Towards A Developed Malaysia (Part Two of Six)
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 ]

Diamond of Development

In my book Towards A Competitive Malaysia, I relate how the four cardinal elements – leaders, people, culture, and geography – govern a society’s trajectory of development. Each element influences and in turn is being influenced by the other three, as illustrated by my “Diamond of Development” diagrammatic representation. When all four factors are favorable, we have a virtuous cycle propelling that society quickly towards progress. When one element is wanting, it quickly exerts its negative influence on the other three, and soon we would have a vicious cycle leading towards a quick downward spiral.

An important caveat to my diamond of development is that it presumes peace. When a nation is at war or in conflict, the only certainty is death and destruction, not development. This is a much-needed reminder for a plural society like Malaysia. Just look at Northern Ireland and Sri Lanka.

I do not wish to discuss geography as there is nothing we can do to alter it. As for leaders, we are fortunate to live in a democracy and can choose and reject our leaders freely. As for culture, Dr. Azly will discuss that, specifically the role of education in changing it.

In this presentation I will discuss “us,” the people, and how we could mobilize ourselves so we could influence our leaders and culture, as well as take full advantage of our geographical attributes. It is “We, the people” who will drive Malaysia towards Montreal. We will get there by developing our people, not by building fancy freeways or driving Formula One cars. If we do not develop the skills of our people, those freeways will become nothing but killing alleys, and the cars lethal machines, literally and metaphorically.

The challenge then is in enhancing the skills of our people and making them more productive.

If we were to measure any human attribute, we would find that its distribution in the population would follow a normal curve. At one end would be the fortunate few blessed with super ability; at the other, those less fortunate. The vast majority would, as expected, have average ability.

For illustrative purposes, I will choose an attribute that has minimal emotive association: The ability to fish. At one end would be those who have the uncanny knack of finding the best fishing holes and hauling in the trophy catches. At the other, those who would not even know which end of the fishing pole to stick in the water. The vast majority would be average, able to catch a pound or two, enough to feed the family but not to win fishing derbies.

If I were to do a similar survey of another group, for example the Polynesians, the curve would be also bell-shaped, but it would be shifted to the right, to use the language of the statistician. Meaning, the average Polynesian would catch more, and their star fishermen would haul in even bigger trophies than ours. This is not surprising; surrounded as they are by the ocean, they learn to fish soon after taking their first breath.

On the other hand if I were to do a similar survey of sub-Saharan tribesmen, I would still get a normal curve, but this time it would be shifted to the left. Meaning, more of them would not know which end of the pole to stick in the water. This is not surprising as the only water they see is at the occasional oasis.

This is all mildly interesting, a reflection of the diversity of humankind, of divine design. Not so to the nationalists and chauvinists. To them this is a serious matter of tribal pride. The nationalists differ from the chauvinists only in degree, not in kind.

Forgetting about tribal pride, if as a penghulu (village head) I wish to increase the amount of fish caught by my people, what strategy should I adopt? Should I focus on the super-achievers, the average villagers, or the underachievers?

Focusing on the super-achievers would be the easiest and most rewarding. They are already highly motivated; they love what they do. With the slightest support and encouragement they would take off and haul in the biggest fish. Then the rest of society would bask in the reflected glory and share the bragging rights. Because of the immediate and visible results, it would also be easier to secure even greater funding for them in the next budget. Their success would also inspire the rest to strive harder so they too could reap the rewards and adulations.

However, teaching these super achievers is no easy task, especially in finding the teachers. These superb fishermen would be more interested in fishing, not lecturing; the adage of those who can, do; those who can’t, teach. The other point is that even if you do not give them any extra attention, these super achievers will do well anyway; all society has to do is not stand in their way.

Supporting these super achievers would also send a clear statement of society’s values: the recognition and rewarding of excellence. With the message percolating down, that society would be inspired towards excellence.

There are also good grounds for focusing on the underachievers. For one, it would be easy to teach them. Improving their results would also be easy as they start from a very low base. There would be challenges of course; for example, their commitment and motivation would be low.

There is another –and moral – reason for helping them. It is the right thing to do. They too are a part of our community, and being a part of a community means just that: we are in it together. Even if they could only catch the occasional fish, that would be achievement enough; you would see that in their faces. It would also mean their being less dependent on society.

The more pragmatic reason for teaching them is that when they are busy fishing, even if they were not to catch anything, they would be occupied and not have time to bother the other fishermen or create mischief, like swimming in the water and scaring the fish away.

As for the middle group, teaching them should also be easy; merely provide them with better rods, stronger lines, and bigger hooks. In large volumes those things are also fairly cheap.

Now consider the aggregate results of the different strategies. Even if we were to double the yield of the superb fishermen (a major challenge as they are already at their best), their combined contributions to the total catch would still not be much because of their small number. The same holds with the underachievers, and even more so.

The greatest aggregate yield would be if we were to focus on the huge middle group. If we were to improve their individual production by only 10 percent, their total contribution would be tremendous. Sure, they would not haul in the trophy catches and we would not have the opportunity to brag about their achievements, but where it counts – the total poundage of catch – you could not beat their contributions. This gain would also be the most sustainable and enduring as it is broad based.

Nehru’s India Versus Tunku’s Malaysia

My fish story is not mere fanciful imagination. Consider the approaches to education in India under Nehru and Malaysia under Tunku Abdul Rahman during the late 1950s.

The Cambridge-educated Nehru believed that smart Indians should be given the opportunities he had. Since they all could not go to Cambridge, Nehru established a string of elite colleges, The Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT), modeled after Imperial College and MIT, the best. In short, he focused on the super-achievers.

Tunku was also Cambridge-educated, but he was a humble man and his goals more modest. More critically, he knew the limitations of his country, especially its resources. Equally important, he sensed the acute needs of his people; he therefore emphasized schools over colleges.

Soon after taking over, Tunku’s Minister of Education Tun Razak embarked on the massive Operation Torch (Gerakan Lampu Suloh), training thousands of teachers and building hundreds of new schools, especially in the villages. In my youth, within a ten-mile radius of my kampong there were no fewer than seven new schools being built. It was a remarkable civil and social engineering initiative. It truly brought light to the countryside hitherto dark because of illiteracy.

Childhood illiteracy has long ago been wiped out in Malaysia but remains a severe blight in India, afflicting far too many. As economists now acknowledge the major role of education in development, it is not a surprise that Malaysia outstrips India. From 1970 to 2000, India’s per capita GDP merely doubled while Malaysia’s nearly quadrupled. There are of course other contributing factors. For one, Malaysia embraces free enterprise; India is enamored with socialism, but there is no denying the importance of providing basic education to citizens.

A more practical test of the wisdom of the two strategies would be this. Today, if there were no immigration rules, millions of Indians would grab the opportunity to migrate to Malaysia, but few Malaysians would opt to move to India.

This did not mean that Nehru’s worthy efforts were wasted. Many of those IIT graduates went on to great western universities and later became CEOs of Citibank and Coca Cola, or professors at leading universities. A few went on to win the Nobel Prize. Fellow Indians back home rightly bask in the reflected glory; alas back in their villages, things remains pitiable and pathetic.

Even if those successful Indians had wanted to return, their motherland had minimal capacity to use their talent. Perhaps in the long run the average Indian would benefit from Nehru’s bold vision, but then in the long run, as Keynes famously noted, we are all dead.

Next: Part Three of Six: Encouraging Malays Entrepreneurs and Scientists

Malaysia in the Era of Globalization  #1

 

M. Bakri Musa

 

 

[Note:  Today and every Wednesday thereafter, I begin serializing the revised edition of my Malaysia in the Era of Globalization that was first published in 2002.]

 

 

Nikmat Hidup

 

Menahan fikiran aku tak mungkin

Menumpul kalam aku tak kuasa

Merdeka berfikir gagah perkasa

Berani menyebut yang aku yakin.

 

—Haji Abdul Malik Karim Amrullah (HAMKA), Malay scholar

and philosopher

 

 

My translation:

 

Life’s Bounty

 

Censoring ideas is not my deal

Nor putting to rest my writing quill!

Fearless are those who dare to think

And put to words their inner being.

 

 

Preface to the Second Edition

 

 

 

Malaysia in the Era of Globalization (MEG) was released in 2002 in the United States, with a more affordable Malaysian edition the following year.  Malaysia was then still under the leadership of Dr. Mahathir, as it had been for the preceding 22 years.  Not surprisingly after such a long tenure, there were signs then suggesting that he had already severely overextended his welcome.  The most significant was his party’s severe thrashing in the 1999 elections.

