Chapter 3:  Diamond of Development  (Cont’d)

Primacy of Individuals

Goh Keng Swee, Singapore’s longtime Economics Minister and the man credited for the remarkable transformation of that republic, attributed the success less to the sound policies and strategies planned by him and his fellow leaders, rather to the collective decisions of the average Singaporeans.(12)  As parents they encouraged their children to study English and pursue the sciences instead of shunning those tough subjects. It was individual citizens who decided to tame their nationalistic zeal and encouraged their children to take up English. It was their individual decisions to forego current consumption in favor of savings, thus enabling the nation to have its stupendously high saving rates to fund its ambitious development projects.

Yes, the government (leaders) provided the broad policies and executed them well. It built schools with well-equipped laboratories and well-trained teachers, and mandated pensions so workers could save some of their earnings. It ensured that the funds were prudently managed to benefit the workers as investors as well as from the jobs and services provided by those wise investments. Those workers saw and experienced the tangible benefits resulting from their savings, which encouraged them to save even more.

Just as individuals and their enterprises produce the goods and services, likewise it is their actions and initiatives that push society forward. When the first hunter-gatherer settled down, it was the decision of individuals. He may have been a rebellious member not sufficiently deferential to tradition and was left out by the wandering tribe. Or an inquisitive hunter who discovered that the seeds he threw out the season before were now sprouting and bearing fruits. So he tried a primordial experiment of intentionally planting them and staying put to see the results. He succeeded, and the rest of his tribe followed his example. The tribe certainly did not have a meeting and decided that they had enough of the wandering life and wanted to try something new like staying put.

They were successful; others seeing how well fed they were picked up on the idea. They too began settling down and cultivating the land. They amplified on the original idea; instead of eating all their harvest they stored the juiciest, biggest and sweetest seeds for planting in the next season. Before long the whole valley followed suit, spelling an end of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and with that, a quantum leap in the progress of mankind.

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–>

The first domesticated animals probably came along the same way. Again the tribe did not suddenly decide to capture some wild animals to domesticate them. More than likely, a doting father gave his son a pair of baby wild sheep that were orphaned after their mother was killed. The little boy became attached to the pair and would not let their father slaughter them. The pair bred, and suddenly the tribe had another sheep without having to hunt. The enterprising young boy also discovered that the milk the lamb suckled tasted good, and a primitive dairy industry was begun. A few animals later, the tribe discovered that the hides could be used for clothing, footwear, and bedding. A millennium later and with a few enhancements along the way, we have fancy Armani shoes and handbags.

The tale may not have gone as described. The first fellow who stayed behind and not followed his fellow hunter-gatherer tribesmen may not have been successful planting his seeds, and did not survive to tell his story. Similarly, the first man who tried to domesticate an animal may have chosen the wrong specie like a prehistoric rattlesnake, thinking that it could solve the rat problem of his cave simultaneously. He too did not live to tell his tale.

Nonetheless there were enough inquisitive and enterprising individuals who were not satisfied with the status quo and decided to try something new. One or two succeeded, and their ideas were copied, amplified, and improved.

           Throughout history, human progress has been the cumulative result of such individual efforts. The emancipation of the Arabs and the beginning of a great faith began with one man. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not form a committee to explore the possibility of a new faith.

The discovery of the New World and inventions like the steam engine were all the result of the ideas of individuals, likewise with the great ideas of today. If a society aspires to progress, it must respect its most important asset, its members. Individuals drive progress. Society must respect the primacy of individuals, and provide every opportunity for them to develop fully their God-given talent.

Government does not create wealth; individuals, companies, and industries do. Economic growth occurs when people take resources (physical, human and others), rearrange them, and then make them more valuable or desirable to users (consumers). The same ingredients in the hands of the resourceful would result in the creation of untold wealth. Put the same resource in the hands of the untrained and unprepared, and it would be squandered.

A kitchen metaphor will illuminate this point. With the same set of ingredients, a skillful chef would whip up a gourmet omelet; a klutz, an overcooked tasteless egg. That same tasty omelet served on fine china in a fancy restaurant by an attentive waiter would cost RM10; served on a banana leaf by a sweaty server in tattered T-shirt at a roadside stall across an open drain and it would fetch 50 cents, at best. The same ingredients and almost the same product, but all the other seemingly unrelated factors cumulatively accounted for the twenty-fold difference in value.

