to be for him. Had he successfully persuaded IBM to buy his operating software, he would now be just another brilliant tinkerer in that vast corporation.

So in advising Gates wannabes, I certainly would not recommend that they drop out of college. Instead I would exhort them to study hard at school so they would be accepted to a top college, and then strive diligently at their chosen career.

Similarly with nations; there is much that Malaysia can learn from successful societies of today and great civilizations of the past. In our study however, we must be careful to differentiate between useful causative factors and mere epiphenomena.

Lest we think that the current state of affairs (with the West reigning supreme) is the natural order, it is good to be reminded that centuries before Shakespeare was penning his sonnets, the Iranian mystic poet Jalal al-Din Rumi was already producing volumes of his spiritual couplets, the Masnavi. While England was mired in the Dark Ages, the ancient civilizations of the Middle East were already flourishing. Muslim scholars then were contemplating the universe beyond and experimenting with novel medical therapies while Europe was still convinced of the flatness of the earth and treating patients with leeches.

Today of course the Iranians and Brits might as well be living on different planets, so wide is the gulf separating their living conditions. In the past such disparities were hidden. Today with modern communications, the world is fast becoming a global village, and an increasingly smaller one at that. What occurs in Afghanistan is immediately beamed into the living rooms of America and elsewhere. In the past such capabilities were the exclusive domain of journalists with expensive television cameras and satellite hook ups; today anyone with a cell phone and access to the Internet could achieve the same at a fraction of the cost.

While the pros may disparage the contributions of the minions of these amateur journalists, the impact and consequences of their work cannot be dismissed or underestimated. It can be dramatic. In Malaysia (and elsewhere) we have seen egregious police abuses exposed in such a fashion. Also in Malaysia, we have seen blatant attempts at fixing the highest personnel of the judiciary, as we saw in the infamous Lingam Tape. All it took was someone with a cell phone and being alert.

Today, traveling to exotic destinations presents very little challenge. Unlike the ancient Arabic explorer Ibn Battuta who took nearly a lifetime to travel the landmass abutting the Mediterranean, today a local travel agent could arrange such a trip within minutes (or you could do it yourself on the Web). You could also complete a similar itinerary in a time frame of your choice.

In your travels instead of finding complete strangers and being unable to converse with them, you would more likely encounter natives who could speak English and been educated in the West. Along the way you might stay at familiar lodgings like Hilton, and eat in recognizable restaurants like McDonald’s. You might also encounter Malaysian businessmen peddling their wares and oilmen from Petronas exploring for oil and gas. The local colleges and madrasahs (religious schools) might even have a few Malaysians. When strolling in the bazaars and markets you would likely meet youths sporting T-shirts emblazoned with portraits of their favorite Western pop idols or athletes.

In the time that it took me to travel to the next village as a youngster would today land me in the opposite corner of the globe. With modern means of communications, glaring inequalities between nations and societies become just that – glaring, for all to see. The luxurious lifestyle of an American football star is flaunted not only to fellow Americans but also to children in the slums of Soweto and the back alleys of Bombay.

Similarly when citizens of oppressed societies see the freedom enjoyed in the West, they wonder why draconian laws and restrictions are shackling them back home. Previously the expression was, once they have seen Paris, you can’t keep ’em down on the farm anymore. Today with globalization, Paris comes to them, via television and the Internet.

Next: A Father’s Query