Chapter 2: Why Some Societies Progress, Others Regress

The Seminal Role of the Individual

The preceding discussion focused on society. It is the function of society and its culture to mould its members into a preexisting pattern through socialization and acculturation. The intention is to maintain the status quo; it is necessarily static to ensure that the values and nature of that society are propagated and maintained; it is a mechanism to ensure societal stability.

Individuals are by nature unique, each of has our own preferences and choices, our likes and dislikes. Left to our own devices, human society will not be possible. We would be like a bunch of wild cats, marauding on our own. Ever try to corral a bunch of them? But even with wild animals a certain pack behavior is identifiable – a primordial societal form.

Thus we are faced with a dilemma. On one hand culture and society have essentially statist tendencies, but for progress to occur there must be change, and change inevitably threatens the status quo. Consequently throughout history progress has been the result of the works of individuals, not society.

When the first hunter-gatherers made the conversion to become farmers, this was not the result of a communal decision. Their pack leaders did not sit down and decide that they had had enough of the hunting life and wanted to settle down. More than likely there was one individual, probably an inquisitive young kid who discovered that he could plant wild seeds and at the end of the season found that he could enjoy a bountiful harvest. He probably related his discovery to other members of his family or they, on seeing that he was suddenly well fed and contented, went about to discover the secret of his newfound joy. Success is its own reward, and soon the idea spread. And like any other human inventions, others began improving on the idea, perhaps trying to plant other grains like corn. Yet others would develop the concept further by storing some of the seeds for planting in the next season, or trying to preserve them by storing in the ground or drying in the sun. Not long after that would emerge the idea of planning for the next growing season.

Wild animals too were probably domesticated in a similar fashion. Again, a group of primitives did not suddenly have a gathering and decide they would capture and tame some chosen wild sheep and goats. More than likely, a doting father gave his son a pair of baby wild sheep that were orphaned after he killed their mother. The little boy grew attached to them and when they were grown up he would not let his father kill them. The pair subsequently bred and suddenly the family had additional sheep without having to go out and hunt. Then the boy discovered that he could also drink what the lamb suckled from the mother’s teats. Voila! Milk was discovered, and the idea of a primitive dairy industry took hold.

It did not take long from there for ancient Homo sapiens to discover the utility of keeping baby sheep. Not only did they prove to be ideal toys for their children, those cuddly animals also provided a ready source of meat and milk. Further, they did not have to lug the meat around or preserve it in any way. It was made readily available fresh on the hoof at any time. Soon they would discover that the milk could be converted to cheese, the wool woven into blankets, and the hide into foot coverings and clothing.

All these developments started with one inquisitive individual with one novel idea, and with success, that idea was copied, amplified, and improved. A millennium later we have fancy Florsheim shoes and Armani woolen suits, their ingredients all coming from the ever-useful domesticated animal.

This pattern is repeated throughout history. The modern integrated circuit, the brain of the computer, was designed not by some high profile national committee or the brainchild of a farsighted leader, rather by an engineer tinkering around in the laboratory pursuing his imagination. From that basic invention, others would improve and capitalize on it. But it all began with the imagination of one person.

In the Malay legend Hikayat Abdullah, a story is told of a bright young boy who suggested that the sultan plant banana trees along the coast to absorb the impact of flying fish storming upon the beaches and impaling the citizens. The idea worked wonderfully, and many citizens were spared. Unfortunately, the sultan’s advisors warned that such a bright young man could prove to be dangerous. What other brilliant ideas would he come up with when he would be older? The sultan, sensing a threat, ordered the boy beheaded.

Imagine had the sultan and his hangers-on reacted differently. Suppose he had rewarded the bright kid, given him half the treasury, offered him the princess’s hand, and showered him with glamorous royal titles? That would certainly impress the kid; he would then think very highly of the sultan. It would also motivate the young man to come up with other innovations to benefit the sultan and his kingdom. More importantly, others would be encouraged to come up with similar brilliant ideas. One might suggest collecting the impaled fish and selling them in the market, or to convert them into animal feed. Or he may cut the snouts and convert them into artistic carvings of swords and daggers for sale to tourists. Yet another would develop the entire coastline into banana plantations and sell the fruit to passing ships. The possibilities are limitless. But by killing the boy the sultan effectively stifled any original ideas coming from his subjects. As for offering the princess’s hand to the bright young boy, at the very least that would have introduced much-needed “smart” genes into the royal family!

Thinking and creating are solitary activities; the work of individuals, not groups or committees. Great works of art, beautiful music, and creative insights are the accomplishment of individuals. The progress of human society depends on such persons. One innovation begets another, with no predictable outcome. The first man who tried domesticating wild animals could have been killed by strange bacteria like anthrax. Or he could have mistakenly tried to domesticate some primitive rattlesnakes, with equally fatal consequences. The man who tried to tame the rattlesnake probably thought he could solve his food problem and take care of the rat infestation in his cave at the same time. The hunter-gatherer who first planted the seeds could have harvested fruits that turned out to be sour or even poisonous. And the first man to chisel out a tool from a rock could have been blinded by the resulting flying chips, thereby discouraging others from pursuing that lead. Occasionally however, there will be success, and such discoveries would then spread and be improved upon.

Modern inventors may make fortunes out of their inventions. The man who designed the internal combustion engine may have raked in millions in profits and royalty fees, but the benefits to society of his invention are even greater. Bill Gates may be collecting billions for his software, but the value of his programs to society is many times more. Regardless of what his motivations were to write all those wonderful software – greed, curiosity, or a desire to be famous – he has nonetheless created a useful product that enables millions to be more productive in their work. In doing something for himself he has done a great deal for mankind.

This applies to all those ingenious inventors, past and present. We should not envy the bounty they received; rather we should consider the value of their inventions on society. Gates’ word processing software helped me not only in my personal writings but also in my office. In the past I would have to dictate my letters, my secretary would then transcribe them, and I would recheck the final form. If there were errors she would have to retype all over again. Now I do not even transcribe but simply pull down a template, change a few items here and there, and a new personalized letter is produced. Imagine the increased productivity! I do not have to depend as much on my secretary anymore for correspondence.

As for my bookkeeping, I thank Scott Cook, the man who designed the accounting software, Quicken. In the past I would spend literally days at the end of every year trying to balance my books and figure out my taxes. Now these data are readily available with the click of the mouse. The value of the software to me far exceeds whatever fortune Cook received.

Even if these inventors do not have a charitable motive, nonetheless through their inventions they have contributed immensely to society, much more than the average charity giver. I have little tolerance for those do-gooders who want to save society but in the end they themselves need to be helped. I hear ad nauseam Malay leaders out to “fight and save our race.” Often these national “heroes” could not even take care of themselves and their own children – their primary responsibility. In trying to save the nation they could not even save their own family.

To me the best contribution you can make is to take care of yourself and your family first so that you and they do not burden society. By being productive, a “maker” in the economy, you make your contributions. If each of us is a producer, then we can take better care of those amongst us who truly deserve our charity: the aged, the infirmed, and the disabled.

The problem today is that many are content with being “takers” of the economy. Amongst the worse culprits are the modern-day Robin Hoods who righteously proclaim their noble intentions to help the less fortunate by taking from the producers. Many of the social welfare programs of Western democracies are nothing but variations of this sophisticated Robin Hood-type redistributionist mentality.

In his book Makers and Takers, Edmund Contoski suggested modifying President Kennedy’s famous inaugural line: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Instead he suggested that the President should have said, “Ask what you can do for yourself.” I agree. After you have taken care of yourself and your family, then ask what you can do for your country.

When I was in high school in the 1950s there was much consternation on the lack of Malays in science. Malay politicians and leaders were exhorting the young to pursue the sciences. Many senior Malay science students then were under great pressure to mentor and tutor younger pupils. Many showpiece time-consuming tutoring programs were started. Unfortunately with their time taken up with mentoring, many of the mentors themselves suffered and failed in their own studies. Had those students concentrated on their own “selfish” personal goals of first excelling in their own studies, they would not only have helped themselves immensely but also at the same time furthered the cause of Malays much more effectively.

Today I still see many bright young Malay scientists and professionals consumed with trying to better the lot of their race at the expense of their own professional development. One scientist recently declined a prestigious post-doctoral appointment because he was in a rush to return “to serve his country.” I argued that he would serve Malaysia better by being as well trained as possible. He would advance the cause of Malaysian science much better by first being an accomplished scientist. In one’s eagerness to help society one sometimes shortchanges oneself, and ultimately the greater society. Sadly today that young scientist languishes in a remote corner of academia, the nation deprived of his full potential.

Thousands of Malay undergraduates today are diverted from their studies in their desire to “better their race.” They are consumed with political campaigning and ugly street demonstrations to the detriment of their studies. Little did they realize that they would serve society better by first excelling in their studies and then making their own contributions with the skills and knowledge that they have acquired. These students’ behaviors are conditioned by our culture. We can tell much about the values of a culture by seeing upon whom it bestows its honors and rewards. In Malay society we do not reward the producers, rather the takers. Peruse the royal honors lists. Rarely are our scientists, entrepreneurs, builders, and inventors honored. Instead we have these political do-gooders and assorted royal hangers-on. Societies progress best when they reward the producers.

Man has existed for over a million years, but 99% of the achievements of human civilization have occurred within the last millennium. The pace was even steeper within the last century. It is unlikely for humans to have changed greatly biologically within the last 1,000 years. Neither has the global climate and geography radically changed during that period. Yet during this time there have been phenomenal inventions and progress. Such advancements can only be attributed to human ingenuity, and not a function of geography or biology.

For Malaysia to advance, we must pay attention to our most valuable resource: our people. Society progresses best when it allows full expression and freedom for its individual members. And for every member of the community who is a producer, there would correspondingly be one fewer taker.