The key to Malaysia’s competitiveness is to ensure that its citizens are equipped with the necessary knowledge so they can effectively leverage the wonderful assets of the country. In Part Two, I will delve into greater details on each of the four cardinal elements of my Diamond of Development, relating them specifically to Malaysia. Before doing that, I will first explore what it means to be competitive, and examine the consequences of progress.

Next:  Chapter 4:  On Being Competitive

SEEING IT MY WAY

Malaysiakini.com  June 28, 2007

Two school events, both widely reported, took place last week.  One was the Speech Day at Malay College Kuala Kangsar, and the other, the graduation exercise at Kolej Yayasan UEM.  The difference in the two events serves as a good metaphor distinguishing the old Malaysia from what I hope is the promise of a new one.

            The ceremony at Kuala Kangsar was graced by no less than the King, the Raja Muda of Perak (the school’s Governing Board Chair), and the Minister of Education.  You could not get a more distinguished company of visitors than that.  Meanwhile KYUEM had such nondescript corporate figures as UEM Chairman Ahmad Tajuddin Ali and its Foundation Trustee, Sheriff Kassim, in attendance.

            At Malay College’s Speech Day, there was no mention of the achievements of the graduating students, specifically which great universities they would be attending.  There was a reason for this noticeable absence.  None of the students qualified for university admission directly.  They would first have to go to a “finishing school” elsewhere.

The headmaster at KYUEM proudly announced that 11 of his 183 graduates would be heading for either Oxford or Cambridge.  In the preceding year, a fourth of his students secured admissions to Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College, and London School of Economics, an achievement any British grammar school would be very proud of.  In the area where it counts, in fact the only valid currency for a school – the quality of its graduates – KYUEM easily trumps the venerable MCKK.

It is revealing that the item that received the biggest applause (according to a news report) was the King’s announcement that the minister had approved a new hall for MCKK!  In his speech, the King suggested that other schools emulate MCKK.  I respectfully suggest to His Majesty that Malay College should instead emulate KYUEM.

The Old Malay of MCKK

MCKK, established over 100 years ago, had pretensions of being the “Eton of the East.”  It is formal, resistant to change, and slavishly hanging on to “traditions.”  Even the school motto is in affected Latin, Fiat Sapienta Virtus.  Query the school’s alumni, students and teachers; few would know what it means.  In short, Malay College epitomizes the old Malay ethos, obsessed with symbols and pretensions but devoid of substance.

KYUEM on the other hand is less than a decade old.  Its mission statement, or motto if you will, is elegant in its simplicity and clarity, “To Educate, Not Simply Teach.”  No pompous Latin phrases.  And they – trustees, teachers, and students – have done an excellent job at it.  They embody the good and the promise of a new Malaysia.  Specifically, those Malays at KYUEM are my model of Melayu Baru (New Malay).

Before elucidating further the differences between MCKK and KYUEM, it is important to note that despite their “college” labels, both institutions are basically residential secondary schools.  In case of Malay College, it is not even that.  Since its graduates cannot enter university directly, MCKK is essentially a glorified middle school.

The foremost difference is that MCKK is a public institution, totally dependent on the allocations from the ministry.  Despite its roster of luminaries as “old boys,” their contributions to the school are miniscule to nonexistent.  The only time they visit their alma mater is to harass the headmaster for decisions they do not like.

KYUEM is a private institution, dependent on tuition and donations for its survival.  As such, it has to produce to satisfy its customers – students and their parents.  The school is not interested how many sultans, ministers and other luminaries it counts among its alumni rather which universities will accept its students next year.  Malay College is fixated with its past, Kolej UEM is confidently poised for the future.

Malay College is an all-Malay institution; KYUEM’s student body reflects the rich diversity of Malaysian society.  Malay College students would carry their cultural insularity into their adult life.  KYUEM’s students on the other hand have a much richer and more meaningful learning and living environment because of the diversified enrollment.  They would definitely be better prepared for this globalized world.