 

            That notwithstanding, Mahathir did not show any indication that he was ready to step down any time sooner.  Consequently my book was directed primarily at his leadership.  The last chapter, “An Open Letter to the Prime Minister,” was essentially a summary of the book.

 

            Unlike my first book The Malay Dilemma Revisited:  Race Dynamics in Modern Malaysia which was necessarily critical and at times angry as it examines past policies (in particular those of the Mahathir administration) with MEG I was much more enthusiastic and optimistic as I was looking to the future, to the promises and aspirations of Malaysia.

 

            My enthusiasm and optimism were not misplaced.  A few months after the release of my book, in June 2002 at his party’s Annual General Assembly Mahathir stunned everyone with the announcement of his retirement.  After much confusion and a great show of public emotions bordering on hysteria by his party members, Mahathir relented and delayed his departure to October 31^st the following year. Nonetheless when he left there was no disguising the general sentiment that his time was up.  Being a shrewd reader of the public mood, I was certain that Mahathir too was fully aware of that.

 

            My early optimism was obviously shared by most Malaysians as reflected by Abdullah Badawi’s (Mahathir’s chosen successor) unprecedented massive electoral victory in 2004.  Alas, it did not take long for those hopes and enthusiasm to be dashed.  Abdullah turned out to be kosong (empty); he squandered the precious half a decade that he was privileged to lead the nation.

 

            Malaysians had initially hoped that Abdullah’s tenure would be the much-needed balm to heal the trauma and end the excesses of the Mahathir administration.  Instead, Abdullah’s period was a colossal waste, of not only missed opportunities but worse, even greater egregious abuses and neglect.  Mercifully, his tenure was quickly cut short before he could inflict permanent damage upon the nation.

 

            Unfortunately thus far Abdullah’s successor Najib Razak has shown every indication that he would surpass Abdullah both in the ineptitude as well as corruption categories.  Najib is determined to undermine the Malaysian experiment.  Even though it would be hard to remain optimistic under such circumstances, nonetheless I still have a firm belief in the inherent resilience and goodness of Malaysians and that eventually we too will get a leader our great nation deserves.  We do have the talent; I am certain of that.

 

            This second edition of MEG has been substantially revised to incorporate the many significant changes and challenges in Malaysia and globally since the publication of the first volume.  In Malaysia the challenges are primarily in the economic and socio-political arenas.  Economically Malaysia is being buffeted by the still strong eddies from the global credit storm of 2007.  The even greater threat however is internal, the unraveling of Malaysian society the increasing polarization between the races as well as within Malays, together with the failure of our institutions through the twin blights of corruption and incompetence.

 

            Globally there are the threats from terrorism galvanized by their misguided beliefs in their faith, the latest but by no means the only example being the Islamic extremists exemplified by Al Qaeda, and the crisis of confidence on modern capitalism triggered by the housing collapse in America in 2007 that quickly spread worldwide.

 

            Yes the concept as well the reality of globalization, briefly defined as the “growing integration of economies and countries around the world” (World Bank), have been severely challenged, rest assured that globalization Version 2.0 that would inevitably emerge will be stronger, more stable, and more productive.

 

            The recent global crisis and Malaysia’s own internal problems should not be the excuses for our nation to withdraw.  Instead it should be the incentive for ever greater participation so that we would be at the fore front to not only benefit from the fruits of this ‘newer and improved’ version of globalization but also to be fully apprised of the risks and dangers so we would be fully prepared to anticipate them.  It is well to remember that many countries, in particular Canada, were relatively spared by the global financial crisis of 2007.  Being prepared would mean that Malaysia would more likely end up like Canada and not be bankrupted as Iceland.

 

            The issue then is how best to achieve that goal of being an active and productive participant in this globalization V2.0.  This revised edition, like the first, is my small contribution towards that goal.

 

M. Bakri Musa (bakrimusa@juno.com)

Morgan Hill, CA

February 2010.

 

 

Notes and Acknowledgments  [The First Edition]

 

 

My target readers are primarily Malaysians, and others interested in the political and socioeconomic development in Malaysia.  In an increasingly interconnected world however, one can never be too restrictive either geographically or intellectually in one’s intended audience.

 

            That immediately creates problems in handling names, terms and expressions commonly used in Malaysia.  While they may be familiar to Malaysians, they would require some explanatory notes for others.  I have compromised by including a brief descriptive phrase the first time such personalities or terminologies appear in the text while providing at the beginning of the book an alphabetically-arranged list with a more detailed explanation so readers may conveniently refer.

 

            For reasons of clarity and brevity, I have dispensed with the titles and honorific of Malaysian personalities.  I mean no disrespect.  Likewise I have deleted common incidentals in their names like “Abdul,” “Mohammad,” “bin,” and “Haji.”

 

            One commonly used term deserves clarification right from the beginning, “Bumiputra.”  This is a legal label referring to the indigenous people of Malaysia.  They are entitled by statutes to certain special privileges and other benefits.  Over 60 percent of Malaysians are Bumiputras, and of these over 90 percent are Muslim Malays.  The term “Malay Muslim” itself is redundant for according to the constitution, a Malay must ipso facto be Muslim.

 

            There are still recognizable minority-Bumiputras who are neither Malays nor Muslims.  I use the more specific term “Malay” when referring to the more restricted entity described earlier while reserving the term “Bumiputra” for the generic and more inclusive group.

 

            I am gratified with and immensely grateful to the many readers of my first book The Malay Dilemma Revisited and column in Malaysiakini (Seeing It My Way) who have taken the time to write me.  For those readers who do not share my views, their disagreements have forced me to go back and reevaluate my arguments and assumptions.  For those who do, well, it is always nice to have supportive readers!  I readily welcome all these readers with their different points of views.  They make for an interesting and stimulating discourse.

 

            Writing is a lonely exercise, and those responses help make the connections.  Writing is also like throwing pebbles into water; one never knows how far those ripples would go.

 

            This book takes off from where my The Malay Dilemma Revisited left off.  As that book focuses more on Malaysia’s past, it must necessarily be critical as it assesses and evaluates the impacts of the nation’s various policies and initiatives.  This book in contrast looks to the future and deals with what Malaysia should do to prepare itself for new challenges ahead, specifically of globalization.  Consequently, writing it was a much more pleasurable as I explore ideals, promises, and hopes.

 

            I wish to express a special thank you and heartfelt appreciation to Din Merican, who was then a Senior Research Fellow, Cambodia Institute for Cooperation and Peace, Phnom Penh, for going over the manuscript.  His many suggestions on content as well as style helped make the final version far superior to the original I sent him.

 

            Din and I are of the same generation; we share similar backgrounds, experiences, and outlook.  He is from a kampong in Yen, Kedah, and I am from one in Sri Menanti, Negri Sembilan.  Din benefited from an outstanding graduate education in America and went on to serve his country.  He represents what we should try to replicate among our young Malaysians.  Although Din may not agree with many of the issues I raised here, nonetheless we both share the same ideals and aspirations for Malaysia.  More importantly, we both love Malaysia, warts and all, and are optimistic about its future.

 

            To my wife Karen, neither a simple thank you nor more profuse praise seems adequate to express my indebtedness to and appreciation of her.  Many of her weekends and evenings had been preempted by her reading the manuscript.  Her nuanced suggestions of “It could be better!” to the more direct “They will never follow that!” helped make the prose flows smoother and the arguments tighter.

 

            In the end this book is, as my clinical colleagues would say, my baby.  I am responsible for its conception, content, nurturing, and final delivery.  The imperfections and errors in the final product could easily be traced by their DNA to me!

 

            It is my contention that Malaysia cannot withdraw from the global mainstream; it must be an active participant.  Through moderation, tolerance, and understanding, Malaysia’s diverse population is already an exemplary model for the world.  Recent rise of the lunatic fringe notwithstanding, Malaysia’s brand of tolerant and moderate Islam has given the faith a much-needed counterpoint to the headline-grabbing notoriety of the extremist few.  Malaysia is already an acknowledged role model for many, especially in the Third World.

 

            The challenge for Malaysia is how best to compete and succeed in this era of globalization.  This book is my small contribution towards that goal.