Totalitarian societies can never aspire for greatness; they seek total control of their members. Every significant progress in human civilization has been the result of the contributions of individuals. The Age of Renaissance that spawned modern Western civilization was a record of exemplary individual achievements in the arts and sciences.

I firmly believe that Allah in His wisdom and justness endows every society with its share of the gifted and talented. What a particular culture or society does with this divine gift will chart its future.

There is a natural aristocracy among men, observed Thomas Jefferson, and the grounds for this are virtue and talent. There is also the artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talent. Malaysia should aspire that its aristocratic class be made up of the virtuous and talented. It must ensure that its policies nurture this noble goal. Equally important we must enhance those elements in our culture that strengthen this ideal and at the same time negate those forces that place obstacles on the path of our natural aristocrats.

In the next two chapters I will cite examples of societies in the past and present to illustrate and amplify the points discussed here.

Next: Chapter 3: Lessons From The Past

Quality, Quantity, and Equity in Malaysian Education #2
M. Bakri Musa
[Second of Three Parts]

[In Part One I discuss the crucial role of workers’ cognitive abilities (language skills, mathematical competency, and science literacy) rather than years of formal schooling in determining and contributing to a country’s economic development. In this second part, I address quality, quantity and equity in Malaysian education.]

Trinity of Quality, Quantity, and Equity

The UN lauds Malaysia for meeting – indeed exceeding – the Millennium Development Goal of universal primary education. I caution against taking too seriously such praises. The UN works from the base of such countries as Afghanistan and Sub Sahara Africa; they should not be our reference point.

The dilemma of quality versus quantity is old and familiar. Retired Malaysians wistfully remember the old colonial English schools. Yes, they were good, and when you scored an “A” then, you knew that you were on par with those students in London and elsewhere who also scored an “A.” It was essentially the same examination. There was pride of achievement in that.

However, when you cater only to a tiny fraction of the population, you cannot claim credit for the success. Natural selection alone would guarantee you that.

Beyond the quality-quantity dilemma, those excellent colonial schools exposed yet another problem, that of access. Being only in urban centers, they effectively blocked out those in the villages. In a country where the urban-rural divide also paralleled (still does) racial and socio-economic cleavages, that was untenable and a recipe for social disaster.

Thus we have the added problem of equity to the already challenging quality-quantity conundrum. Again, this is not unique to Malaysia. America too faces its own equity problem, with well-funded suburban schools on one hand and dilapidated inner city schools on the other. As with Malaysia, race and socio-economic class compound that cleavage.

It is imperative that we address the trilemma of quality, quantity, and equity simultaneously; they are not incompatible. Achieving quality at the expense of quantity or equity is no victory. Quite apart from the inherent unjustness, it is hard for quality to be consequential in a sea of mediocrity. And if there is no equity in the system, it is simply not sustainable.

Equity at the expense of quality is hollow. That is socialism – yes, we are all equal, but equally poor. As for quantity without quality, that too is futile. Besides, it would doubly hard and more expensive to repair a damaged system; better to create a good one right from the very beginning.

Addressing all three would require a prodigious amount of commitment, an awareness of the obstacles, and a healthy dose of humility. The commitment would be not only of resources but also and perhaps more importantly, in leadership and political will.

Resources are necessarily limited; they must thus be expended prudently. Throwing money at a problem does not solve it; indeed that may spawn even greater problems like graft.

MARA spends billions to educate Malays through its expensive residential schools. The initial idea was great. Gather bright kids from poor rural areas and put them in residential schools where they would get good nutrition, modern living conditions, and superior educational opportunities. The impact would be greater than had resources been thinly spread through village schools, with each getting only a small fraction and not enough to make a substantial difference.

Indeed during the first decade or two, these schools worked as anticipated despite obvious leakages as with ministers’ children also being admitted. One wonders how much more effective it would have been had those children of the privileged been excluded.

However, good ideas, like good durians, have a shelf life. Today with urbanization, there are as many urban as rural poor Malays. As such, fully residential schools make less sense. MARA could instead have day schools in the towns to cater for those poor Malays in the area and thus save money in not having to house and feed them. If these schools were to have hostel facility, let it be limited to those living far away

Scrutinize MARA’s budget for education; the bulk would actually be spent on such non-educational items as feeding and housing the students. Yet in the statistics, those funds would be classified as expenditures on education.

Visit Malay College; the biggest building there is not the library or laboratories, but dormitories. The college will soon open its multimillion-dollar IB center. Again here, the bulk of the space and resources are not for education but simply to house and feed the students. Imagine if the center were to be a day facility (like the old Taylor College), it would be considerably cheaper to build and operate. You could then have three or four similar IB centers for the same cost, and benefiting that many more students, thus achieving both quantity and quality. And if we spread those centers around the country, we would also increase access, thus enhancing equity.

We could further increase quantity without sacrificing quality if we were to restrict entry only after Form III. Taking in students at Form I (the current practice) not only wastes scarce resources but is also psychologically unhealthy. Children should not be taken away from their families at such a tender and formative age.

On a smaller scale but in the aggregate quite large, if we restrict admission only to students in the immediate vicinity, we could save considerable transportation costs. Right now those ‘education’ costs are actually spent on chartering buses to transport students at the beginning and end of the school term. Think of the many library books and laboratory equipment that could be had if the money were not spent on those buses and train vouchers!

It is wasteful to have students from Kelantan attend MARA schools in Johore, while those in Klang Valley have to go to Kota Baru. A generation ago that was a good idea. Malays were parochial then and lacked a national identity. Thanks to the mobility of today’s society, that is no longer the case. So why persist on a resource-wasting practice that no longer serves its purpose?

Returning to Malay College, you would cry seeing the decrepit facilities. This is true of all the residential schools, even relatively new ones. Some MARA schools are now asking parents to take their children home during weekends to spare feeding expenses!

Query the stakeholders and their reflex answer would be to ask the government for more money. A typically Malay response! Yet there is one obvious and ready solution. Charge the parents, on a sliding scale based on taxable income. Even back in my days in the early 1960s there were quite a few who afford the full fare. A few of Mahathir’s children attended these expensive residential schools for free when he was Prime Minister.

With the extra revenue these schools could enhance their curricular offerings and physical facilities. More importantly, the thought of having to fork out those expenses might prompt rich parents to think twice about enrolling their children, thus freeing up slots for children of the poor.

Similar more efficient allocation of resources could be had at our universities. Currently the bulk of the new students have only SPM. The university thus wastes academic and other resources catering to those doing essentially Form VI in the first year. If we were to expand Form VI and restrict university admission only to those from there, the students would not only be better prepared but they would also get more out of the same number of their undergraduate years.

The universities’ matrikulasi and diploma programs are also a colossal waste as these could be undertaken more cheaply and effectively elsewhere, as at schools and polytechnics. Yes, there was a time when concurrently running the diploma program represented the optimal use of scarce campus facilities, but those days are now long gone. Today, our universities should focus only on academic activities that could not be done elsewhere, that is, education at the undergraduate and graduate level.

Scrutinize the typical university budget; the bulk (both operating as well as capital) is for non-academic purposes, as in feeding and housing the students, faculty quarters, and vice-chancellor’s residence. Today’s university is not only an academic institution but also a major hotel with long-term ‘guests’ in the thousands. This of course is a necessity but there is no reason why such non-academic activities could not be ‘out-sourced,’ thus freeing the university of the onerous burden. Marriott, the giant hospitality company, feeds and houses students on many American campuses. If Malaysian universities were to do the same, they could then send their deputy VCs in charge of housing back to teaching and doing research.

Malaysian universities also have extensive housing units for their staff. Again this is a waste. Some American universities also provide housing, but to attract young faculty members who otherwise would go elsewhere. In contrast, housing on Malaysian campuses are for established staff members who are not necessarily academics. Often they stay on long after they have retired!

There is waste at another albeit lower (cost-wise) level. I once met a Malaysian dean at a scientific convention in America. He had first class air ticket and stayed at a five-star hotel. Had he traveled economy and stayed at a more modest facility, he could have taken three or four of his fellow faculty members to that meeting. Imagine the good that would do to his staff and institution!

His excuse was that per civil service code he was ‘entitled’ to first class treatment. There we go again, that entitlement mentality! You cannot get rid of it even after you become dean and vice-chancellor.

Effectively addressing quality, quantity and equity would require efficient allocation of resources. That however, would require another commitment – from the leadership. This is desperately lacking.

Prime Minister Najib exhorts our graduates to discard their budaya menuggu dan pasif (culture of waiting and passivity), yet he is blind to the onerous and highly intrusive rules that govern our students. It is like challenging them to explore the wider world but at the same time keeping them on a tight leash.

Our leaders also keep reminding us of the importance of English, yet they shy away from making that a requirement for university entrance. They decry the lack of qualified workers in science and technology, but examine our public universities and the bulk of the resources are devoted to other than those fields. To reemphasize, effectively addressing quality, quantity and equity would require the commitment of not only resources but also and more importantly, leadership and political will.

Next: Part Three: Clinical Trials in Educational Initiatives

Chapter 2: Why Some Societies Progress, Others Regress

Culture As Society’s Looking Glass

Culture also influences the way one views the world, both physical and social. Culture acts as a collective looking glass. In my earlier book The Malay Dilemma Revisited, I recounted how the British, in trying to encourage Malays to save, increased the interest rates on postal saving accounts (the only banking facility subscribed to by Malays then). To the surprise of the British, Malays did not respond. The greater the inducement (higher interest rates) the less responsive Malays were. It appeared to those British economists that Malays did not respond to the usual economic incentives.

It took the brilliance of an indigenous economist, Ungku Aziz, to appreciate that on the contrary, Malays are indeed diligent savers. Visit any Malay house in the kampong of the past, and there hanging in the roof of the serambi (verandah) was a cut bamboo, tabong, in which the homeowner had put his saved money. When the time of need arrived, the bamboo would be split open and out came the savings. Malays saved for the pilgrimage to Mecca (dear to all Muslims), weddings, and old age. They did not use the conventional institutions because Malays equated interest with usury, which is haram (forbidden) in Islam. Thus Malays viewed the colonials’ raising the interest rates as enticing us to a life of sin. Those white devils!