Examine the Leadership

While everyone in an organization contributes to its success, the crucial differentiating point is leadership.  KYUEM trustees are from the business world, individuals attuned to recognizing a need in society and then fulfilling it.  In contrast, the Minister of Education appoints MCKK’s governing board.  They are thus men with the mindset that there is no problem that a government cannot solve.  The sinister corollary to this is that the government must control everything; it knows what is best for you and me, and our children.

Consequently, MCKK’s curriculum follows that the ministry’s rigid prescription, right down to the textbooks.  KYUEM opted for global standards and chose the best traditions of British grammar schools.  When there are no locals with sufficient experience with such a system, the trustees do not hesitate in hiring an expatriate.  They do not have any negative lingering anti-colonial hang ups, or fear that the hiring of a foreigner would be viewed as a slight on the abilities of the natives.  Those trustees are interested only in what is best for their students.

KYUEM’s outgoing headmaster, Richard Small, is an Oxford graduate; his successor, John Horsfall, is a product of Cambridge and a PhD-holder to boot.  I gleaned these facts from the news reports of the graduation exercise.  In contrast, at Malay College’s Speech Day there was no mention of who was the headmaster.  That was the degree of respect the headmaster commanded, or was accorded.  The King and the other distinguished visitors hogged the limelight.  They were obviously more important than the headmaster, teachers, or students.

I am certain that the MCKK’s headmaster must glow in having the King, Raja Muda and the Minister grace his school’s function.  Richard Small on the hand could hardly contain his pride in his students’ achievements.  How revealing of the different priorities at the two institutions!

Leadership alone is not enough.  The students do not see the trustees and headmaster every day in the classrooms.  It is the teachers who are there for the students.  “The most important learner in the classroom,” noted Headmaster Small, “is the teacher, because if the teacher is not constantly learning and changing, how can he be a competent role model for student learners.”

The caliber of the faculty at KYUEM is impressive, many with graduate degrees including PhDs.  Its biology teacher, Norhayati Zainudin, is a graduate in Veterinary Medicine from a local university.

Impressive degrees mean nothing if the teacher cannot teach.  My biology teacher at Malay College had a PhD from a Punjabi university.  He was next to useless.  Fortunately, my physics and chemistry teachers in the persons of Mr. Malhotra and Mr. Norton more than took up the slack in teaching and guiding us.

Readers might be puzzled to know where I garner these facts about KYUEM.  Easy, from its website (www.kyuem.edu.my).  It has a wealth of information useful not only for potential students but also for web visitors like me.

I tried to surf Malay College’s website.  The operative word there is “tried.”  There are many such sites claiming to be the “official” website, many hosted by “freebie” servers and consequently cluttered with advertising banners.  On one site, its “Students Achievements” page was last updated in 1999!

Malay College is embarking on its “Sayong Project,” billed to take it into the new century.  MCKK is also eagerly seeking ties with residential schools in other countries.  I humbly suggest that MCKK looked closer to home, just a few miles south at Lembah Beringin.

Malay College epitomizes the feudal Malay system still very much alive under the veneer of modernity.  Meanwhile those folks at Lembah Beringin represent the new Malaysia, confident of their heritage and at ease with the modern world.

Chapter 3: The Diamond of Development (Cont’d)

Diamond of Development (1)

Modeling after Porter’s diamond of competitive advantage, I have formulated my own conceptual framework of a “Diamond of Development” for a competitive Malaysia. Malaysia with its plural society is a microcosm of the world in this era of globalization. If Malaysia were to be successful, it would offer important lessons for the world.

Like Porter’s, each of the four elements of my diamond of development influences and is in turn being influenced by each of the other three, as captured in the diagram of the cover design. The four are:

• Leadership

• People

• Culture (including institutions)

• Geography.

For a society to blossom, all four elements should ideally be favorable. Of significance is that only one of the four—geography—is the gift of nature, and thus essentially unalterable. A nation is either lucky to have favorable geographic attributes, or it does not. There is not much that can be done to alter that. Singapore is blessed with a deep, protected, natural harbor and located on an important trade route, while Brunei has abundant oil and gas. Those are the realities of geography. The other three—culture, leadership, and people—are not endowed features, and thus could be changed. In the language of biology, geography is an “inherited” attribute; the other three, acquired.

