Chapter 2: Why Some Societies Progress, Others Regress

Next: The Economics of Geography

Modern economists can quantify the effects of geography on the economy. Jeffrey Sachs, now at Columbia University, introduced the concept of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) density, a function of per capita GDP and population density, and showed that coastal, temperate Northern-hemisphere economies have the highest economic densities. They form the core of the economic zones of the world. These areas include Western Europe, the coastal regions of China, Japan, Korea, and the Western and Eastern seaboards of North America.

Geography affects economic development in three major ways. First is through the ease of transporting goods, people, and ideas. Because water transportation is much cheaper and more efficient than overland, coastal areas have distinct advantages over the hinterland. Second, geography affects the prevalence of diseases, especially those involving vectors (malaria and mosquitoes; schistosomiasis and snails). These diseases are endemic in the tropics and hold back economic development by significantly reducing workers’ productivity. Malaysia’s remarkable economic progress is in part attributable to its success in eradicating or at least controlling vector-borne diseases, especially malaria. Such diseases also alter the country’s demographic and fertility patterns. Last, geography affects agricultural productivity. The seemingly lush tropical jungles hide a fragile thin layer of topsoil that could be easily washed away in a heavy tropical downpour. Soil erosion is a major ecological as well as agricultural problem in the tropics. The burden it imposes on the economy is severe.

Climate also affects the crops that can be grown. In temperate zones there is little specie variation in the fauna or flora. An acre of temperate forest yields only a few species; an acre of tropical jungle, literally thousands. Thus temperate lands are uniquely suitable for large and efficient mono cultural cultivations. The American Midwest has thousands of acres of wheat, barley, and corn. Such large farms would be impractical in the tropics as they would easily succumb to pests and diseases. The biological diversity of the tropics is an intricate and complex ecological protective mechanism preventing the spread of pests and diseases.

Many tropical countries have successfully adapted the highly productive and efficient mono cultural agricultural techniques of temperate zones. Malaysia has its rubber and oil palm plantations. Despite this seeming success, the underlying fragility of the system cannot be over emphasized. Brazil’s entire rubber industry was wiped out by a single fungus infestation.

The hot tropical climate is not all liability. That warm weather brings with it equally warm waters and pristine beaches. The temperate countries may have their beautiful beaches but they are only for sightseeing. You cannot swim, not even in mid summer, as the water is too cold. Smart tropical nations capitalize on their warm climate to create a new major industry: tourism. The entire Caribbean is now a tourists’ paradise. Previously isolated and undeveloped fishing villages like Cancun in Mexico have become prized destinations for holidaying Europeans and Americans. In Cabos San Lucas and Mazatlan, Mexico, sport fishing is now much more lucrative and a steady source of income than commercial fishing.

Malaysia too should take advantage of its warm sandy beaches and market itself aggressively to the affluent and densely populated areas like Japan and Europe. Many rubber plantations are now converted into golf resorts that in the aggregate produce more for the economy than the old rubber trees they had replaced. As a foreign exchange earner, tourism is now second (albeit a distant second) only to manufacturing.

The least important aspect of geography is the bounty nature has bestowed on some countries. Why the Good Lord chose to place hydrocarbons, precious minerals, and other valuable resources in some countries and not others is not for us to question. But God’s bounty alone is not enough, as evidenced by the continuing poverty among citizens of the rich oil-producing Arab nations. Throughout history we have seen the same story repeated, of well-endowed nations and their leaders squandering their God-given wealth. That old adage, easy come easy go, applies to nations as well as individuals.

Additionally, what we consider as valuable varies with time and age. Hydrocarbon may be considered black gold today but there was a time at the dawn of the nuclear age, with its promise of cheap and bountiful energy, when the price of gasoline merely reflected the cost of production; the commodity itself had minimal value.

Current Malaysian headlines carry the news that the country is selling fresh water to Singapore at a ridiculously low price. And we are committing to a long-term contract. Clean water is now more precious than oil. In American supermarkets and elsewhere, bottled water costs more than gasoline! Water rights are highly contentious issues in the dry Western states of America and the Middle East. Canada is protecting its fresh water lakes and rivers from pollution, recognizing that they are now truly valuable natural assets on par with its oil and gas fields. Malaysia too must protect this precious resource more carefully.

Next: Culture Matters

The Labu and Labi Team of Najib and Muhyiddin

M. Bakri Musa

The Ugly and Dysfunctional Mahathir-Anwar Pair

As leader, Mahathir is essentially a one-man team, a loner. He exhibits the typical alpha-male monkey mode. An alpha monkey could tolerate other males in the colony only if they were to submit to him, or be seen doing so. Any hint of a non-deferring behavior or “dissing” would be dealt with quickly until the challenger is either driven out or fatally finished off. Such leaders have little use for a deputy, partner, or a team. Instead he needs a sidekick, in the manner of a Jim McMahon to Johnny Carson; someone to make the leader looks good and be the butt of his jokes.

Consider Mahathir’s relationship with his first deputy, Musa Hitam. It went well so long as Musa deferred to Mahathir, that is, by being submissive. In the beginning, Musa was exactly that. The moment he began to assert himself or received more attention than Mahathir, it marked the beginning of the end for Musa.