 

M. Bakri Musa

Morgan Hill, California

June 2002.

bakrimusa@juno.com

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 One of Six: Definition of A Developed State

Thank you, President Shahrir Tamrin of Kelab UMNO-NY/NJ for inviting me again. I still savor the many pleasant memories of last year’s event. To President Arif Aiman of the Malaysian Students Association, RIT, your warm welcome and generous introduction more than made up for the chill of a New York autumn! To Nur Fauzana and her committee, I congratulate you for your grit in holding this forum in December when American campuses are typically gripped with term paper deadlines and final examinations.

To fellow panelist Dr. Azly Rahman, it is good to see you again! I was in Greece recently and imagined you conducting a Socratic-like seminar on the meaning of truth, wisdom, and knowledge, under those imposing columns! To Ambassador Jarjis, it is a pleasure meeting you and your wife again. That was an impressive picture of you with President Obama, a portrait of a Malay hulubalang (knight), fearsome yet elegant, with his tanjak (keris) discreetly tucked underneath the samping. You effectively demonstrated that a genuine hulubalang need not brandish his keris to convey his message!

To Ali Iqbal, you significantly lower the average age of the panelists. I enjoyed your panoramic take on the current economic crisis. It was thankfully free of economic jargons and thus very informative.

To many, “1Malysia” is one of those slogans Malaysian leaders are so fond of coining. Before that there was Malaysia Boleh (Malaysian Can!), and more recently, Cemerlang, Gemilang, dan Terbilang (excellence, glory, and distinction), and, as it turned out, all temberang (hot air). To others, 1Malaysia is Prime Minister Najib Razak’s website. Or is it that of a web-hosting company?

That last remark is unkind, of course, a lousy attempt at humor on my part! That done with, I now turn to the topic at hand.

“IMalaysia” is Najib’s vision of a united Malaysia. The eight values of his 1Malaysia are perseverance, culture of excellence, acceptance, loyalty, education, humility, integrity, and meritocracy. I am sure you were grilled on that at your scholarship interviews back home.

I do not know what the difference is, if any, between a culture of excellence and meritocracy, or between acceptance and loyalty. My hunch is that Najib is superstitious, and eight is an auspicious number in his scheme of things.

Vision 2020 is former Prime Minister Mahathir’s inspiration, first articulated in1991, to propel Malaysia towards a developed state by 2020. His original title was, “The Way Forward,” but that did not have quite the same zing.

One dictionary defines a developed state as one with a high degree of industrialization and standard of living brought on by wealth and technology. Being the iconoclast that he is, Mahathir has his own ideas. To him, a developed state is one that is, among others, “psychologically liberated,” “fully moral,” and “fully caring.” Then perhaps unsure of what those fuzzy terms mean, he added the traditional economic criterion of “doubling of real gross domestic product every ten years between 1990 and 2020.”

Mahathir’s reference to GDP is both inadequate and misleading. What is relevant is the size of the economy relative to the population: the per capita GDP. A developed nation typically has a per capita income in excess of $18K, adjusted for purchasing power parity. That too has its limitations. Brunei’s per capita GDP is nearly $50K, way ahead of Canada, but no one would suggest that Brunei is developed. The figure for Malaysia is about $12K.

The United Nations has a more inclusive measure with its Human Development Index (HDI). It factors in the health of the population (as reflected in life expectancy), level of education (as measured by adult literacy and school enrollment rates), and standard of living (per capita GDP). Developed nations generally have an index greater than 0.900; Malaysia’s at 0.826. If you believe in HDI, Malaysia is more developed than Russia!

I have a simpler definition. A developed state is like pornography; I know it when I see it, to borrow Justice Potter Stewart’s famous phrase. When I drive south from San Diego, California, to Tijuana, Mexico, I know that I am leaving a developed country and entering a developing one. When I drive into Montreal, Canada, from Plattsburgh, New York, I know that I am entering another developed country.

In Tijuana, if the police were to stop me, I would grab my wallet to see how much cash I have to bribe him. If a similar incident were to happen in Canada, I would check my driver’s license and car registration papers.

If I were unfortunate enough to have an accident in Tijuana, my first thought would be how to get back across the border as quickly as possible. In Canada, I would not hesitate being sent to the nearest hospital. When dining out in Montreal, my only consideration would be the choice of cuisine, ambience, and of course, cost. In Tijuana I would have to choose very carefully, and even then I would stay away from the ice and salads.

I leave it to you to judge where Malaysia is, closer to Tijuana or Montreal.

My late father had an astute observation on what is meant by a developed society. I was visiting him after a long absence. It was in 1969, right after the deadly race riots, and the streets of Kuala Lumpur were deserted. I was driving him and we came to a stop sign. I duly stopped. He asked me why I did that, and thinking that he did not see the sign, replied, “There was a stop sign.”

“But there were no cars,” he protested.

I did not reply. After a long pensive pause he added, “That is why the West is advanced. People there obey the law even when no one is watching!”

He may not have realized it, but my late father was on to something profound. That is, respect for the rule of law is the feature of a developed society. This is precisely what is lacking in a developing country, and more importantly, what keeps it trapped in its backward state.

The prevailing ethics in a developing country is that the law applies only to ordinary people, not the leaders. Those in power have nothing but contempt for the law. It is there to serve their purpose, and they never hesitate using it against their enemies. On a mundane level, I have a picture of a limousine, with the title “Ketua Hakim Negara” (Chief Justice) emblazoned across its license plate, parked illegally and blocking the traffic at Sepang International Airport.

Of course even in America cars of cabinet secretaries and congressmen are exempt from the usual parking restrictions, but you would never see their cars blocking traffic at Reagan National Airport.

In New York, the biggest traffic violators are diplomats from developing countries. There is a definite correlation between those diplomats and the World Bank’s index of public corruption in their home country. Merely living in a developed country does not make you a developed person. This supports my contention that you should focus on developing your people, not your country.

The Quran reminds us to “command good and forbid evil!” as if Allah is watching over us at all times (“closer than our jugular vein”). In a developed country, they obey the law as if someone is watching over them all the time. Of course today there are surveillance cameras at traffic intersections. Better not run the red light!

The challenge is to ensure that Malaysia is headed towards Montreal and not sliding back to Tijuana. If we do not get to Montreal, we will automatically slide quickly towards Tijuana. Make not mistake about that; standing still is not an option.

Next: Part Two of Six: Diamond of Development

 

Note: This concludes the series. Beginning next Wednesday and every Wednesday thereafter, I will begin serializing an updated version of one of my earlier books, Malaysia in the Era of Globalization, that was first published in 2002.]

Chapter 21: Gemilang, Cemerlang, Terbilang … atau Temberang?

(Excellence, Glory, and Distinction … or Merely Hot Air?)

Selecting Ministers

The next time Abdullah chooses his cabinet, this is what I would suggest, assuming of course that he gets another chance! First would be to select a stable of capable candidates to contest the general elections so he would have no shortage of cabinet material. The process outlined earlier would ensure that. Immediately following the election, he should send out letters (or preferably emails, to assess their ICT familiarity) to all winning coalition candidates inviting them to consider a cabinet or other governmental appointment. These communications would be in Malay to non-Malay MPs, and in English for Malay MPs (a quick and dirty way to check their skills in the two languages). The following would be a sample query:

To the Honorable Member of Parliament-to-be:

Congratulations on your recent successful election campaign! I look forward to working with you in serving the rakyat (people). Currently I am in the process of forming my cabinet. For each ministry, I would need a Minister to head it, a supporting Deputy Minister, and a Parliamentary Secretary. If you are capable and interested in any of these positions, please e-mail me before midnight (date) with the following information.

Please state the position you are seeking (Minister of Finance, Parliamentary Secretary to the Tourism Ministry, etc.), and then kindly address the following five questions.

I. Why do you consider yourself uniquely qualified to assume the position you select?

II. Do you have anything in your personal and professional background that could possibly embarrass and detract my administration’s goals of having a clean and honest government, and my theme of “excellence, glory and distinction?”

III. What do you think are the major issues facing the position you are seeking?

IV. What do you hope to achieve as short-term (within a year or two) and long-term (five or more years) goals in the position you seek? Please share your strategies on achieving them.

V. What are your plans following your tenure in politics and government?

Again, congratulations on securing the voters’ confidence and I look forward to working with you.

Sincerely,

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi

Questions III and IV would quickly reveal whether the candidate is interested merely in being a minister or whether he or she has special expertise and specific policies in mind. This would reflect whether they have given much thought to the position.

he second question would quickly weed out those with less-than-sterling backgrounds who had somehow managed to filter through the screening process of candidates for the election. It would also prevent the embarrassing scene of one Tengku Adnan, a minister involved in an embarrassing bankruptcy proceeding. Such glaring gaffes should not have occurred had there been a proper vetting mechanism.