Ungku Aziz successfully overcame Malays’ reluctance to savings by setting up a mutual fund-like institution, Tabong Haji (Pilgrimage Fund), and declared the returns not riba (interests) but faedah (dividends). Thus by putting a different spin, he managed to overcome what seemed like a monumental cultural barrier. Today Tabong Haji, a vehicle for Malay savings, is the biggest mutual fund in Southeast Asia. Its success is an enduring tribute to the brilliant imagination of one man.

A subtle yet very revealing effect of culture is demonstrated by how the Canadians and Americans view that wonder of nature: Niagara Falls. Many outside of North America would lump the Canadians and Americans into one “western” or American culture. Nothing would offend the Canadians more than to be thus considered. Americans and Canadians may look alike but culturally there is a subtle if not vast difference.

To the Americans, Niagara Falls represented a source of cheap energy, to be harnessed. And they did, building the first hydroelectric power plant and introducing alternating current as a means of widely distributing that energy efficiently. Industry soon rapidly developed on the American side of the falls, with great textile and other manufacturing plants. The area rapidly became an industrial heartland.

The Canadians on the other hand view the waterfalls esthetically, valuing their natural beauty, and not as a resource to be exploited. They want to share with all of mankind this natural wonder, and created a booming tourist industry around it. Niagara Falls is now a traditional destination for honeymooners.

Fast forward to half a century later, with the discovery of cheap oil other industrial centers developed in America. With that the industrial might of the city of Buffalo on the American side of Niagara Falls was eclipsed. Today, many of those great industrial plants of yore are shuttered. Buffalo epitomizes America’s rust belt. Meanwhile on the Canadian side, tourists are still flocking to see this wondrous sight. That same American culture that viewed nature as something to be conquered, tamed, and exploited that worked so wonderfully well in the past is now an obstacle. What has changed is the external environment, in this case the availability of cheap oil.

In discussing the role of culture we have to be careful of two things. One is to discern the truly effective contributory attributes and not just the accompanying epiphenomenona of success; that is, the causes and not the effects. Two, in trying to modify one’s culture to adapt to modern changes, we do not threaten the very integrity of that culture.

There is some squeamishness in discussing culture in the context of human development. Done crudely and with the wrong choice of words, you will be miscast as a racist. It does not help that many who advocate the crucial role of culture often let slip their underlying prejudices and stereotypes. The recent drumbeat of those who loudly proclaim the supposed superiority of Asian values, in their smugness, do let slip and expose their darker side. Confucian values may or may not be the reason for the Asian economic miracle, but this same culture that values familial loyalty and blood ties also contributes to cronyism and clannishness. In its extreme form it gives rise to triads and other secret societies. And if those esteemed Confucian values were indeed responsible for the recent Asian miracle, then why did they fail in Mainland China? Communism could not save China from the perversion of Confucianism, but capitalism (albeit limited) does.

Another example is the potlatch ceremony of Native Americans of the Northwest where the host family would lavishly distribute gifts to invited guests with the full expectations that such gestures would be reciprocated. This later degenerated into an orgy of wasteful expensive exchanges. Anthropologists have long sought an explanation for this phenomenon. To my mind this was an early form of wealth circulation, later to be corrupted into wanton wastefulness and conspicuous ostentations. Whatever the rationale, such rituals were banned in 1884 because of the flagrant waste. The ban was not lifted until a later age of enlightenment in 1951, but by that time the natives had long lost interest in the tradition.

In discussing culture it is good to be reminded of the wise observation of the former Harvard scholar and longtime US Senator, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, as quoted in Culture Matters, “The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.” The abolition of the potlatch ritual is one such example of a beneficial cultural mutation brought on through the political channel.

The pertinent lesson here is that culture can be changed, both slowly and abruptly, for the good of its members. It is this observation that provides the impetus and rationale for the modern study of the role of culture in human progress.

Next: The Seminal Role of the Individual

Quality, Quantity, and Equity in Malaysian Education #1
M. Bakri Musa
[First of Three Parts]

Quality Education and Economic Development

In referring to the low quality of our labor pool, the New Economic Model Report cites statistics showing that 80 percent of our workers have only SPM level (11 years) of schooling. That surprises me, not the figure rather the fact that the SPM is now viewed as inadequate.

That observation reflects more on the quality of our education system than it does of our workers. For had our education system maintained its quality, and today’s SPM is of the same caliber as the old Cambridge School Certificate “O” Level, then I would argue that our workers are among the most highly educated.

Members of the National Economic Action Council (they wrote the NEM Report) are old enough to appreciate that when they obtained their O-level certificate, they were in command of sufficient intellectual and other skills to prepare them well for life. The same cannot be said of today’s SPM, as the Report clearly implies.

In suggesting that Malaysian workers should have more years of education, the folks at NEAC are falling into the same trap that had ensnared others, of confusing quantity with quality of education. For if our education system stinks (it certainly does!), then it does not matter whether our workers have college degrees; they still will not be well prepared for the workplace, as attested by the already thousands of unemployed graduates.

As declared in the Center for Global Development’s A Millennium Learning Goal: Measuring Real Progress in Education, we should “focus on the real target of schooling: adequately equipping the nation’s youth for full participation as adults in economic, political and social roles.” School completion alone is an inadequate indicator of this. Likewise, generous funding, low pupil/teacher ratio, and physically grandiose schools and universities do not necessarily reflect quality education.

Consider years of schooling. One can readily appreciate that a year at an Indonesian high school is not the same as at a South Korean one. Even within a country, there are significant variations, as with an inner city school in South Chicago and one in the heart of Silicon Valley, California. In California, the students are challenged with calculus; in inner city Chicago they struggle with “consumer math.”

As for pupil/teacher ratio, South Korean classrooms are more crowded than American ones, yet that does not negatively impact the learning of the Korean children.

Earlier cross-national studies attempting to relate workers’ educational levels with a country’s economic performance used such readily obtainable data as the level of funding, pupil/teacher ratio, and years of schooling. Even with such crude measurements economists were able to conclude confidently that workers’ educational levels correlate well with a nation’s economic development.

That however, could be the effect and not the cause. It could be that when a country is rich, it could afford to spend more on education rather than the investment in education making that country rich.

Such studies also exposed some glaring anomalies. Latin American countries have universal education yet their economies have been underperforming. Egypt and South Korea spend proportionately the same on education, with their young having comparable levels of schooling, yet their economies are a universe apart. What gives?

The OECD made a cross-national study of its labor force focusing specifically on cognitive (in particular reading and mathematical) abilities rather than years of schooling. As can be appreciated, this was a much more formidable undertaking than merely comparing national statistics that may or may not be actually comparable. The findings of this much more rigorous study are even more impressive, confirming not only the earlier findings but also explaining the anomalies.

OECD has since refined and expanded its studies to include developing countries. The resulting Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) survey is sufficiently rigorous to conclude that workers’ cognitive skills are causally (not just statistically) correlated with economic development across a broad spectrum of countries, from developing to developed ones. Meaning, a country could not develop economically if its workers are cognitively not up to par, regardless of the number of years of formal education.

The relevant cognitive skills relate to critical thinking, language abilities, mathematical competence, and science literacy. It should not surprise us that Indonesia, Bolivia and Peru remain economically backward considering that, as per PISA findings, the average reading ability of Indonesian students was equivalent to that of the lowest seven percent of French students; the average mathematics score of Brazilian students was equal to the lowest scoring Danish students; while the average science score of Peruvian students was equal to the lowest five percent of American students, despite the same number of years spent in school.

Malaysia was not included in the PISA study but it did participate in the Third (1999) International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMMS – R). We scored somewhere in the middle, way behind Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. And so is our economy.

Malaysian leaders and educators do not like to be reminded of this; instead they would prefer us to focus on the fact that we are still ahead of Indonesia, Bolivia and Peru.

The American performance in TIMMS was not impressive either, and that prompted much soul searching. By way of contrast, in Malaysia I have not heard of any official pronouncements or seen academic papers on the subject. The only analyses done on the Malaysian performance on TIMMS were conducted by Malaysian-born American scholars.

Americans realize that they need a skilled workforce to create innovative products and start new entrepreneurial ventures that would drive economic development.

The American performance at TIMMS illustrates another apparent anomaly. While American students lag behind those of Asia and many OECD countries, the American economy outperforms theirs. At first glance this would negate PISA’s conclusion.

Two factors explain the apparent American anomaly. The first relates to the American curriculum and system of teaching. Since this is more important, let me dispose quickly of the second factor, that is, American industries, often supported by public funds, devote substantial resources to training and continually upgrading their workers’ skills.

My hospital has a department devoted entirely to the continuing professional education of its nurses, doctors and other personnel. American editors for example, regularly send their reporters to writing classes and to hear from luminaries in their fields.

For contrast, query any Malaysian civil servant on when was the last time he attended a course that would contribute to his professional development, and you would draw a blank. The response would be the same if you were to ask what professional journals he subscribes or reads regularly.

Returning to the more important first factor, while it is true that American students do not do well in science and mathematics, they shine in the critical and creative thinking department. Unfortunately these skills are not tested by TIMMS or indeed any pencil-and-paper test. The American curriculum, both at school and college levels, does not emphasize rote memory and regurgitation at examination time. Instead the focus is on critical and independent thinking. Thus American students have “open book” and “take home” examinations, a concept incomprehensible to Malaysians. American test questions probe your ability to think critically, not regurgitate textbook or lecture contents.

For those who find an “open book” examination incomprehensible, let me suggest some examples. If Hikayat Hang Tuah were a text in an American course, a typical examination question would be:

The central injunction of our Quran is to “command good and forbid evil.” To what extent have the three main characters (Hang Tuah, Hang Jebat, and the Sultan of Melaka) followed this creed?