The same dynamics governed Mahathir’s relationship with his third deputy, Anwar Ibrahim. Like Musa, Anwar was only too willing to be Mahathir’s sidekick and to humor him, at least initially. And why not; Anwar was handsomely rewarded, as seen by his rapid ascent in the party and government. Mahathir never viewed Anwar as a threat seeing that he was very much younger and thus could patiently bide his time. That scenario would have successfully played out to the end had Anwar not succumb to the impatient goading of his many impatient and greedy supporters.

Mahathir’s alpha male traits were never more in display following UMNO’s highly contentious leadership convention of 1987 which saw Tengku Razaleigh nearly toppling Mahathir. In the aftermath, Mahathir had to do what every alpha monkey male would, that is, get rid of its challenger.

It did not surprise me that the deputies Mahathir was most comfortable with were Ghaffar Baba and Abdullah Badawi. Both played the role of the sidekick only too well, especially Abdullah Badawi. Unfortunately they, specifically Abdullah, only played the role, as Mahathir found out too late and much to his regret.

Ghaffar Baba also played the second fiddle role exceptionally well, leading many to underestimate him. His inability to speak English merely reinforced the public perception of his shortcomings; many also doubted his intellect. Nothing could be further from the truth. He had a formidable intellect; however being a kampong boy with no family connections, the best that he could aspire to was the Sultan Idris Training College.

Not only was Ghaffar well endowed with innate intelligence, he was also “street smart,” but he skillfully hid both under his characteristic and very Malay humility. Make no mistake, the late Ghaffar Baba could read the Malay psyche very well, a skill that Mahathir usefully tapped. In that respect he contributed considerably to the partnership with Mahathir. Ghaffar was no mere sidekick, as many saw him.

With his vast understanding of the nuances of Malay culture, Ghaffar could have successfully fended off Anwar’s challenge, but Ghaffar knew that his party was in desperate need of new blood. At the same time he did not wish to see the party that he loved so dearly be fractured by an intense rivalry at the top. It was those noble considerations that made him gave way to Anwar, and not, as many believed, his fear of defeat. Ghaffar exhibited class as well as courage in bowing out early in that tussle with Anwar; he put his party’s interest ahead of his own. That is a rarity among today’s politicians.

As for Abdullah, when a previously non-alpha male monkey takes over, it first instinct is to kill all the babies of the previous alpha male in an attempt to eliminate his predecessor’s genes in the colony. This was what Abdullah did by ‘killing’ off Mahathir’s many ‘babies,’ his pet mega projects.

Abdullah’s mistake was not realizing that Mahathir had not been ‘killed’ or banished from the colony. That alpha monkey was still in the same jungle, imperiously perched high up on another tree, the Petronas Twin Towers. He was still very much alive and influential. Abdullah never knew what hit him when Mahathir unleashed his fury.

Because he was essentially a one-man show, Mahathir’s legacy would be at considerable risk once he is gone. We saw that already when Abdullah took over, only that he was so clumsy and inept. Had Mahathir cultivated younger leaders a la Tun Razak to Tunku, or even a not-so-young but a capable one a la Razak to Dr. Ismail, Mahathir would have greatly enhanced the caliber of his leadership as well ensure that his legacy would endure.

I predict that once Mahathir is gone, his long tenure would merit only an asterisk in our modern history, as Mao Zedong is to China’s. Mao ruled for over a quarter of a century. It would be a gross understatement to say that he had the greatest (though not necessarily positive) impact on China and the Chinese. Yet today, if one were to ask the throngs of shoppers at Beijing’s many modern shopping malls who Mao was, the likely response would be, “Mao, who?” Not too long ago they even threw his wife into jail. Some legacy!

Sizing Up Najib and Muhyiddin

Najib is an aristocrat, the son of a former prime minister. He comes from a modern nuclear family: father, mother and the five sons, Najib being the oldest. He had a privileged upbringing, including boarding school and university abroad. Najib and his brothers had plenty of parental love, what with their stay-at-home traditional mother. Even though the late Tun was a busy man, rest assured that with only five sons, he would remember and celebrate their birthdays.

Muhyiddin is one of over four dozen children of a village alim with multiple wives. It would be unlikely for his father to even remember Muhyiddin’s name, much less his birthday. In dynamics, young Muhyiddin had essentially a fatherless childhood. He attended the village school and later a small town high school, before proceeding to the local university.

The wives they have chosen too are very different. Najib’s current wife, his second, is the poster girl for extravagance and vulgarity, a Malaysian Imelda Marcos, except that Imelda had a weakness only for shoes. Muhyiddin’s wife is the typical kampong girl; she views her job as being to be by his side; to be seen but never heard.

It is easy to imagine Rosmah being actively engaged in her husband’s business. I cannot even contemplate Muhyiddin seriously engaging his wife in serious matters. He is the typical alpha kampong male; he knows what is best and his word rules.

Their seven-year age difference means that Muhyiddin could not possibly succeed Najib in the usual transition process. Muhyiddin is the older, so by the time Najib retires, Muhyiddin would be too old to take over. The only conceivable way for him to get the top slot would be if Najib’s tenure were to be prematurely cut short, by unexpected death or sordid scandals. Both are not remote possibilities. Najib’s father died in his early 50s from leukemia, and that malady remains lethal even today. As a timely reminder, many a Third World leader had succumbed to fatal “accidents.”

Scandals would be the more likely career killer for Najib. He certainly has some nasty ones hanging over him, from the brutal murder of the Mongolian model to his admitted conversations with Anwar Ibrahim’s alleged sodomy victim. Then there are the steady streams of squalid incompetence during his tenure as Defense Minister, from stolen jet engines to newly-acquired submarines that would not dive.