There are six possible paired dynamics. The three important ones are: leaders and people (followers); leaders and culture; and people and culture. The remaining three—leader-geography; people-geography; and culture-geography—play lesser roles. Whether we elect competent or corrupt leaders is our choice, not ordained by God. Likewise, leaders decide whether the citizens should be educated or kept in ignorance. Leaders and people would together determine (through their acceptance and tolerance) whether their institutions (a component of culture) remain strong and honest or weak and corrupt.

One would think that the fourth element—geography—as something solid and neutral, and thus cannot influence or be influenced by the other three factors. Consider this. A river delta can be the source of pestilence, as the Sacramento River delta was in the early part of the last century, plagued with malaria. If that was not enough, there were the frequent floods. With proper leadership and right institutions, in this case the Army Corp of Engineers, levees were built. Today the delta is a rich agricultural area, and home to many marinas and waterfront mansions. The Corp itself was a creation of an enlightened leader (Franklin D. Roosevelt) and his New Deal initiative responding to the massive unemployment of the Great Depression.

Another example would be Cancun, Mexico. Up until the 1970s it was an impoverished fishing village, like similar villages along east coast Malaysia. By employing the skills and knowledge of its planners, the Mexican government successfully transformed Cancun into a Caribbean Riviera. Its previously impoverished fishermen now work in hotels and resorts. For those who still have salt in their veins, they now have a more rewarding career taking wealthy sports fishermen out to sea. These guides earn considerably more than when they were fishing commercially. They are also not depleting their fishery resources as rapidly as before. Instead of breaking their backs hauling their catch, they now have the tourists doing that, and enjoying and paying to do that. A dramatic demonstration of the power of knowledge, effective institutions, and capable leadership to leverage the assets of a country!

I never underestimate the power of corrupt and ineffectual leaders to squander a nation’s wealth, the “curse of bounty.” Vast tracts of Malaysia’s virgin jungle have been denuded with little benefit to the citizens. On the contrary, they are now burdened with soil erosion, landslides, polluted rivers, and flooded homes. With inept leadership and corrupt institutions, even sand could be made scarce in Saudi Arabia. With enlightened leadership and effective institutions, the desert could be made to bloom (California’s Central Valley), turned into a flight testing area (Edwards Air Force Base), or be an arena for testing vehicle land speed (Oregon’s Alvord Desert).

The four elements of my Diamond of Development provide the macro environment that would determine the potential trajectory of development. It is not necessary for all four factors to be favorable. If one is unusually strong, it could initiate the process and stimulate the other three with it. Singapore had an unusually strong and effective leader in Lee Kuan Yew. He was able to pull along the citizens, even changing their traditional habits and culture. If anyone belittles his success in making the Chinese give up spitting in public or hanging their laundry out of their windows, just visit Beijing and Hong Kong. Lee made even the most chauvinistic Chinese learn English; he converted Nanyang University, their pride and joy, into an English-language institution. He was also greatly helped by the British bequeathing many effective institutions.

It is more effective to have all four be favorable, if only slightly, than having only one element be unusually strong. Together and acting synergistically, they would exert a far greater effect.

A lesson from medical therapeutics would help clarify my point. For a long time physicians believed in using single rather than multiple drugs in treating diseases, even if we have to use very high doses and thus risking intolerable side effects. Today, as we are learning from our cancer specialist colleagues, it is far more efficacious to use multiple synergistic drugs in combination and at lower doses instead of a single drug at high doses. There would also be less risk of side effects, or if there were they would be more tolerable.

Likewise with my Diamond of Development; it would be far more effective and much more easily attainable to make small improvements on all four factors than to concentrate on maximizing the favorable attribute of any one factor.

Enhancing all four factors is important for if any one factor is unfavorable or negative, it could drag down the other three. Focusing on improving only one factor would also increase the vulnerability. If we focus on getting a strong leader, he or she could be killed in an accident or be assassinated. Worse, that leader may be strong and effective but in all the wrong areas a la Stalin or Hitler.