The last question is a reminder to would-be ministers that cabinet appointments are not lifetime positions. If they have a viable career to fall back on, then they would be less likely to hang on tenaciously to their political appointments. They would then be much easier to let go without having to be literally kicked out screaming.

A simple enquiry like this, sent out by the staff under the Prime Minister’s name, would greatly help in selecting the right personnel and uncovering hidden talent. After this initial weeding out process, the Prime Minister could supplement it with personal interviews, with the staff ready with the tough questions ahead of time. This personal encounter is vitally important; it would give the prime minister a chance to test the personal chemistry of the individual.

Meanwhile the staff should vet the candidates to ensure that they would not prove embarrassing to the administration by their incompetence or shady background. This should include police background checks and prior clearance from the Anti Corruption Agency. All these could be done within a few weeks. Only after such a careful and rigorous selection process could Abdullah be assured of getting the best talent.

For Malaysia to be competitive and to launch into its next trajectory of development, Abdullah must assemble a competitive leadership team. Endlessly exhorting Malaysians to “work with me, not for me” would not do it. The scheme I outlined would ensure that he would get that highly select team. This proposal is surely more superior to his present method (or lack of one) of simply winging it. The road to Malaysia’s excellence, glory and distinction must begin with Abdullah, and then his team. From there, it would filter down to lesser officials, and then the citizens.

The cabinet is a political team, and the Prime Minister has to balance various factors like state, ethnic, gender, and party representations. These are important, but they should be secondary to the overriding considerations of competence and integrity. Malaysians (except the few chauvinistically inclined and outright racists) could not care less whether the Minister of Education is a Malay or Singhalese as long as he or she is competent and could make our schools stand out.

There is no pride or joy in having a Malay, Chinese, or Indian as a minister if he or she proves incompetent or corrupt. We have too many ready examples of those. Neither the nation nor the Prime Minister would be well served. With a team of individuals with distinction, Abdullah would more likely achieve excellence, and thus lead the nation to glory. Sadly thus far, the performance of Abdullah and his team has been anything but cemerlang (excellence). It would be hard to have a straight face in referring to them as gemilang (glorious). Only they fantasize themselves as terbilang (distinction). Abdullah’s present team, now securely ensconced, is nothing but temberang (hot air).

A Competitive Malaysia: Development Challenges in the Twenty-First Century that was published in 2006. The book may appear to end abruptly here; that is because I have reversed the sequence and had the last chapter, which was essentially a summary of the book, posted at the beginning of the series.]

Anwar And Najib – Up Close and Very Revealing

M. Bakri Musa

The side-by-side commentaries by Anwar Ibrahim and Najib Razak in the recent Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal illuminated a couple of salient points, in particular, the state of Malaysian journalism and the quality of our leadership.

Consider first Malaysian editors, specifically of the mainstream media. They missed the essential point that the best way to intelligently inform their readers is to present them with contrasting and opposing viewpoints, as illustrated by what The Journal did. Respect your readers’ intelligence and treat them like adults.

Bernama mentioned the Journal’s articles as a news item but referred only to Najib’s piece. Obviously the Bernama editors’ instinct was to please Najib and protect his image. They see themselves less as professional journalists and more as propagandists for the state. Their reaction was predictable.

That the cue from Bernama was quickly picked up by the other mainstream editors too did not surprise me. They are after all from the same mold. What grabbed my attention however, was what the Sun Daily did. I remember that paper as one that had the courage right from the beginning to be a tad independent, and its journalists less willing to genuflect to the powerful; hence its success despite its recent entry into the business.

The Sun merely reprinted Bernama’s piece, again with no mention of Anwar’s contrasting viewpoint. The Sun’s editors had access to both commentaries (they are available on-line) but chose to follow Bernama’s lead instead of their own editorial judgment. That reflects the challenges in maintaining journalistic integrity in an oppressive environment.

Then there is MCA-owned The Star. It did what cowards typically do: avoid the issue entirely. I am uncertain whether that is better than blatantly kowtow-ing to the emperor, as Bernama did.

As for The New Straits Times, an UMNO newsletter masquerading as a daily, its behavior too was predictable. It did not directly report on the two commentaries, presumably deeming both not sufficiently newsworthy. That however, did not stop its editor Syed Nadzri from penning an editorial effusively praising Najib’s literary contribution.

“In approach, tenor and presumably intention,” Nadzri writes, “their articles went in practically opposite directions from the start – the prime minister taking a conciliatory, disarming style, as against the opposition leader’s fault-finding digressions.” What Nadzri calls ‘fault-finding digression’ is Anwar’s trying to elucidate, understand and then educate us on the many daunting problems confronting the nation.

Towards the end even Nadzri’s residuum of journalistic ethics pricked his conscience a bit, for he admitted that Najib’s commentary was indeed a “rah rah piece,” adding, “What else could anyone expect?” Such low expectations!

It would never occur to Nadzri and the others to consider republishing both commentaries; they are of interest to all Malaysians. Or better yet, do what the Journal did, invite contributors with varying viewpoints. While the Journal is an avowedly conservative paper (its editorials leave little doubt about that), its Op-Ed pages routinely carry views from the left and right; likewise, its news coverage. The unabashedly liberal The New York Times counts among its regular commentators such conservatives as David Brooks. Unfortunately, the likes of Syed Nadzri are intellectually and professionally incapable of such a monumental shift in thinking.

In contrast to the mainstream media, the on-line portals Malaysiakini and Malaysia-Today chose a diametrically opposite tack. Malaysia-Today published both commentaries in full without any editorial comment. Its editors are confident of their readers’ intelligence to draw their own conclusions. If those mainstream editors wonder why their readership dwindles while those of Malaysiakini and Malaysia-Today soar, the answer is right there.

Top Billing For Anwar

The Journal gave Anwar’s commentary greater prominence; it appeared on top of the page. I agree with the Journal’s editorial judgment. By whatever criterion – persuasiveness, substance, clarity of thought, or most importantly, readability – Anwar’s piece clearly trumps Najib’s. No wonder those mainstream editors dared not carry both side by side; it would embarrass their patron!

Anwar exhorts us to rise above our parochial interests by recalling the great moments in our Islamic history where tolerance and acceptance of divergent viewpoints were venerated. Najib excuses our prejudices and intolerances on the grounds that those have always been part of human nature, thereby condoning if not encouraging those extremists with their “passionate” views.

Najib claims to be “appalled by the irresponsible and dangerous finger-pointing of a few politicians who put personal political interests … [and] try to score political points by hammering on sensitive issues.” He forgot that it was his Home Minister who started the mess with his needless bureaucratic intervention of a long-established practice. Talk about blatant pandering to the political base! Do not expect Najib to have second thoughts on that. Reflection, or for that matter taking responsibility, is not his strong suit.

Najib writes, “…[T]he values we hold dear – religious freedom, tolerance, peace and fairness—remain the bedrock of our nation.” Too bad he does not take that to heart. While Anwar excoriates Utusan Melayu, an UMNO-owned Malay language daily, for inflaming religious sentiments among Malays, Najib remains eerily silent. Many rightly perceive that as tacit endorsement and outright encouragement. One wonders just who is pandering to the ugly Malay mob.

Anwar invokes our Quran and traditions to push us towards our better selves; Najib was only too ready to dismiss and excuse those “extremists.” To Najib, the extremists, like the poor, will always be with us. There is not much that he could or would do.

The clarity of Anwar’s message was elegantly encapsulated in his very first sentence, “Malaysia has once again resurfaced in international headlines for the wrong reasons.” No one, not even Najib, could dispute that assertion. Anwar’s thesis sentence was crisp, clear and stated simply. It may be embarrassing to have that ugly reality exposed, but it would be a serious abrogation of responsibility for a leader not to address it, as Najib awkwardly tried to do.

It was difficult to ascertain Najib’s message; his essay was all over the place – mushy! This fits his leadership style: heavy on homilies, short on substance, and most of all, mushy. He would prefer that our ugly problems be swept under the carpet, to save the nation’s ‘honor,’ or at least his concept of it.

Through the Journal’s initiative we get to view our two leaders. In Anwar we have a leader in command of the situation, someone serious and fully cognizant of the dangers of fanning religious passions. He appeals to our better side to meet the challenges. In Najib we have an individual full of fluff, blissfully unaware of the fury he has unleashed, and totally incapable of handling the ensuing wreckage. He is, to borrow Nadzri’s less-than-elegant phrase, a “rah rah” leader, reveling in his (Najib’s) own Pollyannaish fantasy.