It does not escape everyone’s notice that far from defending Najib, Muhyiddin seems to relish his superior’s travails. Worse, he does not even bother to hide his delight.

In Malaysian politics, followers could sniff right away rivalries at the top. They would then quickly realign their positions and shift their loyalties in the hope of latching onto the winning team. The game would quickly degenerate into a sport of running down the opposing camps, with temporary alliances forged, broken, and then re-constituted to meet the quickly evolving dynamics. Thus expect even more ugly revelations from all sides.

This is already happening. Many are shocked at the utter corruption and rottenness of the party and its leaders. While such exposés would be bad for the party, they would be good for the country, especially considering that the next general election will only be a few years away.

Many would conclude that the inevitable collapse of UMNO under Najib to be the fulfillment of the RAHMAN prophecy, the “N” of the acronym representing Najib. I argue otherwise. There is no alignment of the stars that would preordain such an outcome. Rather what we have here reflects nothing more than Najib’s lack of leadership and the dearth of talent within UMNO. Had Mahathir chosen Najib instead of Abdullah as his (Mahathir’s) successor, Najib’s and thus UMNO’s political demise would have come sooner.

Were that to happen, my only regret would be to see the inglorious end to what was once an illustrious Malay institution – UMNO. Tun Razak was one of the key personalities in setting it up. It took only a generation to destroy what he had worked very hard to create and build. It would the supreme irony that it would be his son who would be responsible for destroying UMNO.

That would be quite a legacy.

Next: Salvaging Najib

Culture and Geography: An Experiment of Nature

In Guns, Germs, and Steel Diamond describes an experiment of nature to illustrate the influence of geography on culture. The vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean contains myriads of islands that are populated by Polynesians. They all have a common ancestry and in the millennium surrounding the birth of Christ their descendents independently colonized and inhabited the various islands. These range from large land masses (New Zealand, Hawaii) to tiny atolls; their geology ranges from volcanic soil to limestone outcroppings; and their climate from lush tropical (Guam) to subtropical (Hawaii) and temperate (New Zealand and Chatham Islands). As these islands were separated by vast expanse of ocean, there were minimal subsequent interactions between the various settlers. They were thus left to chart their own future, conditioned by their unique physical environments. The original Polynesians shared the same culture, language, biology, and state of technological development. They were all familiar with domesticated plants and animals; indeed they brought these species along with them as they settled the various islands.

A branch of the Polynesians, the Maoris, settled in New Zealand. The northern island was warm and suitable for the traditional Polynesian agricultural practices. They settled quite easily and their population grew with the abundant food supply. With the rapid growth, they developed pockets of high-density settlements and organized social and political entities along the pattern described by Ibn Khaldun. The fertile soil enabled them to produce surplus food and thus freed part of the population from farming to engage in other specialized activities like soldiering and craftsmen. Their social structure too, advanced rapidly. But with their clusters of dense population, conflicts inevitably developed, resulting in frequent skirmishes and wars. Thus the Maoris were toughened by the frequent and deadly encounters and competition with their neighbors.

Five hundred miles to the east on tiny Chatham Islands, another branch of Polynesians, the Moriori, took a different path. Like their Maori cousins, the Moriori were also farmers, but the climate of their new abode did not permit them to practice their traditional skills. Their tropical crops would not grow, unlike in New Zealand. They thus reverted to being hunter-gatherers, depending on the ocean’s bounty and the island’s birds and animals for sustenance. They did not have surplus food and the population did not grow rapidly. Indeed they were aware of their precarious position and took steps to reduce their number by castrating their male infants. Unlike the Maoris, the Morioris did not have the chance to specialize into warriors, farmers, and chieftains. Being isolated and in dire straits, they learned to get along with each other, renouncing armed conflicts as means of resolving issues. They had no warriors or established social structures. Out of necessity in their harsh environment, they sensibly accepted the futility of armed conflicts.

In 1835 the worlds of the Moriori and Maori collided, with devastating consequences to the former. Two shiploads of armed Maoris discovered the Chatham Islands, and with their superior weapons and warrior skills, easily subjugated the peaceful Morioris. The Maoris were ferocious invaders, slaughtering the non-violent Morioris with no difficulty or mercy. This brutal outcome of an asymmetrical encounter of two different subcultures was predictable.

The Maoris and Marioris may have all descended from the same stock, yet after only a few centuries separated from each other and conditioned by their new unique physical environments, their societies became radically different.

I can cite many more examples of such asymmetric encounters between different cultures that resulted in equally devastating consequences. Geography, not biology, sealed the fate of the Marioris.

Malaysia too has seen its share of asymmetric cultural clashes. When the British started their rubber plantations, they needed abundant cheap labor. Native Malays were not eager to undertake such backbreaking work for what was essentially “peanut” pay. They could live quite comfortably off the land. But that peanut pay was more than attractive to the millions starving in China and India, and they readily came. Coming from a land where starvation and exploitative warlords were common, they readily fall into a culture of elbowing themselves to the dinner table. They had to scramble, or starve. In contrast, the Malays who were blessed by fertile land and bountiful seas saw little need for such aggressiveness and blatant greediness. There was always plenty to share, enough for those who were late or could not come to the table. There was no need to fight over food. It is not difficult to predict the subsequent cultural clashes between natives and immigrants.