If a nation were blessed with all four factors being unusually favorable, there would be the potential of a quantum leap or at least a steep slope of progress. I say potential, because a favorable macro environment alone is not enough. It is the enabling and necessary condition; ultimately progress depends on the collective choices of individual citizens, families, companies, and organizations. It is their aggregate decisions and actions that would determine the fate of a society. This micro-environment too must be nurtured. I will explore this macro- and micro-environment further in the next chapter.

1. Not to be confused with the World Bank’s concept of “Development Diamond.” See Chapter 4:  On Being Competitive.

Next: Primacy of Individuals

Malaysia-Today.net June 25, 2007

After nearly four years as Prime Minister, I have difficulty deciding whether Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s leadership is a fraud (penipu) or simply incompetent (pembodoh). My quandary arises from my initial mistaken assumption that the two would be mutually exclusive when in fact that with Abdullah, they are not. His leadership is both.

The circumstances of his recent wedding serve both as an example of as well as a metaphor for his leadership. First there was his communications director hauling the country’s editors and commanding them on what and what not to report. True to pattern, like little good schoolboys and girls, they all obeyed. Their subsequent copies were replicas of the official announcement, down to the punctuation marks. Oh well, these editors do get to choose the fonts and discretion in paragraphing!

That reflects Abdullah’s respect for the media and the concept of the freedom of the press. Frankly, those editors deserve what they get.

Second, Abdullah wanted his wedding to be a simple private affair (he is entitled to it), yet the event grabbed headlines in Malaysia as well as regionally. Even the couple’s visit to Abdullah’s late wife’s gravesite, which should have been an intensely private and highly emotional moment, was widely publicized. This was a public relations exercise to portray the image of a man still devoted to his late spouse.

If Abdullah had genuinely wanted his wedding to be private, then he was terribly inept and downright incompetent in executing his wishes. He could not even make UMNO-controlled New Straits Times not to accept those nauseating bodek advertisements. A better and surer way would have been to have the akad nikah privately, and only then made it public. By announcing it ahead of time, Abdullah practically ensured that his wedding would be anything but private.

Alternatively, had Abdullah wanted his wedding to be widely publicized, then his initial request for privacy was nothing more than a cynically coy ploy to ensure just that. It is a variant of the lady (or in this case the groom) doth protest too much. That being the case, he is guilty of perpetrating a contemptuous fraud on and mockingly manipulating citizens’ emotions.

What should the public and the world to make of this charade? Indeed charade has been the defining trait of Abdullah’s leadership, whether in his much publicized but ineffective fight against corruption or in overhauling the civil service. The man simply tak tau buat kerja (does not know his job).

It would not surprise me if Abdullah were to announce general elections soon to exploit the personal “good vibes” generated from his wedding. He is shrewdly counting on the warm afterglow of the wedding to cover the blotches of his leadership.

Already toadying academics and commentators have opined that Abdullah’s popularity has “soared” following the wedding. Presumably they all have conducted their own private polls. Some boldly declared that Abdullah would now be invigorated as a leader as he would a man. Sadly, marriage will not magically transform an ineffectual leader. There is as yet no viagra for weak leadership.

That notwithstanding, Malaysians will again vote for his party. Again he and his advisors will delude themselves into thinking that as a rousing endorsement of his leadership when in fact it would merely be a choice of the least unacceptable. If there were to be a choice of “None of the above” on the ballot, it would be the overwhelming pick of voters.

<!–[if !supportEmptyParas]–> <!–[endif]–>

Facts From Fantasy, Rumors From Reality

In 1971, Pierre Trudeau, then Canada’s most eligible bachelor as well as its charismatic Prime Minister, stunned everyone with his secret weekend wedding to Margaret Sinclair, 28 years younger. His aides thought he was off skiing while her family thought it was going to be a formal family portrait session! It was her only way to make them dress up without having to reveal the real reason.