The Journal rendered a great public service to Malaysians in having these two commentaries freely available on-line. Its initiative also reveals the sad state of Malaysian journalism. I keep hoping that one day our media would learn something from the Journal and treat Malaysians as intelligent adults. I also keep hoping that one day we would have as prime minister someone who would treat us with respect and trust us with the truth. We deserve better than what we are being served now.

 

Chapter 21: Gemilang, Cemerlang, Terbilang … atau Temberang?

(Excellence, Glory, and Distinction … or Merely Hot Air?)

Next: Vetting Election Candidates

In America, political candidates battle it out first at the local primaries to secure their party’s nomination. While that may be a splendid expression of grassroots democracy, it unnecessarily prolongs the campaign and gives rise to excessive politicking. It is also very expensive and distracting, and puts congressional candidates in a perpetual campaign mode.

My preference would be to involve the division and party members through local nominating committees. They would nominate three to five of the best potential candidates. Committee members would not be allowed to nominate themselves or someone related to them. A committee member would have to recuse him- or herself when evaluating a potential nominee who is related to or have any potential conflict of interest.

After reviewing the experiences and qualifications of as well as formally interviewing the candidates, the committee would rank its choice, together with its recommendations, and submit the list to a central selection committee to be chaired by the Prime Minister. This committee too should adhere to the same strict guidelines as the local committees with regards to potential conflict of interest. The committee members, except for the Prime Minister and his deputy, should not themselves be candidates.

In the rare instance where the central committee finds that all the proposed candidates nominated by the local committee wanting, then it should redirect the local committee to reconvene and come up with another list of potential nominees. The final selection must come from the list provided by the local committee. This would ensure adequate local input and vetting of the process. It would also dilute and disperse the power of selecting candidates, thereby reducing corruption and influence peddling. Potential nominees would have to lobby not only the local committee members but also of the central ones.

Were the Prime Minister to do this, the results would be far superior and yield high quality candidates. Malaysia would then have a better government to boot, with enhanced ability to serve the citizens.

Creating A Cabinet

With a wider pool of talented Members of Parliament, selecting potential cabinet members would be that much easier. Again, the mechanism must be streamlined to match the best talent to the portfolio. There is no value—indeed it would be a complete waste of talent—were someone trained, experienced, and interested in law to be in charge of tourism, as with the case of Rais Yatim. If I were Rais, I would decline the appointment, be an ordinary MP, and return to my private law practice. If he were any good as a lawyer, it would certainly be more rewarding professionally and financially.

The prevailing obsession is to be appointed a minister, regardless of whether one is qualified, interested, or have special expertise to bring to the position. The reason is obvious. Cabinet appointments represent a personal advancement, at least financially. These ministers may be lawyers and doctors, but their professional reputations are such that they could never hope to match their professional income with their ministerial pay. This does not mean that they are being overpaid as ministers, rather that they are far from being accomplished professionals. Further with pervasive corruption, being a minister means getting a license to generate private wealth and muster considerable influence. There is so much patronage and opportunities for graft that even if ministers were honest to begin with, the temptations would eventually get to them. That is the only explanation for previously poor politicians who after only a few years in government are now sporting expensive cars and living in opulent mansions. Their wealth, obscenely displayed, could not possibly be accumulated based only on their ministerial income, no matter how prudently they manage it.

If candidates for elections and cabinet appointments have proven track record of accomplishment in their chosen field before entering politics, they would more likely transfer those skills onto their political careers. Equally important, they would less likely be beholden to their political positions, as they would have a satisfying and lucrative alternative career to fall back upon. At present these ministers have to be literally dragged out, either through criminal conviction or some awful public scandal. The former Chief Minister of Selangor (also a former Foreign Minister) Abu Hassan, was forced to resign after seamy allegations of sexual peccadilloes. His predecessor a generation earlier, Datuk Harun Idris, was convicted of corruption.

If one were to examine the post-political careers of ministers and other top officials, the striking feature is how few of them ever shine again after leaving the government. A fortunate few could collect on their political IOUs and be appointed directors of GLCs; most simply sink into oblivion. This more than anything else reflects their caliber.

Ministers like Samy Vellu, Rafidah Aziz, Syed Hamid Albar, and others have become permanent fixtures. Their hanging on to their positions prevents the infusion of fresh talent. These individuals cannot possibly bring any new ideas. They are stale, a fact obvious to all except themselves.

Contrast them to American cabinet secretaries, individuals with solid accomplishments in the corporate, academic, or professional world. Paul O’Neill, Bush’s Labor Secretary, was the chief executive for Alcan, a Fortune 500 company, as was Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. State Secretary Colin Powell had a distinguished

military career, having served as Armed Services Chief of Staff. These individuals have no qualms in telling the President the truth as they see it. Being fired or resigning from the cabinet does not faze them as they have other useful and more rewarding careers to pursue. In the case of Paul O’Neill, his candor and open disagreement with the President enhanced his post-cabinet reputation. What a contrast to the experiences of Malaysian cabinet ministers!

Next: Selecting Ministers

 

 

Profound Perspective From A Promising Politician

M. Bakri Musa

Book Review: Nik Nazmi Ahmad: Moving Forward. Malays for the 21^st Century.

Marshall Cavendish, Rawang, Selangor, paperback, 136 pages.

ISBN: 9789833845408 2010. RM 24.90

One of the least heralded consequences to the 2008 political ‘tsunami’ was the elections of many new faces. They are mostly young, highly educated, and driven by the old idealism of public service. They also have something else in common; they are all Pakatan candidates. That says something of the coalition, its leadership and mission.

One of them is Nik Nazmi Ahmad, a King’s College honors law graduate who readily won Selangor’s Seri Setia state constituency. He has now penned this book, his first, Moving Forward. Malays for the 21^st Century. It is a slim volume but he covers the major issues confronting Malays specifically and Malaysians generally, the title notwithstanding.

The subtitle may be a yawner to some, tempting them to pass over the book. Yes, the perennial “Malay problem!” A hundred years hence they would still be discussing it, and with the same list of usual culprits to blame: colonialists, immigrants, our culture, and yes, our genes too!

In the 19^th Century there was Munshi Abdullah who blamed our culture, specifically our kerajaan (governance) and by implication, our sultans. For daring to suggest that we emulate some of the ways of the English, he was dismissed as a brown Mat Salleh (Englishman). Later there was the scholar Zaaba, pursuing the same theme. They have not “deconstructed” him, probably because they have yet to read his voluminous commentaries.

More recently there was the poet Usman Awang waxing lyrical of our noble ways and values. He lamented that if only we were a wee bit kurang ajar (crude)! Many heeded him and ended more than just a bit kurang ajar; but they remained backward nonetheless. It was a poor bargain.

Nik Nazmi is a refreshing departure. He has some profound observations and perspectives that belie his chronological and political youth. “[T]he future of the Malays,” he writes, “cannot be separated from Malaysians in general.” That seems obvious, but it is equally obvious that this evident truth escapes our leaders; hence their obsession with such extraneous issues as Ketuanan Melayu. Nik also challenges the prevailing zero-sum mentality of our leaders, and implicit with our race-based political parties.

Many rate politicians by their soaring rhetoric and oratorical flourishes; I base mine on their ideas and powers of persuasion. Nik Nazmi is a promising politician.

At the risk of discomfiting him, I am tempted to compare Nik’s book to one written nearly 40 years ago by another not-so-young politician. It is not so much a comparison as a contrast. Where Mahathir’s The Malay Dilemma is shrill and emotional, Nik’s Moving Forward is cerebral and rational. While Mahathir irritates, Nik Azmi persuades; while Mahathir excoriates, Nik conciliates. Nik beckons us to share his dream of Malaysia.

Apart from the expected territories like NEP and race-based politics, Nik Nazmi covers education, Islam, and family life, and their impact on Malays and non-Malays.

 

On NEP, Nik Nazmi hews closely to his party’s position, and that held by many Malaysians, especially young Malay professionals who are rightly fed up with the gross leakages and obscene abuses that have had such a corrosive effect on our character. These young Malays are also disgusted that their genuine achievements are constantly being questioned and tarred by the stigma of special privileges. I am Malay too, but I am neither young nor live in Malaysia, so I am sparred of that terrible burden.