From his observations on the Maoris and Marioris, Diamond went on to paint a grand picture of the early development of human civilization. He posits that the first civilizations occurred in Eurasia rather than the Americas because of the physical geography of the continents. The original hunter/gatherer on Eurasia successfully domesticated some wild animals and plants, and gradually assumed a sedentary existence.

As this proved so much more efficient, or at least more convenient, it soon spread to other hunter/gatherer groups. With each successive spread, the group improved on the discoveries of earlier groups. With time the entire continent became inhabited by farmers rather than hunter/gatherers. Because of the physical geography of Eurasia, with its horizontal (east-west) axis of mountains and rivers, the domesticated plants and animals readily adapted to the new areas because of their same latitude and climate.

In contrast, on the American and African continents the mountains and rivers are along a north-south axis. Even if one of the ancient groups successfully domesticated some wild animals and discovered edible plants, such an idea would not spread widely as the climate varied greatly along the natural path of people. Plants that would grow at the southern end of the Nile could not be cultivated further north. Thus there was little chance for amplification and subsequent enhancement of any agricultural innovation.

Geography influences climate, and climate in turn affects human behavior. The seasons of temperate zones regulate human activities. You sow in the spring and reap in the fall; in winter you, like the earth, remain dormant. Further, with the inevitable coming of winter and the consequent shortage of food, one has to prepare during the bountiful summer months to stock supplies. Hence the concept of planning is introduced into the culture. Failure to do so would be disastrous both for the individuals as well as the group. The cold dark nights, being non conducive to procreative activities, are more suitable for intellectual pursuits and other cerebral activities.

The monotonous climate of the tropics, with one day more or less like any other day and with no distinct season, there is no sense of urgency or need for planning. If it rains today, wait for a few hours and it will shine again and you can then go out and fish. Such procrastinations breed the manana (do tomorrow) syndrome. Before you know it, a decade has gone by.

The effect of climate on me was certainly impressive. I remember my high school days in Malaysia and how difficult it was to study and concentrate, especially in the heat of the day. Even with repeated attempts at washing my face, I still could not keep cool. When I arrived in Canada, my first impression was how easy and effortless it was to study. It was so cool and refreshing all the time, even in midday. It was, in the words of my late father, as if the whole country was air-conditioned!

I was so impressed with this personal effect on me that I wrote to the Malaysian minister of education at the time suggesting that he build a residential school or a university at Cameron Highlands. The cool climate there would be highly conducive to academic pursuits. Being also typically Malaysian, I did not expect a response, and I was not disappointed!

Singapore’s senior minister Lee Kuan Yew observed that air-conditioning was one of the greatest modern inventions, as it allows those in the tropics to be as productive mentally as those in the temperate zones. Seeing how well that small island republic has done, he may be on to something profound!

Next: The Economics of Geography

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

The Best Team

The Razak-Ismail duo lasted just a month shy of three years, prematurely cut short by the sudden but not unexpected death of Tun Ismail. At first glance they had all the ingredients for a divisive and acrimonious relationship. One was a lawyer the other, a physician; two professionals not known to get along well with each other. Members of the two professions view society differently; likewise their approaches to problem solving. Lawyers cross examine their witnesses; doctors get a history from their patients. Lawyers assume their clients would lie; physicians implicitly trust theirs. Attorneys’ clients may think it is in their interest to lie; patients however risk their lives if they were to mislead their physicians.

What made the Razak-Ismail team worked remarkably well was that both were true professionals as well as consummate politicians in the best traditional mold. It was this combination that made their partnership blossomed. As professionals they were able to separate their personal feelings to address the problems at hand; as accomplished politicians they were skillful in the art of compromise, a fine sense of politics as the art of the possible. They were able to sink whatever personal, political and professional differences and ambitions they harbor in order to best serve their client: the nation.

They also shared many similarities. Under different circumstances or with other personalities, those similarities could well be sources of unending conflicts. Consider their age; only seven years separating them, with Razak the younger. Politicians are inherently ambitious and competitive; they all aspire to be the number one. The number two could hardly wait for number one to exit, making for an often stormy relationship towards the end, as demonstrated by the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown show. Being comparable in age would only aggravate that aspect of the rivalry.

Surprisingly, we did not see that kind of rivalry with Razak and Ismail. While Ismail was as ambitious as the rest, he was the original and genuine citizen-legislator. Meaning, someone who takes time off from his regular vocation to serve his nation, and then after giving his best, leave. Ismail was a rare breed, especially when compared to the specimens we have today; they make politics their permanent careers. Najib’s cabinet, like Abdullah’s and Mahathir’s before that, is infested with tired old career politicians who have no life outside of politics. They hung on long past their shelf-life.

Both Razak and Ismail were also aristocrats, Razak from Pahang and Ismail, Johor. They both attended English schools and the best English institutions; Razak read law at Lincoln’s Inn and Ismail, medicine at Melbourne. Jagoh kampong (village champions) they were not. They were not insular as they had competed successfully against the world.

Those similarities may have contributed to their cordial and workable relationship, but those were not the main factors. Instead what them “click” was their deep commitment to public service. They were true patriots. It was this that made them overcome whatever differences they may have had between them.

And differences there were! In personality, the two could not be more dissimilar. Ismail was the gregarious type; he knew how to enjoy life. As a medical student he idled his time on the cabaret floor on the evening before his crucial anatomy oral examination!

Razak was the studious one; he was a legend at Malay College. He completed his law studies well before his scholarship ended. At social gatherings I could not imagine Tun Razak backslapping his guests or joining them in uproarious laughter, as Dr. Ismail would.