Besides being charismatic, Trudeau was also a brilliant and competent leader. He knew how to get his way, both in running the country as well as in protecting his privacy. He went on to become Canada’s longest-serving Prime Minister at a time when the country was threatened by a dangerous split between English- and French-Canadians.

Alas, Abdullah is no Trudeau. Malaysia is today dangerously polarized along racial and religious lines. Abdullah’s incompetent leadership contributes to the deepening of this split. His penipu allows him to continue perpetrating hoaxes on the citizens; his pemdodoh insulates him from contemplating the dangerous consequences.

Abdullah’s crudest and most consequential hoax is his Islam Hadhari. As Prophet Muhammad, s.a.w., reminded us in his last sermon, the verities of our faith are both eternal and universal, for all times and for all mankind. There is no need to add a modifier to Islam. Abdullah fraudulently leads Malaysians to believe that banning books and locking people up without due process is compatible with his Islam Hadhari.

If only he had spent more time implementing the ideals of his Islam Hadhari and less on spouting them endlessly, he would do a lot more good for himself and the nation. Not to mention in enhancing the image of the faith. Islam Hadhari succeeded only in polarizing Muslims and dividing Malaysians, a reality obvious to all except Abdullah.

His earlier blatant public denial of his relationship with Jeanne Danker is illustrative. I could not care less of his denying details of their private life, except to state that his denial merely illustrates his inability or unwillingness to discern facts from fantasy, and rumors from reality. Such cognitive dissonance would ordinarily disturb one’s mental equilibrium; Abdullah however takes it all in with equanimity. Only a simpleton or a congenital liar could do it with the ease of Abdullah.

He did not have to lie; he could have just kept quiet, as he had done on numerous other occasions. Now that the truth is out, what are we to make of his earlier denial? To me, that was yet another demonstration of his contempt for the citizens. He does not take them into his confidence. A liar does not trust others, thinking that everyone else is like he is.

Abdullah is a leader who would unashamedly lie to citizens as when he self-righteously declared that his son did not benefit from any government contract. When confronted with the facts, he clarified without even blinking an eye that he was not personally aware of the truth. A leader reveling in his own ignorance!

When Raja Petra exposed the government’s purchase of an ultra luxurious corporate jet to the tune of over RM200 million for his use, Abdullah again boldly denied the allegation. When confronted with the facts, he again denied the reality. It was not the government that bought the plane, he allowed, rather a private government-owned entity that purchased it, a semantic clarification that would make a Philadelphia lawyer proud.

He makes a mockery of his inaugural address as UMNO President. Then, with all the pretensions of an undiscovered poet, he declared, “Aku cari bukan harta bertimbun-timbun/Untuk hidup kaya/Aku cari bukan wang berjuta-juta/Untuk hidup bergaya.” (I seek no material wealth or riches. I seek neither millions nor a luxuriant lifestyle.) All talk, no walk!

Abdullah’s leadership (if it could be called thus) is nothing but a shadow play, a sandiwara, one that has no plot, no theme, and unmercifully, without an ending in sight.

Fool Me Once, Shame On You; Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me!

Contrary to the above Chinese proverb, Malaysians are not suckers for Abdullah’s many lies. The citizens have long ago seen through and are resigned to them. The real suckers are those who believed wholeheartedly in the man, in particular his ministers, UMNO Supreme Council members, and leaders of Barisan Nasional component parties. They wholeheartedly swallow what Abdullah regurgitates. To them, what comes out of him is not vomit but predigested food, as a mother vulture to her hungry and rapacious brood. They eagerly lap it up!

When Abdullah pens his poem, they would all imitate him, even if that meant blatantly plagiarizing someone else’s creation. After all, if they readily believe lies to be truth, the word plagiarism cannot be in their collective vocabulary.

We now know that those “heartfelt” congratulatory messages, even the canned ones, were not even sent personally by those “sucking up” ministers. Even they delegated that to their assistants!

As for Abdullah’s supposedly bright young advisors on the Fourth Floor, they are too green to realize that Abdullah’s chronic lying and fraudulent acts will ultimately reflect upon them. As for their intelligence, they cannot be too bright if by now they have not realized that their master is both a fraud and incompetent.

The last laugh is on them, and the hardly know it!