Nik (and Pakatan) would replace NEP with a race-blind, need-based policy. I appreciate this sense of social justice but we must remind ourselves that good intentions alone do not make for effective policies. There are realities to consider.

If it were a choice between eliminating NEP and rioting on the streets, most would make a rational choice: Keep the damn thing! The increasing shrill debates on the issue are a hint of things to come. I am especially nervous when calls for eliminating NEP come from non-Malays, and wrapped in barely concealed sense of racial or cultural superiority. The political reality is that the constitutional provisions for NEP can only be amended with the consent of the super-majority, and that means with most Malays agreeing to it.

The good news, as demonstrated by Nik Nazmi, is that more and more Malays are calling for exactly that.

More problematic is that a need-based policy would necessarily entail a massive bureaucracy, with resources diverted to administration. I see this in America. As Nik noted, the Nobel Laureate in Economics Amartya Sen also voiced similar reservations.

A major and valid criticism of the NEP is that, among others, it creates a class of favored Malays, the UMNO Putras. We would be naïve to think that if we were to extend the policy to other races that we would not end up with an even bloated class of economic parasites, with MCA Putras and MIC Putras joining in. Avarice and corruption are not vices peculiar only to Malays.

Those reasons notwithstanding, my reservation has more to do with modern economic insight. While we are aware of the dangers of inequities within a society (vertical inequities), often in a plural society the greater threat is what Oxford economist Frances Stewart refers to as inter-group or horizontal inequities.

Tun Razak grasped this intuitively with his NEP, and at a time long before the concept was even on the consciousness of academic economists. Give him credit for that. Stewart’s observation is being validated all too frequently, the latest and most brutal being Sri Lanka. It is also too close geographically and in many other ways to Malaysia.

A more fruitful approach would be first to plug NEP’s egregious leakages and flagrant abuses. This is easily achievable and salable as well. In my book The Malay Dilemma Revisited I enumerated the many ways this could be done, one being the “one bite at the apple” rule. Anyone who has benefited from special privileges would be banned subsequently from enjoying any of its other provisions. That prohibition would extend to his immediate family.

Then we could exclude those demonstrably affluent groups, beginning with our sultans and members of the royalty, followed by ministers and top civil servants. There is no need for income verification or any administrative structure for we are eliminating a whole class of people, not individuals.

The objective is not to corral as many Malays as possible but to have a critical mass of Malays not dependent on the NEP. Over time, their sense of pride would percolate down such that becoming dependent on special privileges would be viewed disdainfully.

On schools, Nik Nazmi favors a “Unified Stream” with vernacular languages included with the mandatory Malay and English. That is definitely an improvement. To achieve that, he suggests giving incentives to these schools. I agree. Those incentives must be sufficiently generous and be contingent upon demonstrated results, as for example, those schools having an integrated student body.

Even with a unified stream a large swath of Malays would be left out as they have already opted out of national schools for religious ones. It is here where Malay minds are being wasted. What goes on in these schools are nothing more than indoctrination masquerading as education. Any education reform must address this glaring issue. One immediate improvement would be to make Islamic Studies only one subject and not the consuming curriculum. These schools must produce their share of future Malay scientists and entrepreneurs.

The prevailing paranoia and Stewart’s thesis notwithstanding, the greater threat facing Malaysia today is not inter-communal rather intra-communal – specifically intra-Malay – conflict. The many cleavages are fast coalescing into a major fault line. We are hopelessly divided on the interpretations of Islam, along political lines and socio-economic class, and by geographic zones. Even on the simple matter of learning English, we are irreconcilably divided between those who consider that as an invaluable asset versus those who deem it an act of national betrayal. These divisions are aggravated as there is no moderate center to act as a buffer.

Schisms among Malays are what Donald Horowitz refers to as “indivisible conflicts.” They are over core values, in contrast to the more readily solvable “divisible conflicts” between Malays and non-Malays, which are essentially over the distribution of government bounties. You could negotiate the second, but not the first.

It is a truism that once we are aware of a danger, we reduce its risks. Malaysians are only too aware of inter-racial riots; this awareness reduces the risk. In contrast, intra-Malay conflict is made that much more probable precisely because we are not even aware of its possibility. Malay leaders, young and old, novice and veteran, wise and not so wise egg on their followers towards even more dangerous and acrimonious confrontations, blissfully unaware of the mortal dangers.

History reminds us that civil wars are often the most vicious of conflicts. They are also the most difficult to end, the animosities persisting long after. Both bear reminding.

Nik Nazmi’s otherwise thoughtful book skips one major issue: the sultans. This is surprising as they play such a central role in our lives and culture. How could we urge ordinary Malays to forsake their special privilege-crutches when our sultans squat at the apex of this huge heap, supported by their golden crutches? To Malays specifically, the sultans –as individuals and as an institution –remind us that we are still steep in our feudal ways. And feudalism is the antithesis of modernism.

Perhaps this omission is prudent seeing how easily opposition parties’ politicians get entangled with the sultans these days!

I am glad that Nik Nazmi has found time to reflect, write and share with us his thoughts on these major issues. Writing differs from other forms of communications, especially the one most favored by politicians: speeches. When you write you are alone, there are no adoring crowds egging you on. Thus what you write reflects more accurately your inner feelings and convictions. I wish other politicians would emulate Nik’s fine example. That is the best way for us to size up our leaders, and for them to communicate with us.

 

Chapter 21: Gemilang, Cemerlang, dan Terbilang … Atau Temberang

Reforming the Leadership

Abdullah should first boldly decouple political (specifically UMNO) positions from governmental ones. He should not appoint party leaders and officials into his cabinet and government. The duties of a minister are onerous enough with all the pressing problems; there would not be time to lead the Olympic Council or be in UMNO Supreme Council at the same time.

UMNO leaders would have to decide whether to hold party positions or be in the government, but not both. The exceptions would only be the President and Deputy President, being PrimeMinister and Deputy PrimeMinister respectively. Everyone else, from the Vice Presidents, Supreme Council members, State Chairmen to divisional heads should not hold executive positions in government or its agencies. Presently Abdullah is using this strategy selectively, as an excuse to keep his supporters who were trounced in the last UMNO leadership conference.

This separation and diffusion of power would ensure effective checks and balances. The concentration of power, especially when unchecked, would inevitably lead to its abuse and corruption. That is human nature. Modern democracies have clear separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches for this very reason. In this way the legislative branch can effectively perform its oversight functions over the executive, with the judiciary adjudicating when conflicts arise.

Technically the cabinet is answerable to Parliament. In reality, with the government controlling it and the opposition ineffectual, this oversight function is non-existent. Malaysians have long since seen the glorious days of having a dignified and effective opposition led by such men as the late Dr. Tan Chee Koon.

What we have today are chauvinistic leaders like Lim Kit Siang who is under the delusion that the future of the great Chinese language and culture hangs only on his shoulders. Or his equally unappealing deputy, another dinosaur character Karpal Singh, who could not decide whether to be a criminal lawyer (that is, a lawyer who defends criminals) or a public servant. You would think that after all these years of lucrative private practice he would have substantial savings so he could devote himself exclusively to public service and thereby enhance his effectiveness for the good of the nation. The opposition Islamic Party leaders are obsessed with trying to turn Malays into Arabs, and to ensure that Malays would end up in heaven. Touching!

Without the effective checks through parliament, it is all the more important that UMNO and the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition should have its own internal checks and balances. At present there is little of that. No matter how humble and honest an individual is, after a few years in power and being catered to and humored at, it would not be long before he or she acquires megalomaniac tendencies.

UMNO Supreme Council should be made up of other than ministers and government officials. It could then perform this important extra constitutional intra-party oversight function. The Council could have committees to monitor the performance of UMNO’s ministers and other political appointees, similar to the role of American Congressional committees. This would also give the Prime Minister an independent assessment of his appointees. With such a system in place, we would not have the specter of swollen-headed ministers who think they could do no wrong as long as they please the Prime Minister.

These oversight committees could become effective critics of ministers. The committees could also be ideal training ground for future ministers and other appointees, as well as the perfect place for ex-ministers (as long they garnered the necessary members’ votes to get elected) so their experiences could be usefully tapped by their successors.