Being from the predominantly Malay state of Pahang, Razak’s political philosophy was more towards Malay nationalism. Ismail hailed from the more urban and cosmopolitan Johor; that shaped his worldview.

Yet these differences complement them rather than being sources of rivalry, a reflection of their great sense of self confidence. Ismail did not need to aspire for the top post in order to show his stuff, while Razak was not in the least threatened by having someone of the caliber of Ismail as a deputy. Malaysians were blessed to have a pair of such caliber helming the nation. It is sad that their success did not inspire the present generation of leaders to emulate if not better that team of Razak and Ismail.

The Longest and Most Enduring

If as Prime Minister Tun Razak did not feel threatened by having a highly capable deputy in the person of Dr. Ismail, the Tun also did not feel that being a deputy to the Tunku would hamper his ability to contribute towards the nation. He also did not view being in the number two slot for an inordinately long time as a reflection of his ability. Only when the Tunku’s leadership was wanting in the aftermath of the 1969 race riots did Razak assert himself.

Razak could have headed UMNO and thus be the country’s first prime minister if he had wanted to; the opportunity was there. When the party’s first president, the towering Datuk Onn, left the party sulking in 1951, many wanted Razak to take over. He was not yet 30 at the time, and already they recognized his exceptional leadership and executive talent.

Razak politely declined the honor, not out of a sense of false modesty or lack of confidence, rather his astute reading of the Malay psyche and culture. He rightly believed that his community would more readily accept as leader someone older and thus perceived to be more experienced. In Malay culture, age equals wisdom; hence his declining the honor. Instead, Razak was instrumental in persuading the initially reluctant Tunku to head UMNO.

At another level, UMNO’s stated mission then was merdeka. Razak was shrewd enough to recognize that the party would need someone whom the British would find comfortable to negotiate. The affable and anglophile Cambridge-bred Tunku fit the bill. That was a particularly prescient call on Razak’s part, reflecting his wisdom and foresight despite his youth!

Razak’s wisdom in turning to Tunku was manifested in other ways. It turned out that the major obstacle in the negotiations for merdeka was not with the British but the Malay sultans. The British knew that colonialism was no longer chic or compatible with the values of a civilized society. They were ready and eager to let go of their colonies. The sultans however, were an unanticipated issue. Their concerns about their status in an independent Malaysia made them recalcitrant. They were not without reasons; they saw only too clearly the fate of the Sultan of Jogjakarta in neighboring Indonesia, as well as the multitude of Maharajas in India.

With Tunku, a member of the Kedah royal family leading the negotiations, the sultans felt reassured. Had it been the commoner Razak, the negotiations would definitely have been tougher.

Many ascribe the enduring partnership of Rahman and Razak to their presumed traditional Malay father-son relationship, with the loyal son always deferring to the father. Nothing could be further from the truth. I had never seen any public display of filial genuflecting by Razak to the Tunku. When the Tunku was swamped in the aftermath of the May 1969 riot, Razak was not at all bashful in taking over. That was certainly not the response of a supposedly obedient son or display of undivided filial devotion.

Instead their relationship was akin to that of a non-executive chairman of the board and the chief executive president. While Tunku was prime minister, it was Razak who actually ran the country. All the major initiatives, from overhauling of the education system to the massive rural development, originated from and executed by Razak.

A comparable dynamics would be between the ambassador and his deputy chef de mission in the old Soviet embassies. The real power and authority resided with the DCM, not the titular number one, the ambassador. He was merely the figure head, the sultan as it were. In that way, he (very rarely she) could indulge himself at diplomatic functions like getting drunk without compromising embassy secrets. Similarly if the ambassador were to be blackmailed, he could be readily expended.

I always thought that to be an ingenious scheme! It was certainly successful with the Soviets; it was no less so with Tunku and Tun Razak.

Next: The Ugly and Dysfunctional Mahathir-Anwar Pair

Chapter 2: Why Some Societies Progress, Others Regress

Geography As Destiny

It is easy to understand and accept the premise that geography plays a major role in deciding the fate of a nation. Intuitively one can readily see that the Arabs are fabulously wealthy because of their vast oil deposits. Economists have long clung to the idea of comparative advantage afforded by the luck of geography. Portugal’s Mediterranean climate enables it to produce cheaper and better wines than Britain. The easy availability of coal in Britain on the other hand, made possible the steam revolution.

Access to navigable waterways and oceans confer immense advantages. For this reason Malacca was a center of vigorous Malay civilization for a long time. Through international commerce and the consequent intermixing of various cultures, Islam entered and became established in the Malay world through that port city.

Yet like many ideas that seem right, geography cannot be the full answer. There are too many exceptions of countries doing well despite seemingly no natural resources or favorable geographic factors. Hong Kong and Singapore are two oft-cited examples. But even here one cannot ignore geography entirely. Hong Kong enjoys the proximity of a huge hinterland, China. Singapore too, despite the irritatingly frequent boasts of its leaders to the contrary, is blessed with its strategic location on the maritime trade route between the Far East and Europe, and a protected natural deep-water harbor. Those are not inconsiderable assets. As realtors endlessly remind us, location is everything.