For Shahnon Ahmad’s Ranjau Se Panjang Jalan, a suggested question would be:

Describe three major ranjau (obstacles) faced by Lahuma (the central character). Imagine yourself the assigned caseworker. How would you guide him to overcome them?

Come to think of it, this would also be a good intellectual exercise for my readers who have read both great works of Malay literature!

As can be seen, those questions make you think. Further, there is no right or wrong answer. Such exercises in critical and creative thinking are the norm in an American classroom. It is this that accounts for the continuing innovativeness, remarkable resilience, and entrepreneurial vigor of the American economy.

Consider this. The American University in Cairo, which has an American curriculum and teaching style, has an enrolment of about 5,000, less than one percent of the total undergraduates in that country. Yet at the Egyptian embassy in Washington, DC, a prestigious posting where only the best get chosen, 40 percent of the staff are AUC graduates. The Egyptian establishment has rendered its judgment as to the quality of that institution, and by implication, the rest of the country’s universities, including its most famous and oldest, Al Azhar.

Undergraduates at AUC are required to take a course, “The Human Quest: Exploring the Big Questions,” where they pursue such queries as, “Who am I?” and, “What does it mean to be a human?”

The Asian ‘tigers,’ their robust economies notwithstanding, appreciate the value and uniqueness of the American system of liberal education; they strive to make their own more ‘American.’

Singapore consciously does this, but is burdened by the fact that it relies on current personnel (teachers, administrators, and policymakers) and institutions to effect these changes. Unfortunately they have been brought up under the old rigid system. I never underestimate the power of inertia, systemic as well as personal. It is especially difficult for individuals to change as that would mean repudiating the very system that had brought them to where they are today.

South Korea imports wholesale American schools, complete with the teachers and texts. As these schools are expensive, only the children of the elite could afford to enroll. In a way that would be a quick and effective channel of changing the whole system as those students are destined to be influential in their country.

Japan brings in thousands of young Americans to teach English under the JET program. Although they are primarily for teaching English, nonetheless their teaching methods and styles would inevitably spill over to the ‘native’ teachers.

Thailand recognizes the limitations of its current personnel and institutions to effect changes. Consequently it attacks the problem frontally by opening up the system. Thus international schools, primarily British and American, are mushrooming there. As in South Korea, these schools are affordable only to the elite. However, because of the ensuing competition from the sheer number of new entries, the costs have come down substantially and these schools are now within the reach of the middle class. Such schools would spawn a new revolution in education in that country.

These countries realize that they have to go beyond the numbers, as with the number of school years or universities, and focus instead on quality. These excellent schools are still far from being the norm; those countries still face the major challenge of access, and thus equity.

How should Malaysia approach the dilemma of quantity versus quality, as well as the issue of equity in her education system? The rest of this essay is my attempt at answering this.

Next: The Trinity of Quality, Quantity, and Equity

Chapter 2: Why Some Societies Progress, Others Regress

“Progressive” Versus “Static” Cultures

In 1999, Harvard’s Academy for International and Area Studies convened a symposium whose proceedings were published in the book, Culture Matters. As expected, the contributors are committed believers of the creed that cultural factors shape economic and political development. The natural corollary would be how can we ameliorate or negate factors in the culture that are obstacles to progress and encourage those that facilitate it.

Societies can be divided into those that have “progressive culture,” that is, a value system that promotes development within that society, and “static culture,” which of course favors the status quo, and thus lack of progress.

Time orientation, with the emphasis on the future rather than the present or the past, is one trait of a progressive society. This future must not be too far ahead as in the hereafter (the preoccupation of medieval Christians and present-day fundamentalist Muslims), rather for the immediate future of the present life. With this emphasis on the future comes the attendant attribute of planning for that future. With the planning comes savings, frugality, and other positive values that are conducive to economic growth. Societies with static culture have little time orientation, have no concept of the future, and thus see little need for planning. They also do not value time. In short, it is the manana culture encapsulated thus: why do today what can wait till tomorrow.

Other attributes valued by a progressive society include emphasis on rationality instead of grand symbolism. Authority in progressive societies resides in institutions and the law, not with individual leaders. Members of a progressive society view the world with optimism. They thank God for having been given the opportunity to enjoy in and benefit from His creation. They consider the world as a place for personal improvement and salvation. Those of a static society on the other hand, consider the world as a temporary abode, and look upon life pessimistically. In a progressive society the members believe in their own ability; in static societies they believe their fate is predestined or based on luck. Education in a progressive society is meant to liberate citizens and to develop their critical thinking; in static societies education is more for indoctrination and to mould citizens into preconceived patterns.

Apart from these attributes, progress depends less on what a particular nation has, rather on how it uses its resources, including and especially its human resources. While classical economists write about comparative advantages, today the decisive factor is competitive advantage. America with its high labor costs can still produce rice far more competitively (that is at a much lower price per unit of output, in this case for example, a pound of rice) than China or Thailand because American farmers are so much more productive. Consequently American rice is cheaper than that from Thailand.

The role of culture cannot be simplistically reduced to repeating the clichés on the importance of hard work, frugality, savings, and education. Chinese farmers are considerably more hardworking than Americans, but Chinese farmers remain poor. Similarly with education; India has millions of college graduates but they ended up as well-educated petition writers and taxi drivers. Thus education has limited potential if it does not emphasize critical thinking and language skills, as well as mathematics and the sciences, or if the system denigrates vocational and technical education. Likewise savings; at one time frugality and the high savings rate helped the Japanese become an economic power but today, those same admirable qualities are choking Japan’s economic recovery by dampening consumer demands.

According to Harvard’s Michael Porter, it is the subset of economic culture – the beliefs, attitudes, and values that bear on economic activities of individuals, organizations and institutions – that are pertinent. These may be either productivity enhancing or conversely, productivity eroding.

David Landes in his book The Wealth and Poverty of Nations suggests that an important invention of Western civilization is the clock. It enables one to keep a precise measurement of time. That invention however, is only valued in a time-orientated society. In a manana culture, it would be a superfluous if not useless invention.

To ancient Arabs, the gifts of clocks and timepieces were valued for their ornamental values. The information those machines gave was of little relevance. When ancient Arabs were told it was 5 PM, their immediate response was, “Is that before or after Asar (late afternoon) prayers?” Their day revolved around prayer times as determined by the position of the sun, not the face of a watch or clock. Today’s Arabs however, after long association with the West and the subsequent absorption of “decadent” Western values as the importance of time, would instead ask, “What time is Asar prayers?” Thus cultural values can and do change!

I am reminded of an incident in Malaysia when I was waiting for a boat to take me to a village across the river. Tired of waiting, I enquired of a fellow passenger when the next boat would arrive. He immediately eyed me suspiciously. Obviously I was a stranger to ask such a silly question. What do you mean by what time the next boat will arrive? It arrives when it arrives! To those villagers, time is meaningless. Only tourists slumming about would want to know precisely when the next boat would arrive!

The attitude towards work is also instructive. In progressive cultures, work is regarded as a creative activity, treasured, and central to one’s life. That is, hard work is valued intrinsically. Work is a form of self-expression, and the culture appropriately rewards productive and creative endeavors. With static cultures, work is disparaged, regarded as a burden, to be done only by the lowest members of that society. Status is measured by how far one is detached from labor or work of any kind. In ancient China, the mark of high status was a pair of clean, callus-free hands with long fingernails.

A differing cultural view towards work can be illustrated by the joke about the White rancher and the Native American Indian. The rancher was upbraiding the poor native for not working. “Why should I?” replied the Indian. “So you could earn and save some money now. Then when you would have enough money you could retire and not work anymore,” admonished the rancher. “Well, I am not working now,” came the immediate retort. True, that native may have reached his nirvana sans working, and sooner than the rancher, but his society would pay the price eventually. The rancher presented only the instrumental value of hard work, and that did not impress the Indian. Had the rancher presented work for its intrinsic value, like making the land more beautiful and productive so it could feed society, that might have impressed the Indian.

Yet another feature of a progressive society is its attitude and receptiveness to new ideas and learning. There is constant yearning to discover better ways of doing things, a curiosity to discover and to explore the world beyond and within. Ancient Muslims certainly had these noble attributes. They avidly learned from the Greeks and Romans. That was the Golden Age of Islam. Much of the contemporary success of East Asian societies is due to this devotion to learning. With the emphasis on learning comes the value of merit. In contrast, static societies do not value learning; family connections, tribal linkages, and casts determine one’s fate, not merit.

Ibn Khaldun’s asibayah, or social capital, is another important attribute. With static communities, trust and identification rarely extend beyond the immediate family and clan; such societies have a very narrow “radius of trust.” They are prone to nepotism and tribalism, and have little sense of charity and philanthropy beyond blood and clan ties. In contrast, a progressive culture’s radius of trust extends far beyond kin and kind.

Religion plays a significant role in static societies. In Medieval Europe, the church was the central authority. Today if one were to plot the influence of formal religion against the economic status of a society, there is a definite inverse correlation. That is, the stronger the formal religious establishment, the poorer the nation. Islam has Afghanistan and Iran; the Catholics have the whole of Latin America and the Philippines.

This does not mean that the members of successful societies are less religious; on the contrary they are indeed very religious when measured by such criteria as their generosity and tolerance. It is very revealing that the two most modern Islamic countries, Malaysia and Turkey, are essentially secular.

Secular status is not a prerequisite for progress; atheistic communism would disabuse one of such a notion very quickly. What I am saying is that the heavy emphasis on traditional religion, with its preoccupation with the afterlife, is a drag on progress. In a later chapter (11) on free enterprise, I will relate how a novel reinterpretation of traditional Christianity by John Calvin and other reformers paved the way for the development of modern capitalism.

The role of culture may be encapsulated thus: It helps steer members of that group into becoming either producers or takers, and this in turn will determine whether

that society progresses or remains static.