Abdullah sensibly carried on his predecessor’s tradition of appointing a few non-politicians to his cabinet. His choice of Nor Mohamed Yakcop, a former senior Bank Negara executive as Finance Minister, was widely praised. My only reservation is that this is the same character implicated in the bank’s massive foreign exchange debacle of the early 1990s. To date there is no satisfactory accounting of that and other equally spectacular financial scandals. There were other rumblings to his appointment, but for different reasons. The Finance portfolio is associated with the disbursement of lucrative contracts. Many ambitious politicians would like that position for its power to dispense favors and patronages. Having a technocrat rather than a politician may reduce this blight.

Those few bright spots excepted, I am appalled at Abdullah’s haphazard and chaotic selection of his cabinet, as well as candidates for the last general elections. Days preceding the nomination, he had to fly all over the country to settle last minute glitches. There were obvious interferences from the palace in Johore and Pahang that were uncalled for and seriously undermined the constitution. All these could have been avoided with proper planning and a systematic approach. When he announced his post-election cabinet, it too was marred by unnecessary delays, confusion, and indecisions, with ministers named but no responsibilities given. It did not reflect well on his commitment to “excellence, glory and distinction.” Of more relevance, it exposed poor staff work and the thin executive talent of his supposedly young bright advisors.

In the tradition of parliamentary democracy, cabinet members are drawn largely from the elected members of the House of Representatives. Hence the importance of carefully selecting candidates for elections, as they would be the talent pool for cabinet and other senior appointments. Abdullah needs to cast his net wide and deep in search of talent.

Next: Vetting Election Candidates

Early Skirmishes Of A Malay Civil War

M. Bakri Musa

Recent attacks on churches are not a sign of an impending religious war in Malaysia. There is no doubting that in a plural society like ours those incendiary incidents could easily explode out of control. That notwithstanding, these recent ugly acts are merely sub-plots of a much larger and more dangerous drama that is now unfolding, one that is far more consequential and destructive. These are the early skirmishes of an explosive, protracted and very ugly civil war among Malays.

There is a definite pattern between these recent events and earlier ones involving only Malays, specifically the whipping of a young mother for consuming beer and the call for apostasy to be a capital offence. Connect the dots and you have a Malay community in deep conflict.

What struck me most with the recent spate of church arsons were the relatively muted responses from the victims. This reflected not merely a charitable “turning the other cheek” reaction, rather an intuitive realization by non-Muslims that they were not the target but merely innocent victims of a much larger conflict raging under the surface: a vicious Malay civil war. Those poor Christians were caught in a cross-fire in a conflict they did not realize was going on around them.

Contrast the reactions of non-Muslims to those of Malays. No, the Malay vitriol was not directed at non-Muslims rather to fellow Malays. On one side were those who view those attacks as debasing our great faith, and the other, those who consider them as the purest jihad. When commentators use epithets like “idiots,” “racists” and “pengkhianat” (traitors), we know this is a serious matter, beyond the reach of sensible dialogues.

The issue of the use of the word “Allah” is merely a symptom. Today it is over that, yesterday over Ketuanan Melayu versus Ketuanan Rakyat, while much earlier it was the use of English to teach science and mathematics. Tomorrow, God (or Allah) knows what else. Already some of the sultans are weighing in on this Allah issue. Expect another battle soon over the sanctity of the sultan’s titah (command) versus a court decision.

I do not mean to belittle the seriousness of those arson attacks on churches. Indeed it was hard to describe the sinking feeling in the pit of the my stomach as I watched CNN News, and the ticker tape kept blipping the latest newsbreak, “Fourth Church Attacked!” and then, “Fifth Church Arson Attack,” and now the eleventh, and realizing that those were happening not in war-torn Lebanon or strife-ridden Sudan but in our own “Truly Asia” Malaysia.

A more sickening feeling was seeing Home Minister Hishammuddin smugly ‘reassuring’ us that everything was ‘under control.’ That was after the third or fourth arson attack. He could hardly refrain from patting himself on the back for (presumably) a job well done. His “government’s commitment to maintain peace” had averted a major religious catastrophe, he asserted. Obviously to him, the damage wrecked was only the burnt buildings and scorched church doors.

Somebody ought to tell Hishammuddin to wipe the grin off his face, and make him realize that the enormous damage wrecked upon the nation went well beyond the physical defacements of those churches. Those can be readily fixed, with or without government grants. With simple technologies like surveillance cameras, those attacks could also be prevented.

Hishammuddin could not see beyond his broad nose the inevitable enormous economic fallouts, as in scaring away potential tourists and investors. Even a taxi driver realized that, but not Hishammuddin. If he cannot make that connection, I have little faith in his assurance of “everything under control.”

Deeply Polarized Malay Society

Bluntly put, what we are witnessing today are the external manifestations of a deeply divided and conflicted Malay society. This divide is already irreversible and unbridgeable; meaning, expect continuing turmoil with increasingly ugly and brutal skirmishes.

Civil wars are always much more brutal and difficult to resolve. Look at Indonesia. The Aceh insurrection, pitting essentially ethnic Malays against fellow ethnic Malays who are also Muslims, was more protracted, more vicious, and more difficult to resolve then the Irian Jaya conflict of the 1960s and 70s, or the anti-Chinese pogroms of the 1950s. The scars of those later conflicts, which began way after the Aceh rebellion, have all healed, but the wounds of Aceh are still raw, ready to flare up at any moment.

I do not anticipate Malaysia having another May 1969 race riot. Malaysians have come a long away since those dark days. Non-Malays in particular realized that the constraints of the NEP notwithstanding, they could still thrive in Malaysia. There are enough examples of successes to discredit those who would assert otherwise.

For Malays, gone too were the days when we would meekly and almost as a reflex follow our leaders or their dictates. When they tell us that the Christians have nefarious motive in using the word “Allah,” we scoffed at our leaders. Our leaders – hereditary, political, religious, and others – face unprecedented cynicism and scrutiny, and rightly so especially after they have failed us all these years.

What Malaysia faces today is an entirely new and novel challenge: conflict among Malays. We have never experienced that. We are used to considering ‘outsiders’ as enemies, beginning with the colonialists and later the ‘pendatangs’ (newcomers). We therefore cannot fathom much less anticipate this new ‘internal’ danger; it has yet to enter our collective consciousness. This lapse is most noticeable among our leaders; hence their continuing to egg on their followers, oblivious of the dangers.

Malay leaders have also failed to prepare us for the modern age. Instead of acknowledging and learning from their mistakes, these leaders resort to the oldest tricks, of creating phantom external enemies. Today the new enemies are those who would infringe upon our faith, or so our leaders would like us to believe.

There are still sufficient numbers of Malays who believe in rallying around their leaders especially during times of crisis, real or manufactured, the old circling-of-the-wagon instinct. These leaders, specifically in UMNO, are bankrupt of ideas on how to improve our lot. These manufactured enemies help divert our anger away from these leaders, so they hope. Their frequent and misplaced calls for Malay ‘unity’ are also part of this strategy.

As a society we have not learned to disagree agreeably. Again this is the deficiency of our leaders for they too have not demonstrated the ability to disagree among themselves civilly. The Mahathir-Anwar disagreement for example, nearly ripped our society apart, and we have yet to recover from that.

Our leaders lack the intellectual capacity or leadership qualities needed to solve the myriad problems facing our people, from the lack of jobs to rampant crimes, from our failing schools to corrupt institutions. About the only activity they are capable of is to engage in such puerile activities as worrying how the Christians address God.

There is not much that we can do about these leaders; they will continue their ineffective and destructive strategies until they are relieved of their leadership positions. In a democracy, that power resides only with the people. Thus the more we can let our people see through the hollowness of these leaders, and the hoax they are attempting to perpetrate upon us, the faster will these leaders reach their day of reckoning.

In these days of Internet, twitters, blogs and cell phones, the avenues for reaching and educating our people on the emptiness of our leaders are limitless. Thus it behooves us to enlighten our people, and we do this one person at a time. We need not convert everyone, only a sufficient critical mass. Once we reach that, the momentum will carry us through.

Only by getting rid of these incompetent and useless leaders could we ever hope of finding more enlightened ones who could diligently work through our many problems. This is the only route. The alternative would lead us to a civil war and a path of continued destruction.

 

Chapter 21: Gemilang, Cemerlang, Terbilang … atau Temberang?

(Excellence, Glory, and Distinction … or Merely Hot Air?)

Caution Versus Indecision

Regardless of how brilliant and skillful his aides and ministers are (few would fit that category anyway), the final direction must come from Abdullah. He must set the course as well as the tone, and then select the right personnel who would share that vision to execute it. One reason President Reagan was so popular and effective was precisely this. He knew the direction he wanted to take his country to, and selected brilliant individuals with proven accomplishments who shared his views to be on his team. They effectively carried out his mission because they believed in it. Had he hired the civil service or liberal types who love big government and whose political persuasions were at variance to his, it would have been counterproductive.