Favorable geography alone is not enough. Many nations blessed with abundant natural resources and favorable geography remain stagnant, their people languishing in poverty. Brunei may enjoy one of the highest per capita incomes but its people are essentially Third World peasants. One can easily imagine that country reverting to its original tropical swamps and its ruler reduced to the level of the Sultan of Sulu once the oil runs out. Africa contains the largest deposits of many valuable minerals and has huge potential for hydroelectric energy, yet that entire continent remains backward and poor.

Geography as an academic discipline too has also fallen on hard

times, with major American campuses beginning with Harvard dispensing

with it. Matters once under its purview are now relegated to earth sciences and geology. Only ancient British universities like Cambridge still have a Department of Geography.

Geography however, has a long history. The Greek philosopher Ptolemy in his Geographica divided the world into six geographic zones according to climate, and concluded that the areas most conducive to human civilization are the middle zones—the Mediterranean climate – where of course Greece happens to be located. The extreme zones, the polar north and hot tropical band, were deemed not conducive for human civilization.

Ibn Khaldun, the 14th century Muslim historian in his Muqaddimah (An Introduction [to the study of History]), expanded on this Hellenic observation. “Environmental differences,” he wrote, “affect and shape man’s character, his appearance and his customs. The best conditions for human existence obtain in the middle regions of the earth, between its northern and southern extremes.” Ibn Khaldun too divided the world into several zones ranging from the tropic to the tundra, but he went further to boldly state that climate and the physical environment affect people’s character. Thus:

Now Negroes live in the hot zone. Heat dominates their temperament and formation. Therefore, they have in their spirits an amount of heat corresponding to that of their bodies and that of the zone in which they live….Excitability is the direct consequence.

Egyptians [in the heat are] dominated by joyfulness, levity, and disregard for the future. They store no provisions of food, neither for a month nor a year ahead, but purchase most of it in the market. Fez in the Maghrib on the other hand, lies inland and is surrounded by cold hills. Its inhabitants can be observed to look sad and gloomy and to be concerned for the future.”

He further elaborated on the role of the food supply in shaping the culture, physique, and character of a people. Thus, “We find that the inhabitants of fertile zones where the products of agriculture and animal husbandry as well as seasonings and fruits are plentiful, are, as a rule, described as stupid in mind and coarse in body. Those who lead a frugal life and are restricted to barely and dira … are superior both intellectually and physically.”

Essentially, we are what we eat! Or, adversity builds character!

The Malay scholar Pendita Za’ba, in a 1933 essay entitled Kemiskinan Orang Melayu (Poverty Among Malays) wrote, “The geography of our country, with its fertile soil and abundant flora which provide for easy sustenance together with our oppressively hot climate, are reasons often cited to explain why Malays are sluggish and backward. That is, we are not as diligent and hard working as the immigrants because we had no need to. Everything has been easily and amply provided for.” But he went on to suggest (a point often ignored) that “the factors of geography” alone cannot be the full explanation. He suggested two additional elements: first the role of religion (Islam); and second, culture.

I will cover these two issues as they specifically affect Malays later

The most obvious effect of geography is on the climate. Having been born and raised in the tropics, lived through many a frigid Canadian winter, and now residing in California, I can personally attest to the salubrious effects of the Mediterranean clime. Many Americans too share my sentiment, as evidenced by the large number of new arrivals from such states as Minnesota and Iowa.

It is argued that the human body tolerates cold better than heat. I disagree. I prefer the tropics to the frigid Artic any time; at least in the tropics I can always keep cool by taking off my shirt or having a shower. To keep warm in the cold entails adding more layers of clothing or starting a fire, both energy-consuming activities. In the tropics you can keep cool by not exerting yourself in the heat of the day; hence the cultural phenomenon of siesta. Only mad dogs and Englishmen would dare or be stupid enough to venture out in the heat of the day; the natives knew better.

Climate, as intimated by Ibn Khaldun, also affects personality. Many writers attribute the sunny, open, and warm personality of tropical inhabitants to the weather, in contrast to the frigid, icy behavior of the Northerners. Notice the similar vocabulary to describe human dispositions and weather.

Tropical dwellings too are open and airy, for ventilation and coolness, unlike the closed and insulated homes in cold weather countries. In a tropical home there is no distinction between the inside and outside; they just merge. When entertaining, guests are not cooped up within the confines of the living room but can easily flow out to the verandah and the outside. Malaysian homes also have their doors and windows wide open for ventilation, creating a welcoming aura. Entertaining in a temperate zone home, especially in winter, involves being cooped up. This does not favor long and leisurely conversations or create an atmosphere of openness. In Canada you hardly see your neighbor until the spring thaw. Not surprisingly, inhabitants of cold zones are prone to Seasonal Affective Disorders (SAD—depression).

I brought a Canadian guest to a Hari Raya (Eid celebration) party in Malaysia. At the end he was amazed at the number of guests he had met and yet somehow they did not overwhelm him. The reason was that people came and went, mingled in and out of the house, with some eating on benches outside. The atmosphere was like a party at a public park rather than in a home. Children too were tolerated because they were not in the way; they could be running outside the home. In contrast, in Western societies it is considered bad form to bring children along unless specifically invited. I can see why. All you need is a couple of kids running wild within the confines of a house to give everyone a headache. Malaysians visiting a similar party in an American home always wonder where the children are. Well, they are cooped up in the family room watching a movie under the watchful eye of the babysitter.

Geography has also been invoked to explain differences in personalities and temperament of inhabitants of the different regions within a country, as between northern and southern Italians.