Next:  Culture as Society’s Looking Glass

Coming Back Swinging!

M. Bakri Musa

It is the mark of a great leader that having encountered an obstacle, would bounce right back to plan the next offensive strategy. The results of the Hulu Selangor by-election have yet to be officially ratified, and already Zaid Ibrahim has come out swinging to challenge the legitimacy of the election process and the validity of the outcome. A flawed process produces flawed results.

In springing right back, Zaid demonstrates an admirable ability to focus on winning the war and not be distracted by the loss of a battle. That is the measure of a great general.

Lesser leaders would have taken the easy path out. Those with shaky integrity and even shakier commitment would readily switch sides at the first tribulation, with or without sweet promises. There were many such examples in the recent Hulu Selangor by-election.

Not Zaid. He is suing the Elections Commission alleging that it “allowed intimidation, false information, and unfair and illegal electoral practices by the Barisan Nasional machinery.” Additionally, Zaid is suing Utusan Malaysia for libel.

I hope Zaid would also sue those irresponsible and malicious bloggers who posted doctored pictures of him for the sole purpose of offending Muslim sensibilities. A few such suits would reduce the stench that has descended lately on the Malaysian blogosphere, and do it far more effectively than all the whining of Information Minister Rais Yatim.

Those scumbag pseudo commentators need to be reminded, forcefully if need be as with a libel suit, that freedom of speech does not mean freedom to slander. Even in America where freedom of speech is a religion, you are not free to indulge in false and malicious gossips, at least not publicly, and certainly not on the Internet.

Thus far Zaid has restrained himself on the grounds that those whoring bloggers are anonymous, and that there are too many of them. And like real whores, those bloggers are also being paid for their ‘services.’ I would argue that those are compelling reasons to go after them. Zaid would render the nation a great service if his lawsuits were to reduce the number of these prostituting bloggers. At the very least he would establish case laws on this new medium.

Get to Know Your Leaders

As Zaid rightly reminded us in his post-election press conference, “Every citizen has a fundamental right to vote. But this right is meaningless if he is not able to exercise it because his name is removed from the electoral roll without his knowledge; or if he is intimidated or bribed or given all kinds of inducements to influence his choice.”

Even if Zaid does not prevail in court, his lawsuit would expose the pathetic incompetence and willful negligence of our election officials. That would be educational as well as entertaining. I would love to see them squirm with their repeated “I was directed … !” or, “It is not my job!” responses during cross examination.

Apart from exposing the corruption of our electoral process, Zaid’s lawsuit would also highlight the ethical lapses of our leaders. If future elections were to be cleaner and fairer as a result of his legal actions, then Zaid would have done a great national service.

He should view those legal expenses as an investment towards a better Malaysia. Although it is within his capacity to fund the endeavor, I would suggest that he form a non-profit entity for the sole purpose of using the courts and legal challenges to expose corruption and incompetence, and to seek public support for that purpose. Model it after the American Civil Liberties Union. The response should be overwhelming; the public is fed up. This would also be a productive way for people to channel their anger and help rid the pestilence of corruption in our society.

Zaid is not limiting his battle only to the courtroom. He has extended it into the far more consequential court of public opinion, in particular Malay public opinion, with his “Get To Know Your Leaders” campaign.

Now that UMNO leaders like Mahathir has lowered the bar on what is fair and permissible in an election campaign, Zaid should not hesitate in exposing the hypocrisy of these leaders. Before the election he assured his former UMNO colleagues that their secrets would be safe with him and that he had no intention of following the polluted path they had plunged into. Now that they (and voters) have deemed those details legitimate campaign material, Zaid owes the public a duty in exposing the hypocrisy of those leaders.

In labeling them as hypocrites, Zaid was deliberate in his choice of word. That label has deep Quranic references and thus profound emotive implications with Muslims. It is the most contemptuous condemnation.

There are indications that this label may stick, with Malays responding strongly to it. God knows, Malaysians are already immune to such labels as “corrupt,” “immoral,” or “incompetent,” as reflected by such individuals being repeatedly re-elected. Isa Samad, Chua Soi Lek and Abdullah Badawi are ready examples.

Take corruption. Through their animal greed and perverted ethics, our leaders view the bounties of bribery and hogging of the public trough as Allah’s blessings; hence their ready acceptance of both, as with our ‘humble’ Imam of Islam Hadhari accepting the ‘gift’ of millions worth of prime public land to build his grandiose istana. The label “corrupt” or “breach of faith” is foreign to such leaders, but only the label though, not the deeds.

We are already seeing intimations of the severe sting of this new “hypocrite” label. UMNO Youth’s Khairy Jamuluddin became unusually defensive and hostile when questioned on whether he had ever imbibed alcohol. He never did answer. Home Minister Hishammuddin was quick to disassociate himself from his party’s indulgence in this latest litmus test of alcohol abstention. He knows that this one could strike close to home.

In responding to a reporter’s remark that Mahathir had denied ever drinking alcohol, Zaid pointedly called him a hypocrite. To a Muslim ear, that is a serious allegation; it is not enough for Mahathir simply to dismiss it. He should sue Zaid for such a contemptuous and libelous statement. For Mahathir to do anything less would be an admission that he is indeed a hypocrite. Mahathir already had to defend his son’s directorship of a major brewing company.

During the campaign Mahathir tried to draw the distinction with his owning of horses which were for riding versus Zaid’s, which were apparently for racing. I am sure that those poor folks in Hulu Selangor, consumed with their daily survival, could now appreciate the differences in the two bourgeois hobbies.

Zaid is determined to “out” these hypocrites among our leaders, as well he should. I would go further and assert that Zaid owes the public a duty to do this. As one who aspires to the leadership of our nation, he owes us a solemn obligation to play his part in cleansing our nation of this putrid mess.

Zaid promised to “reveal which casinos they [UMNO leaders] go to, [and] which mistresses they keep.” I sincerely hope that Zaid would not limit his exposé only to our political leaders but also to others, especially our royal rulers and their very public shenanigans.

I hope Zaid’s initiative would open the floodgates for Malaysians who have solid evidence of these high-level chicaneries to come forward a la the Lingam tapes. These leaders deserve our scorn.

Zaid might just encourage some to ruffle through the public records in Las Vegas for those high rollers who have overestimated their skills and their assets. There will be a few Malaysian names.

Premature Jubilation

Judging from the drooling editorials in the mainstream media, you would think that this recent event was an exercise in the overwhelming endorsement of Najib instead of a by-election of a rural constituency with no consequence on the national political balance. Najib’s ministers too joined in with their chorus of cooing. Never mind that despite the big guns that included Najib and Mahathir, and the millions spent on buying votes, all that Barisan could manage was to squeak through!

Najib should heed the fate of his immediate predecessor, Abdullah Badawi. He secured the greatest parliamentary majority in the 2004 elections, only to be humiliated with the greatest loss four years later, and then booted out shortly thereafter. Far from being chastened by this narrow victory, Najib and his gang are already giddy about reclaiming Selangor and securing a two-third majority in the next general elections.

A cautionary note was sounded by Ahirudin Attan, aka Rocky Bru, no critic of the administration. He reminded those Barisan folks of the Ijok state by-election of 2007 that saw another MIC kid defeating a Pakatan big wig, Khalid Ibrahim. Less than a year later in the subsequent general elections of 2008, that kid was sent into oblivion and the whole state fell to Pakatan, with Khalid becoming its chief minister.

Coming back swinging, Zaid Ibrahim is determined to let Barisan win only the battle but not the war.

Chapter 2:  Why Some Societies Progress, Others Regress

Culture As Society’s Genes

Culture is to society what genes are to an individual.  Culture forms the framework for development for a society, both under normal circumstances but also more importantly, under differing and stressful conditions.  Likewise, our genes predict our eye and skin colors, as well as our reactions to specific environmental conditions, as for example, our propensity to develop specific diseases under certain conditions.  Culture does that for a society, as exemplified by the response of the Marioris to the invasion by the Maoris.  Just like genes, culture is transmitted from one generation to the next, and it remains remarkably stable with each generation transmitting its values to the next through the process of acculturation.  In traditional societies, such acculturations take place informally in the family and other social settings; in modern societies, at schools and similar institutions.

Changes in genes, or more accurately the distribution of the changed gene in a population, do occur through natural selection, but very slowly.  Likewise with culture, changes do occur but very slowly as evidenced by the subsequent divergent cultural transformations of the Marioris and the Maoris conditioned by their particular environment.

The environment can induce rapid changes on DNA through a process call mutation.  Two well know mutagenic (mutation-inducing) agents are radiation and chemicals.  A colony of bacteria subjected to a hostile chemical environment (antibiotics) will develop resistance quickly through such mutations which enable those bacteria to overcome the effects of those chemicals.

Many would take umbrage to my characterization of culture as society’s genes, for that implies that culture cannot be changed, or at least not quickly.  There is the implication of predestination, just as individuals are biologically through their genetic endowment, so too is society through their culture.  Culture is thus destiny.  This is erroneous.  For just as genes could be changed in nature through random mutations or artificially in the laboratory through planned biogenetic engineering, so too could culture, either naturally or be induced.

The cultural equivalent of biogenetic engineering would be mass education and the introduction of modern technology, or any major social change imposed on or brought on in a society.  The fermentation in the Muslim world today is because its traditional societies have been changed through their exposure to the greater outside world through mass education and modern communications.  Old certitudes are now gone, as are traditional power structures.  These changes are rapid and disorientating; they could lead either to a stronger, more resilient society (equivalent of a resistant bacteria) or alternatively, to the disappearance and disintegration of that culture (equivalent to biological extinction, as with the dinosaurs).

The cultural equivalent of random mutation would be exemplified by the sudden change in leadership or a revolution.  Iran under Ayotallah Khomeini was a radically different nation from when it was under the Shah.  That transformation was sudden and unpredictable, comparable to a biological mutation.  Had someone assassinated the Ayatollah soon after he took over, Iran would have been radically changed back again.  In genetics, such a phenomenon is referred to as reverse mutation.