Abdullah is cautious in everything he does, including changing his team. This reflects his civil service mentality; nothing gets done until it has been vetted by committees and gone up the highest chain of command. This ingrained habit is for self-survival. When something goes wrong, no one could be held responsible. Abdullah’s caution accounts for his staying power under Mahathir. Abdullah survived by being unobtrusive. He cannot be expected to change now; that is his personality.

There is a fine line separating caution from indecision, but once you cross it, the boundary is glaring. This is where Abdullah is today. He hides his indecisiveness by asking for more studies and appointing more committees and Royal Commissions. The more information he gets, the more paralyzed he becomes. Paralysis by analysis, the plague of the indecisive!

Take the Royal Commission on abuses in the Police Force. It long ago submitted its detailed and voluminous report. His response? Yet another committee to study the recommendations! A few months later, when the police were again embroiled in another major public scandal over the abusive treatment of female detainees (the infamous naked ear squat episode), Abdullah again acted predictably. He formed yet another Commission of Inquiry. The remarkable aspect of this second scandal was that is was predictable. Had Abdullah acted on the first commission’s recommendations, this second embarrassment would have been prevented.

Abdullah’s impressive electoral victory should have emboldened him to get rid of the tired and tainted ministers. He did not. His advisors intimated that he did not do so because he had yet to consolidate his position within the party. Wait till the party’s upcoming leadership conference, they hinted. Unfortunately by this time, his party members had already sensed his indecisiveness, and rightly took that as a sign of weakness. At the party’s subsequent leadership conference, candidates aligned to him, including some of his ministers, were humiliated. Those who were aligned against him won, and won big.

The UMNO election debacle bared Abdullah’s impotence. Yet he continued his pattern of indecision, or as his apologists would put it, caution. By this time a new and personal element intruded; his wife’s fatal bout with breast cancer. The public, as usual, was kept in the dark until the very end. Her illness must have weighed heavily on him for he appeared even more distracted. His wife’s death affected him profoundly. Like Mahathir, Abdullah was spared the modern Malay blight of acquiring multiple wives. Wives are reduced by these Melayu Baru (New Malay) to being trophies of success, only slightly more expensive than a high end Proton. By all indications, Abdullah and the late Endon were very devoted to each other. Her death left him rudderless.

At my writing, nearly three years as prime minister, Abdullah has yet to find his bearings. His cheerleaders are fast running out of excuses. A sure sign that domestic issues are overwhelming him is his frequent trips abroad. He treats the government’s corporate jet as his private limousine for himself and his family, meaning his adult children and their spouses.

In April 2006, Abdullah cancelled the proposed half bridge to replace part of the Johore causeway. Earlier he and his ministers had assured everyone that the project would go ahead. Indeed the construction contracts had been signed. Then suddenly the government switched gears. The publicly stated reason was that the government was listening to the wishes of the people, but the price tag for the cancellation was massive.

Meanwhile Mahathir, who had not so subtly been criticizing from the sideline, lashed out with some rather harsh remarks, accusing Abdullah of selling the nation’s sovereignty. Mahathir was merely bringing to the fore what observers had long suspected: Abdullah would bend and shift at the slightest resistance. Mahathir’s exceptionally strong and strident criticisms surprised many and shook the Malay political establishment. Malay leaders are used to being put on a pedestal and never criticized. Abdullah assumed an above-the-fray stance, to play the sultan’s role and maintain what former Deputy Prime Minister Musa Hitam described as “elegant silence.” With Mahathir’s relentless assault and Abdullah’s own hapless performance, he (Abdullah) was reduced to being a Pak Bisu (the lovable deaf mute uncle).

The sycophantic mainstream media initially tried to “black out” Mahathir, but the wily old man effectively resorted to cyberspace and the alternative media. In the end, the mainstream media had to acknowledge Mahathir’s assault. That he was devastatingly effective in his criticisms exposed the sorry credibility of the mainstream media. They missed out on the more important theme, that is, the public too wanted answers.

Unlike many, I am not surprised with Mahathir’s strong reaction. Although he admitted to frequently misjudging individuals, and uncharitably let out that Abdullah was not his first choice as his successor, Mahathir does not shy away from correcting his errors no matter how late or at what price. Anwar Ibrahim certainly found that out, much to his great discomfort. Mahathir will not stop until this particular mistake of his (in selecting Abdullah) is rectified.

All is not lost; Abdullah could still redeem himself, but he must act fast and do something dramatic and wholly unexpected of him in order to regain his leadership. That is a very tall order.

It would require strong determination, and Abdullah does not have it. Further, the “warlords” within his party are even more entrenched and emboldened. Dislodging them would be near impossible. Corruption is rife and totally embedded in the government, party, and society. To make it worse, politics and the public service generally no longer attract talented Malaysians. They would rather opt for the more lucrative private sector or move abroad. Abdullah would have a tough time recruiting fresh talent.

Abdullah has two choices. One, a high risk and high reward strategy would be to initiate two or three bold moves much like what he did when he assumed office. His mistake then was that he did not execute those moves fully. Had he done so, it would have sent a bold message. Unfortunately, execution is Abdullah’s weakness.

Thus far Abdullah’s “bold” moves have been directed not at individuals but projects and programs, as with the canceling of the crooked causeway bridge and the double railroad tracks. He needs to be bold by getting rid of the tainted and tired ministers, and clipping the powers of the evidently corrupt warlords within UMNO regardless whether they are his supporters or aligned against him. Were he to “retire” the likes of Trade Minister Rafidah Aziz, Foreign Minster Syed Hamid, Works Minster Sammy Vellu, and others who have been in the cabinet for too long, that would send a strong message that the old ways are no longer acceptable. It would also reduce and streamline his bloated cabinet.

The risk would be that those warlords and tired ministers would gang up on Abdullah. On their own they would be ineffective, but combined they could launch an effective assault on him, not directly but by supporting his current deputy and would-be rival, Najib Razak. This action could be easily preempted. One, the mere threat of an Anti Corruption Agency investigation would settle down these ministers and warlords. Two, the political culture is such that once you lose power, you lose everything. Even such powerful personalities as Tengku Razaleigh and Anwar Ibrahim were sidelined very quickly once they lost power. The influence of the likes of Rafidah would simply dissipate once they are out of the cabinet.

To reduce the political risk even further, Abdullah would have to have an arrangement with Najib to dissuade him from being egged on by these discredited politicians to challenge Abdullah. Agreeing to retire and let Najib take over at a specified time would dissuade Najib not to be too adventurous. Such a private understanding between Abdullah and Najib would mean nothing anyway, for if Abdullah were to prove successful in streamlining his leadership and changing the direction of the nation, his stocks would soar, and Najib would then not dare challenge him.

The second strategy, which would tie in with the first, would be for Abdullah to be a Reagan. That is, choose a capable team and delegate everything, with Abdullah being primarily the Chairman of the Board, in effect a sultan. Such a role is in character with him. He is already good at and fond of playing the sultan: being detached and imperial. Abdullah is not good or quick at grasping details anyway, and awful at execution, so the role of sultan would suit him.

The problem is that while Abdullah likes to play the sultan, he does not exude any regal or charismatic qualities. The man cannot communicate effectively, in writing or orally. He is bland; he lacks Reagan-like qualities. Reagan had great charisma and was the Great Communicator. When he vowed to lead his people to that great shining city on the hill, Americans followed him willingly. When he declared that it was morning in America, they believed him. Abdullah has no such sways.

The second more formidable problem is that, unlike Reagan, Abdullah does not know where he would like to take the nation; he lacks the “vision thing.” Even if he could find competent individuals, it would be difficult for them to be on his team, as they do not know what his goals and directions are. They may not share them. To make it worse, Abdullah is in the habit of backtracking at the slightest obstacle. Early in his term he talked bravely of his “New Malay Dilemma,” of the need to wean Malays off their special privileges crutches. He has since backtracked, with UMNO Youth now openly agitating for extending the NEP. His 9MP keeps many elements of the NEP unchanged.

Giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he knows where to take the nation, he should focus on getting the right individuals who are not only competent but also share his vision and philosophy to serve on his team. Here are my suggestions on selecting Malaysia’s first team.

Next: Reforming the Leadership