Ibn Khaldun was the first to systemically study the development of society. To him urbanization, in contrast to nomadic lifestyle, represents an advance form of existence. Such concentrations of humans permit, among other things, the division of labor, a concept that predates by centuries the thinking of modern economists. Further, human society can only exist and flourish through the cooperative endeavors of all its participants on behalf of the common good. This “group feeling” or group consciousness (asabiyah) is the glue that binds society. Groups that have strong asabiyah achieve predominance over others. Contemporary social scientists have a modern term to describe this attribute: social capital. This is increasingly recognized as the glue that keeps modern society functioning.

Next: Culture and Geography: An Experiment of Nature

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

[First of Four Parts]

The dynamics between Prime Minister Najib Razak and his deputy Muhyiddin Yassin is one of rivalry. They compete rather than complement each other. They give every indication to be the least productive and most dysfunctional ‘team,’ if I can stretch that term. Their relationship has awful feng shui and exudes bad karma.

They are politics’ Labu and Labi, the bumbling hired hands in P. Ramlee’s comedy movie of the same name, who spent their time fantasizing about their employer’s daughter while neglecting their chores.

Alas, leading the nation is anything but a comedic act; it is an awesome responsibility. Najib and Muhyiddin however, are treating their position as they would a trophy wife; with Najib consumed with displaying it while Muhyiddin is busy licking at the chops barely concealing his own desires.

Najib has nothing substantive to show after a year in office. It is emblematic of his inept leadership that when the recently-acquired new Scorpene submarine could finally dive, it made the headlines! Incidentally, that sub was bought during Najib’s tenure as Defense Minister.

We have significantly lowered the bar for and expectations of our leaders. Next, we will be excited if Najib were just to show up! Consider that former Prime Minister Mahathir had praised Najib merely for not dozing off at meetings! As for Najib’s much ballyhooed “1Malaysia,” a check on its website today showed that it is still inviting readers to register to join him for tea on March 13th, a good two weeks ago! Well at least that is better than the fate of his deputy’s blog.

On the major issues, from the teaching of science and mathematics in English to the controversy over the “Allah” terminology, the two are not even on the same page. They are complete opposites. Often that is the catalyst for a dynamic and creative relationship. That however, is true only with highly-accomplished and self-confident personalities. Najib and Muhyiddin are far from being that!

I will compare the current duo of Najib and Muhyiddin to their predecessors, and then suggest a course of action Najib should take to salvage his tattering leadership. I will focus on three preceding pairs: the best and ideal team of Tun Razak and Dr. Ismail; the longest and most enduring partnership of Tuanku Abdul Rahman and Tun Razak; and the destructive and dysfunctional combination of Mahathir and Anwar. These three examples (two positive and one negative) provide many relevant lessons for Najib.

Unaltered the present course will lead to a breakup of the two, with destructive consequences to them, their party, and their country. The scale would be many times worse than the Mahathir-Anwar explosion of 1998. The latter crippled the party and deeply divided the country, but only temporarily. In that ruinous split there was a definite victor, the mercurial Mahathir, which made the conflict mercifully not protracted.

If Najib and Muhyiddin were to split, it would come at a time when their party is at its weakest and most vulnerable; likewise the nation. As neither Najib nor Muhyiddin is strong enough or commands sufficient respect and support within the party and country, their split could consume both of them, as well as fatally cripple UMNO.

As for Malaysia, it has come a long way since the traumatic events of 1998 and could thus take the Najib-Muhyiddin breakup in stride. Indeed I would argue that the split would be good for the nation.

Nothing however, is preordained; prophecies need not be self fulfilling. Even bad karma and ill feng shui can be ameliorated. Najib’s future is in his own hands and in the fateful decisions he makes, not with the alignment of the stars or the tea-leaf reading of some village soothsayers.

Earlier Teams

The first and longest pair was that of Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Razak. It spanned over 15 years and was the most successful the country has ever seen, or likely to see again. Even when the duo broke up following the 1969 race riots, it was done discretely and with minimal public repercussions. The pair remained unique in that they maintained their respect for each other long after one exited the stage. They never uttered an unkind word for the other, at least not publicly. It was a class act right to the end.

Compare that to the nasty things the Tunku and Hussein Onn heaped upon Mahathir when he was Prime Minister, or the scorn and contempt Mahathir poured on his chosen successor, Abdullah.

At the other extreme, we had the initially very promising and dynamic but later proved to be highly destructive and dysfunctional pairing of Mahathir and Anwar. The nation is still playing the price for that ugly split. The pair was like an unstable radioisotope; when it split it continued spewing its toxic radiation, defying all attempts at containment.

The team of Tun Razak and Dr. Ismail that succeeded the Rahman-Razak duo was easily the best and ideal. Perhaps the brevity of their tenure spared them from the inevitable tensions and rivalries. Malaysians today look forlornly to that team, especially considering what is being served to us today.

The Razak-Ismail team was not the briefest; that distinction (if it can be called that) belongs to the immediately succeeding team of Razak and Hussein Onn. That was also the most forgettable pairing. The Razak and Huseein duo demonstrates that it would take both sides to make a great or at least workable team. It is not enough to have only one member shine; a laggard partner would bring the pair down. This observation would be validated many times later, as with the Mahathir-Musa Hitam and Mahathir-Ghaffar Baba pairings.

When both members are lightweights, then we would have a laughing stock of a team, a political Labu and Labi team. At worse it would be a disaster, for them as well as the country. We had that with the Abdullah and Najib; we are now we re-living it with Najib and Muhyiddin.