The pertinent question then is why certain societies have cultures that predispose them to change and progress while others have cultures with strong inertia and a tendency for stagnation.  Here I define human progress broadly, that is improvements in the ability of that society to take care of the basic needs of its citizens in terms of food, clothing, and shelter, as well as ensuring that each citizen is allowed to develop fully in all aspects.

Such general descriptions aside, there are specific quantifiable criteria that can be used to assess progress or lack thereof.  These include economic well being as reflected by such indices as per capita income but also general well being as measured by longevity and infant mortality rates.  While these may not be truly reflective of the achievements of a particular society, nonetheless they give a rough indication.  It is unlikely that a nation with a low per capita income, short life span, and high infant mortality to be considered developed or progressive.  Nor can one expect such societies to be major sources of inspiring works of arts and other cultural refinements.

Implicit in my definition and description of progress is that there are certain values that are universal, that is, they are the aspirations of all people.  This is a risky proposition to make in these days of cultural relativism where the accepted wisdom is that all cultures are equal and should be measured only within its own context.  Even the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights has its own detractors who opposed the very concept of the universality of any social or cultural construct.  Nonetheless we all can agree on certain simple ideas.  These are, as enumerated by Lawrence Harrison and Samuel Huntington in their book, Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress:

• • Life is better than death
• • Health is better than sickness
• • Liberty is better than slavery
• • Prosperity is better than poverty
• • Education is better than ignorance
• • Justice is better than injustice.

Even Mother Teresa would have agreed with those general statements.  Fanatical Muslims of the “suicide bomber” variety might take exception to the first sentiment (Life is better than death”).  To them, life in this world is temporary and thus not worthy of their attention; the greater rewards are in the hereafter.  To me, belittling God’s precious gift of life is not exactly an expression of our respect and honor for the All Mighty.  After all, life is God’s creation and we should not dismiss it lightly!  Were Islam to belittle life in this world, there would not be the strong prohibition against suicide in our Qur’an.  If only those so-called martyrs could see the pain and anguish they caused their loved ones, and the destruction they inflict on others!

I do not imply that material and socioeconomic progress go hand in hand with spiritual and ethical enlightenment.  Far from it!  Societies in command of great wealth and power may be intellectually, spiritually, and socially flawed.  Conversely, great philosophers and thinkers have evolved from societies that had rudimentary technology and relatively little wealth.  The tiny Caribbean island of St. Lucia, no economic powerhouse, produced two Nobel Prize winners:  Sir Arthur Lewis in economics and Derek Welcott in Literature.  Using that criterion – number of Nobel laureates per capita – St. Lucia is certainly far ahead of many advanced and progressive nations.

In the heyday of imperialism it was accepted that culture made all the difference.  The concept of culture then was closely tied to race.  As with the understanding of race at the time, it was accepted that there was a similar evolutionary scale for culture, with the Europeans, more specifically the northern and western Europeans, being on top (or most cultured).  The differences in the physical features of people of the various cultures (dark skin for the Mediterranean races and high cheek bones of the Eastern Europeans) further reinforced this connection between race and culture.  At the bottom were Asians and Africans.  The Europeans being the most “cultured” were destined to rule the world; if members of the other races wanted to be considered civilized, they must ape the ways of the Europeans.

The German anthropologist Franz Boas shook this accepted wisdom with his revolutionary concept of cultural relativism.  Boas spent his professional career studying the Eskimos of Artic Canada, and was impressed by their cultural values.  Their culture ideally suited them to survive in that harsh environment where “cultured” Europeans would not stand a chance.  He championed the idea that each culture should be judged in its own right and not compared to others.  The essence of this idea is encapsulated by the remarks of the legendary wealthy American stock investor, Warren Buffet.  When asked of his extraordinary talent (his ability to pick undervalued stocks), he replied that he is grateful to live in America as his particular skills serve him well, for had he lived in Bangladesh, he would be starving.  The wisdom of the Sage of Omaha!

Cultural relativism may be a fine idea when societies were isolated.  With globalization, today’s young Eskimos are exposed to and are rapidly becoming part of the larger world.  Their grandparents may have been satisfied with living in igloos and trudging along in the frigid cold on their dog sleighs, but today’s young prefer living in homes with central heating and dashing around in their snowmobiles.  Telling them that those are artifacts of a decadent Western culture would not dissuade them.

Likewise, it is equally futile for Malaysian leaders to discourage the young not to spend their time on the Internet, Twitter and Facebook because those were “western” inventions, as Minister of Information Rais Yatim did recently.  It is to be noted that Rais is enamored with his camera and cell phone; he conveniently forgets that those too are “western” inventions.

While nobody today accepts the old concept of an evolutionary scale of culture, nonetheless it is becoming obvious that different societies adapt differently to changes and stresses.  Like individuals, some societies are more successful than others, regardless of the criteria we use to define success.  The intellectual inquiry of why this is so is now an active and legitimate scholarly pursuit.  Unlike earlier notions of cultural evolution, today’s research has nothing to do with aggrandizing one’s sense of cultural or racial superiority, rather on how best to help societies and cultures cope with change and thereby reduce some of the social pathology associated with dysfunctional cultures.

Next: “Progressive” Versus “Static” Cultures

Genuine Obsessions With Fake Qualifications

M. Bakri Musa

The kerfuffle over the college credentials of Kamalanathan a/l P. Pancanathan, the Barisan candidate in the recent Ulu Selangor by-election, reveals less of the man but more on our fascination with paper qualifications. This obsession with credentialism is an intellectually lazy way to judge someone; you let those papers and certificates do it for you.

Who cares if you have a doctorate from Oxford, for if you cannot speak and read our national language then you have no business to be in Parliament or the state Assembly, where bills are debated and businesses conducted in Malay. You cannot possibly be effective if you are not fluent in that language.

At the same time with Malaysia inextricably linked with the greater world and English being the global language, our legislators and others who presume to lead us should be equally facile in that language. Anything less and they would not be serving us – their clients – honestly and honorably.

I do not expect average citizens, least of all potential political candidates, to appreciate or acknowledge this reality. However, I do expect party leaders, both in Barisan and Pakatan, to be fully cognizant of this and to factor it heavily in their selection of candidates.

At one level it is amusing that we should still be obsessed with college degrees. With higher education now available to an increasingly larger segment of society, declaring that you are a college graduate would today elicit at best feigned interest, expressed in between yawns. The exception would be if you were to graduate from Oxbridge or an Ivy League. That would definitely draw some attention, at least initially, even in the most sophisticated circles.

If after a few minutes of conversation it turns out that your association with those august colleges was merely attending one of their culup (“quickie”) courses, then whatever impression you may have created initially would rapidly vanish. Actually you need not reveal whether you are a genuine product or not, the content of your conversation would be a sufficient differentiator. Less than a minute into Barack Obama’s and Sarah Palin’s speeches and you could readily tell who is the product of an Ivy League and who is from the local community college.

Both Obama and Palin attract huge crowds with their captivating oratory. In deciding who to vote for however, we should go beyond their academic pedigrees and flourishes of their speeches to seeing the clarity of their vision, weighing the substance of their ideas, and judging the effectiveness of their leadership.

At another level, despite our unabashed nationalism and pride in everything local as expressed in such jingoism as “Malaysia boleh!” there is still this obsession with everything foreign, especially university parchment papers. Again here, that says more on the state of our local universities than the regards we have of foreign ones.

I was not surprised that Kamalanathan could earn his Australian degree without ever setting foot on that continent, let alone on the campus. In these days of on-line courses and “distance learning,” there is nothing unusual about that. If anything those are significant improvements over the old correspondent courses.

The more significant – and disturbing – revelation is this. Although he attended the local Olympia College (its academic director confirmed that) to get his Australian degree via “twinning,” the college no longer has his academic records. I graduated over four decades ago, despite that I could still retrieve (if I am so inclined) from my alma mater my transcript, including my freshman English grades. Kamalanathan had his degree barely six years ago, and already his college has purged his academic records.

As mentioned, this controversy reveals more about local institutions than it does of foreign colleges.

Vetting Candidates

Higher education has not been spared the invasion and innovation of modern technology. At the criminal plane, with digital technology I could easily reproduce those impressive diplomas, complete with original signatures, intricate seals, and those fancy Latin phrases and dates. That makes it even more difficult to ascertain the veracity let alone quality behind those certificates.

At the legitimate level, modern technology has radically altered the manner of teaching and delivery of instructional materials. Today I can in the comfort of my living room listen to the same lectures given to those undergraduates at MIT. My continuing professional education is increasingly being delivered through “webinars,” CDs, and other multimedia modules.

With the greater appreciation and subsequent growth of “non-traditional learning,” the task of evaluating the quality of college credentials becomes even more complicated. The boundaries between blatant degree mills, virtual colleges, on-line courses, “external” degrees, and the traditional “board and mortar” campuses are becoming more difficult to ascertain.

In my profession where such decisions could have literally life and death consequences, we have gone beyond merely ascertaining the validity of those pieces of papers to contacting directly the issuing institutions and getting attestations on what those certificates actually signify. Failure to truthfully disclose could expose those institutions to both civil and criminal liabilities.

The problem with Kamalanathan could have been resolved had a non-governmental organization concerned with the conduct of honest election for example, queried that Australian university on whether he was a legitimate student. Indeed the problem would not have arisen at all had Barisan leaders verified the matter before selecting him. Had those leaders institutionalized the practice, they would have been spared the embarrassment of picking a disbarred lawyer as their election candidate, as had happened recently.

This vetting of candidates is tough and tricky. Even when everything seems clear and legitimate, we could still have difficulty detecting fraudulent applicants.

I was on the selection committee to fill a senior position at our hospital. On perusing the resumes of the short-listed applicants, one stood out – impressive undergraduate degree from a leading university and a prestigious MBA. She also stood out in the interview; articulate and well informed. When my turn came, I congratulated her on her MBA and then innocently inquired whether she had taken any classes from a certain star professor at her school, and if so, could she share her experience. I must have hit something for she became flustered and began fanning her suddenly reddened face with her hand.

“I… I,” she stuttered, “did not get my MBA from that Columbia!”

Her interview went rapidly downhill from there. At the end of the session, the committee went over her application carefully to see where we had slipped. Indeed her resume clearly stated, “1997 – MBA (Columbia),” and she had duly submitted a copy of her diploma in which it was equally clear that her Columbia was not the one in New York City. The mistake was obviously ours, in making the leap in assumption after perusing only her resume.

The sad part was that her undergraduate degree and her experiences were impressive enough and would have been sufficient for her to be the top choice. By needlessly embellishing her qualifications, she doomed her prospects. As can be further noted, this urge to inflate one’s resume is not confined only to the academically unsophisticated.

Then there is the other end of the spectrum. A while back an accomplished young Malaysian returned from an interview in Malaysia for a position with one of the GLCs without bothering to wait for the results. He decided after the encounter that he did not wish to risk his future to a company whose CEO and Board Chair could not tell the difference between the Stanford of Palo Alto and the local Stamford College.

I am less concerned with a two-bit politician trying to hoodwink simple villagers with his inflated resume. I am more perturbed that our top leaders too could easily be taken in. Within UMNO alone, there are quite a few senior leaders including chief ministers sporting the title “Dr.” They are not physicians, dentists or veterinarians, because for those professionals there are statutes governing the use of that title so as not to confuse the public. Not so for those with other doctorates, legitimate or otherwise.

There are many foreign degree mills, with three or four focusing almost exclusively to aspiring Malaysian politicians and corporate figures. The recipients are not even embarrassed; on the contrary they go out of their way to showcase their ‘achievements’ through paid self-congratulatory messages to celebrate their ‘graduation.’

One UMNO leader publicly bragged about having a doctorate from Preston University. When he pronounced it, he made sure that it sounded like Princeton, the Ivy League university in New Jersey, the academic home for Einstein and other luminaries. Meanwhile Preston, whose mailing address was somewhere in the prairies, offered degrees based on your “life experiences.” That ‘university’ had since left the Midwest after the state had a crackdown on diploma mills.

I would not have cared if this slimy character had managed to convince only the Mat Rempits and UMNO Putras of his pseudo academic prowess, but judging from the high praises he has been receiving from other top UMNO leaders, he has them duped too. That is the disturbing part.

Again as with the Kamalanathan controversy, this one tells us less of the “Preston PhD” character and more on our top UMNO leaders, and their genuine obsessions with fake qualifications.

Chapter 2: Why Some Societies Progress, Others Regress

Culture Matters

Long before the Europeans were sending their sailors to explore the waters of the Orient, the Chinese were already regularly plying the same seas with their elaborate sailing junks. From 1405 and 1431 the Chinese had undertaken several maritime expeditions, venturing as far west as Madagascar, sailing in huge flotillas of about 300 vessels each.

Their ships were not mere junks; each measured in excess of 400 feet long and 160 feet wide, multi-decked, and capable of ferrying hundreds of personnel. They made Columbus’s 85-foot Santa Maria nothing but a lake dinghy by comparison. Those junks had grand staterooms, staggered masks, and tiered sails. They were the original luxury yachts, fit for the representatives of the Son of Heaven and their guests.

While the Europeans were exploring for trade opportunities, the Chinese were content merely to show their flag and collect tributes and gifts from the chieftains of the barbarians they encountered along the way. Having done that the Chinese returned home, convinced that there was nothing that they could learn from the uncivilized outside world. After Admiral Cheng Ho’s (Zheng He) last expedition, the emperor proclaimed an end to further naval expeditions. The huge infrastructures that enabled them to build those gigantic armadas were left to literally rot. The intricate skills of the people that went into building those magnificent seagoing vessels were now deemed worthless. The Emperor decreed that they had nothing to learn from the outside world and that theirs was the best kingdom on earth. Those explorations had merely reaffirmed their superiority.

The Europeans on the other hand were interested in the exotic spices of those distant lands and the opportunity of making a fortune in trading those spices. They could not care less for the tribute of trinkets and other gifts from the natives’ chiefs. Nor were they interested in hearing soothing praises for their “superior” ways and culture. Through those trades the Europeans became not only fabulously rich but also very powerful, which they later leveraged into colonizing those lands. The British gobbled up the entire South Indian subcontinent plus parts of South East Asia; the Dutch, the bulk of the Malay Archipelago; and the Spaniards, the entire Philippine islands.

The obvious question is why such a dramatic and consequential difference between the Chinese and Europeans? Why didn’t the Chinese with their impressive maritime fleet exploit their superiority to colonize those countries? And why did they stop at the African coast and not venture beyond to discover Europe, or eastward across the Pacific to the New World?

After the termination of Cheng Ho’s expeditions, the entire Chinese maritime endeavor was shuttered on orders of the Emperor. It even became a crime for anyone to build ships! What was once China’s greatest asset was now considered a liability!

Volumes have been written analyzing this particular course of world history. In the end they essentially boil down to the fact that culture matters. By culture I mean the way of life, attitude, and value system of a society. That is, in the sociological sense and not in the popular meaning of the word that refers to the finer things in life.

The Chinese then had a mindset that they were the best; theirs was the Middle Kingdom, with the Emperor receiving his “Mandate from Heaven.” They considered the rest of the world primitive. They became arrogant at first and then insular for fear that those barbarians would contaminate the pristine ways of the Chinese. They became xenophobic. Their cultural milieu allowed a decision by the remote Emperor to become effective throughout the vast empire. The Emperor’s word was divine wisdom, to be unquestionably obeyed. He in his grand wisdom had declared that they could learn nothing from the outside world. It mattered not what Cheng Ho felt; after all he was a eunuch. As for trade, to the mandarins advising the Emperor, that activity was the most degrading, not worthy of even their consideration.

By contrast, in Europe there was no central powerful emperor to dictate to the continent. If the then big chief in Rome (the Pope) were to decree that all foreign explorations were sinful and against God’s order, that would not have dissuaded the Spaniards, Dutch, and British. (Well, the Spaniards being devout Catholics might tremble and seek repentance on their return, after they have made their fortune!) It was this decentralization of power that enabled small European nations to venture on their own, unencumbered by some central mandate.

To the Europeans, the outside world provided a sense of wonderment, an opportunity to trade and find riches. There were unknowns to be discovered and yes, also to be subjugated and conquered. The Europeans had no pretensions that they were the best; they had just emerged from the Dark Ages.

It was this culture or mentality of “We are the best!” that was so destructive to the Chinese. It is for this reason that I cringe whenever I hear or read Malaysian officials proclaim, for example, that our schools and colleges are the best; for implicit in that utterance is the accompanying mindset that says we have nothing to learn from others.

The decline of the great Islamic civilization and the invigorating intellectualism that went with it could be traced to the closure of the “Gate of Ijtihad,” (rational discourse) in the 10th century. Those Islamic leaders at the peak of their civilization had deemed that everything was settled, there was no need for further enquires. All that was required was for the ummah (community) to merely learn from the past and acquire the wisdom of their elders and ulama (scholars) – taqlid. Present-day Muslims have yet to escape the stranglehold of this medieval stricture.

This mindset of glorifying and embellishing the golden past is destructive. For one, those glorious days (if indeed they were) are long gone and for another, such obsessions distract us from facing present realties.

A hadith (a saying attributed to the prophet) to the effect that the best generation of Muslims were those of the prophet; the second best, the generation immediately following; and so on implies a fatalistic acceptance of an ever-declining mediocrity. The best that present-day Muslims can hope for is to reduce the slope of the decline. How pathetic! That is definitely not the recipe for advancement.

To me that hadith should be the inspiration for us to follow the exemplary ways of those first generations of Muslims, the seemingly insurmountable obstacles and great tribulations they overcame. We should indeed try to emulate those sterling qualities, especially those of the holy prophet and his closest companions (May Allah bless their souls). The best tribute that we can pay those early Muslims is for us (present day followers of the faith) to strive to be better than them. Nothing would please a master or a teacher more than to have his or her students reaching greater heights. We can never be better than the prophet – he was after all Allah’s choice – nonetheless in striving we will become better Muslims.

However, if we at the very outset set for ourselves a lower goal, then we will never excel. Why I read that hadith my way and not in the traditional manner is also a product of my upbringing and culture. Having been exposed to the rigors of Western scholarship and critical thinking, I am less likely to blindly follow dictates. As a Muslim, the greatest tribute I could pay Allah is to maximize the use of my God-given akal (intellect).

Living in the West I see how today’s generation being better than earlier ones: more tolerant, more generous, and more dynamic. Only those living in and accustomed to stagnant societies long for the “good old days.”

Economists are now discovering that the culture and institutions of a society are key determinants in development. These factors are not easily amenable to quantitative analyses that so fascinate modern practitioners of this science; hence the relative neglect on the role culture plays. Douglass North, the 1993 Nobel laureate in economics writes, “…Institutions and ideology together shape economic performance. Institutions…[do so] by determining (along with technology) the cost of transacting and producing.”

Culture defines the values and belief system of a society. There are two categories of values that are relevant: intrinsic and instrumental. The first refers to those that we subscribe to regardless of the costs or material benefits. Patriotism and religious beliefs fall into this group. We hold them dear regardless of the personal costs incurred. The instrumental values on the other hand, confer tangible benefits to the members of that society. Thus they are self-perpetuating and self-reinforcing, that is until the ensuing benefits are no longer there. I will illustrate the differences between these two values at the personal as well as societal level.

At the personal level, this is demonstrated by the attitude towards failure, for that in turn reflects the attitude towards risk taking and innovation. In Silicon Valley, California, a bankrupt businessman proudly displays his failures as a war hero would his battle scars, and then bravely moves on. In Malaysia, a failed entrepreneur is shunned, humiliated, and stigmatized. He would also be forever tagged as a failure, left to ruminate, and be caricatured as yet another example of the inadequacies of his race. His friends and relatives would chime in, “I told you so,” or “Should have stuck with his secure government job and enjoyed his pension,” or some such sentiments.

In Malaysia, starting a new venture is considered an instrumental value; it is valued only in so far as it is successful and brings in tangible benefits; in Silicon Valley, it is intrinsic, the prestige or reward is in creating the company. The creative act is the reward. Steve Jobs was immensely successful and accumulated lots of money with his Apple Computer. When he lost control of that company and with it his job, he could just as easily retire to enjoy his considerable wealth if he valued his venture as an instrumental one. Instead he went on to start yet another new enterprise.

If we exhort our young to study hard so they could be rich and successful, that is, as an instrumental value, then when they become successful they would stop learning. There is no more reason to; they are already successful. But if we present learning for its intrinsic values (to satisfy one’s curiosity or for self improvement) then they will continue studying even after they get their degrees. Indeed they would study even if they do not intend to go to college.

While I was in Malaysia researching for my first book, I was busy reading various articles and books. This prompted my nieces and nephews to ask whether I was studying for an examination! Obviously to them (and many Malaysians) the only time to read is when preparing for an examination.

Singapore’s leaders are now concerned that the younger generation, used to affluence, would lose their passion for hard work. Had their leaders preached the virtues of hard work for its creative potential and not in materialistic terms, the young would be more likely to internalize it as intrinsic and not instrumental value. Similarly if Malay leaders exhort Malays to work hard so we can “beat” non-Malays, than we value hard work for its instrumental value only. The danger with this is that once we beat (or fancy we did) or be on par with non-Malays, then we would quit our struggle. Or worse, our leaders would spend as much energy in suppressing non-Malays as they would helping Malays, because the value system is not in bettering themselves or the creative potential and rewards of hard work but simply to be ahead of or equal to non-Malays.

Next: Culture As Society’s Genes

The Labu and Labi Team of Najib and Muhyiddin
M. Bakri Musa

Salvaging Najib

There are many lessons that Najib could learn from his predecessors. The first necessary exercise however, would be for him to determine which leader he identifies with or resembles most.

One thing is certain: Najib is not his father’s son, neither politically nor intellectually. Najib also does not have his father’s personality or trait, in particular the Tun’s acute sense of probity and prudence. In persona, Najib lacks his father’s great presence; the late Tun Razak commanded instant respect. No one would dare crack a joke in his presence, not out of fear but of awe and respect. With Najib, he would probably join in with his own ribald riposte to an off-color joke by his colleagues or juniors.

In physique, Najib should have a commanding presence; after all he is much taller than his father, and broad-shouldered as compared to his father’s perpetual stooped posture. Alas your body-build would take you only so far.

The late Tun would never let his wife loose on extravagant shopping sprees. In his sympathetic biography of the late Tun, William Shaw described an exchange where the Tun’s children were instigating their father to install a swimming pool at Sri Perdana. The Tun would haven none of it. “What would the people say?” the Tun reminded his children. Najib never learned that important lesson from his father.

For sure Najib does not have Mahathir’s vision, charisma, or single-mindedness. Thus there is not much that Najib could learn from the mercurial Mahathir, no matter how hard the latter tries to influence Najib.

To me, Najib resembles the Tunku the most; smart enough to be accepted into a British university but not brilliant enough to have a transformational vision for his country. Najib’s attempt at having one – his now crumbling “1Malaysia” – proves more an embarrassment than inspiration.

Like Tunku, Najib has a fondness for the good life. I would not however, recommend that Najib pattern himself after the Tunku in this regard, like resorting to regular nightcaps. The cultural environment today is far less forgiving; it would be political suicide were Najib to indulge in such worldly pleasures. Pleasures of the flesh are more tolerable to today’s crowd than pleasures of the palate.

Very unlike the Tunku however, Najib is burdened by an overbearing spouse. With Tunku, Malaysians had a soft spot for his wife, the late Sharifah Rodziah. There was a good reason for that; she was humble, modest, and stayed in the background. She was the very antithesis of Rosmah.

Najib could usefully emulate Tunku in one respect, in having an able, young and brilliant deputy. That is, have his own Tun Razak. That someone should be like the late Tun, smart, competent, diligent, and not corrupt. That someone should also be satisfied if not actually enjoy wielding power in the background while letting the number one hogs the limelight and credit.

Tunku was only 52 when he became the country’s first leader, only a few years younger than Najib when he became prime minister. Tunku’s deputy, Najib’s father, was only 33. Like Tunku, Najib should groom someone young to be his deputy, a generation younger. He needs to cast his net far and wide, within and outside the party, to find fresh talent to entice into UMNO. He must be willing to gamble and take on those who are initially not sympathetic or even hostile to UMNO in the quest for his own Tun Razak. Who knows, by co-opting them into government they might just become UMNO members. The late Ghazali Shafie was not an UMNO member when Tun Razak brought him into his cabinet.

Najib should consider including in his team such individuals as Khairy Jamaluddin, even though I risk puffing up his already inflated ego. Khairy is not even half as smart as the late Tun, but then that is all UMNO has to offer these days. By specifically bringing in Khairy, Najib would be declaring that he is out of Mahathir’s shadow, or at least could not care less what he thinks. That would be quite a statement!

The danger is that unlike the late Tun, Khairy, apart from being not half as smart, is not content remaining in the background; he likes to hog the headlines. Khairy is also “damaged goods” because of his earlier overbearing ways while the under “protection” of his father-in-law, Abdullah Badawi. However, if a discredited politician like Nixon could be rehabilitated, so could Khairy.

As the search for his own Tun Razak would be slow and difficult, Najib needs to do something quick in the interim. First, he would have to dump Muhyiddin; he would of course still retain UMNO’s deputy presidency as he was elected to that position. To make that move palatable as well as lessen the repercussion, Najib would have to appoint someone with gravitas to replace Muhyiddin, someone who would command instant respect and credibility not only among Malaysians but also the world.

Fortunately UMNO has such a person in Tengku Razaleigh. Muhyiddin would not dare squeak if he were to be replaced by someone of undisputed integrity, competence, and stature as Razaleigh.

Early in Abdullah’s tenure I suggested that he should pick Razaleigh as deputy prime minister, but for a whole set of different reasons. Had Abdullah done that, his fate as well as Malaysia’s would be far different today.

If Najib were to be bold enough to dump his current deputy, he would accomplish many objectives simultaneously. One, he would certainly make all Malaysians take note. For another, he would reassert his leadership of the party. After all there is nothing in the party’s constitution to stipulate that the deputy leader should also be deputy prime minister. That is only a tradition. By boldly breaking the party’s hallowed practice, Najib is signaling his commitment to a new path, for his party as well as country.

Muhyiddin cannot be unceremoniously dumped; that would trigger a severe backlash and precipitate a leadership crisis. We are an Asian culture where ‘saving face’ is supreme. Thus instead of dumping Muhyiddin, Najib would have to sell the exercise as a ‘promotion’ for Muhyiddin – to undertake the more important and immediate task of ‘revitalizing’ UMNO. After all he heads the management committee to reform the party; that crucial job has yet to be completed. To further soften the impact, Najib would have to compensate the loss of Muhyiddin’s ministerial income by offering him a lucrative chairmanship of one of the GLC’s, like the Iskandar Development Project.

Najib should not be satisfied only with ‘promoting’ Muhyiddin; he should simultaneously radically revamp his cabinet by reducing the bloat and getting rid of the dead woods. I would begin with such old tired characters as Nazri, Rais, and Hishammuddin. Replace them with fresh young candidates.

All those ministers are tainted. If any were to squeak or in any way try to undermine his leadership, Najib could always unleash the MACC upon them. That ought to shut them up. We saw how quietly even the boisterous Rafidah Aziz went when Abdullah fired her. And he was a meek leader!

As deputy, Tengku Razaleigh would pose no political threat to Najib. Razaleigh would be focused on serving the nation; he is too senior to be involved in mere politicking or conniving to topple Najib. Together with Razaleigh, Najib could aggressively recruit fresh bright young talent into public service and revamp UMNO.

There is only a limited time window for Najib. If he were to delay revamping his cabinet till just before the election, that would be dismissed as political gimmickry. Then there is the UMNO leadership convention; if Najib were to delay making these changes, those dropped UMNO ministers would retain their clout and be re-elected. By removing them now, their influence would have waned come party election time.

These radical changes may be unpalatable to Najib and he may shy away from undertaking them, but then he has to ponder the consequences of his staying the course. At a minimum he risks becoming another Abdullah Badawi, except more pathetic. At worse, the battle between Najib and Muhyiddin would consume more than just the two. It would also take down UMNO, the RAHMAN prophecy coming true.

It is not enough for Najib to endlessly declare that he is “ready to make the difficult changes that Malaysia needs.” He needs to demonstrate that through his deeds, or as my old kampong folks would say, “Bikin saja, jangan cakap!” (Just do it, dispense with the hollering).

Najib and Muhyiddin may have bad karma and ill feng shui, but as practitioners of those ancient occult arts will tell you, those can be mitigated though appropriate actions. In short, Najib’s destiny lies in his own hands, on whether he is willing and capable of undertaking these much-needed radical changes.

If he does not, then it is time for voters to take actions. In P. Ramlee’s movie, Labu and Labi’s strict taskmaster Haji Bakhil would punish the pair by making them perform ketok-ketampi, a Malay version of humiliating pushups, every time they goof off. It is time for voters to make our political Labu and Labi perform their ketok-ketampi by booting them out at the next election.