Next: The Best Team

Chapter 2: Why Some Societies Progress, Others Regress

Biology in Human History

It is also easy to fall for the trap of biologic determinism. In surveying the globe today, the most advanced nations are in Western Europe: America, and Australia. These are, to use a familiar term, White man’s countries. Meanwhile the whole of tropical Africa is backward and primitive. The most obvious difference is the skin color of their inhabitants. Skin color thus becomes the most identifiable and ready surrogate indicator of ability. As skin color is biologically determined, it therefore follows that these other abilities must also be so determined.

The Japanese take comfort in their light skin color to give them the confidence to compete with Caucasians. In the days of apartheid South Africa, the Japanese were genuinely flattered when given the status of “Honorary Whites.” They had “made it,” at least in their own eyes as well as to the racist South Africans.

Over a century ago Japanese writers, realizing how backward their people were as compared to the exploring White men who ventured upon their shores, exhorted their countrymen to intermarry with the invading foreigners so as to infuse the beneficial “white” genes into Japanese society. Following the Meiji Reformation and the opening of Japan, the Japanese were falling all over themselves to ape the ways of the White man. A century later, Dr. Mahathir would recommend a similar remedy for Malays, exhorting us to intermarry outside our race. He had himself as exhibit number one, a vigorous leader, presumably the result of “cross breeding” between an Indian and a Malay.

These sentiments are not confined only to the Japanese and Malay leaders. In a recent survey, young Singaporeans openly declared their desire to be “white.” They went beyond, to unabashedly adopt Western ways and mannerisms. So much for the voluble exhortations of their leaders on the supposed superiority of Asian values!

To think that Singaporeans are among the most educated and “developed” of Asians. Despite that they still think that for them to be considered really “advanced” they have to be “white.” Unable to be that physically, they are reduced to simply imitating the ways of the ‘white man.’ Thus they are not content with their birth names that reflect their rich heritage, they want them anglicized. Simple Lee Boon Guan or Chin Chong Cheng would not do it; they would them “modernized” (read: anglicized) them to Robert B. G. Lee and Christopher C. C. Chin. They pay for expensive private music lessons so their children can learn to play Mozart; but ask those children to name one Chinese composer or play a bar of classical Chinese music, they will give you a puzzled look. Their repertoire runs the gamut of Bartok to Beethoven, not some tinny Chinese opera pieces. Facial plastic surgery, to create that idealized Western look, in particular the fashioning of an epicanthic eyelid fold, is consequently very popular in Asian countries to obliterate the mongoloid facial trait. But as the saying goes, it is not easy to White a Wong! Oops, right a wrong.

Recently, Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister in a rare and clumsy attempt at displaying modesty, admitted how in school he had nearly failed his Chinese class. What this graduate of Cambridge and Harvard seems to say is that the study of his own language did not merit the expenditure of his considerable intellect. He would rather spend them on other worthwhile activities, like trying to be a White man.

This implicit acceptance of the superiority of the White man is found not surprisingly, among Caucasians. While crude expressions of racial supremacy are today not politically correct, at least in the West, nonetheless such ugly sentiments are now camouflaged in scholarly and sophisticated forms. Thus instead of blatantly proclaiming the superiority of the White race, they now resort to subtle statistics to demonstrate differences in the “inherent abilities” of the various groups.

In their highly controversial book, The Bell Curve, two American social scientists purported to prove that the differences in the cognitive ability (read: intelligence) of the various races in America are not the result of cultural factors but in the inherent nature of these people. Stripped of its pseudo-scientific and fluffy scholarly verbiage, these authors say in effect Blacks and other poor minorities are backward because of their inherent ability. Essentially, it is in their biology.

The problem with using biology to explain the conditions of human societies is that one finds many ready exceptions. America and Western Europe may be developed but alas a large swath of the “White man’s” land is still Third World: Russia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America.

Viewed through the wider prism of history, this biology theory falls apart. While London was still a village in the Dark Ages, cities in the Middle East like Baghdad were already flourishing and the centers of civilizations. Similarly the Chinese had an organized system of governance when Britain was nothing but a collection of feudal fiefdoms.

The ascendancy of Western civilization is a recent phenomenon, a fact often ignored by the proponents of Eurocentric perspectives on the nature of the ideal society. Concepts such as the separation of church and state (secularism) that are viewed today as universal are nothing more than the expression of European ideals. Delving into this more deeply, one discovers that this was purely a reaction to the excesses of the church in medieval Europe. Had I been writing this in the 11th or 12^th Century, at the zenith of the Islamic civilization, I would definitely be Islam-centric, with the article of faith being that there was unity of State and Faith, with no differentiation between what is due to God and Caesar.

One cannot however, ignore the defining role of biology in human history. The near wiping out of the native population in the New World with the coming of the Spanish Conquerors was not purely a function of the superior military might of the invaders. The conquistadors unwittingly brought with them the most potent of weapons – biological. The natives were nearly annihilated by the new viruses and other pathogens for which they had scant immunity. The Europeans, having been exposed to these organisms through their long contact with domesticated animals, had developed immunity, but not the poor New World natives. The reverse is also true. Many a colonialist and their families succumbed to the deadly scourge of tropical pestilence like malaria. The natives to a certain extent were protected.

At the population level, the impact of such biological traits would not be apparent for generations. Occasionally however, when they affect certain critical individuals, the impact can be both profound and immediate, as exemplified by the last Czar of Russia.

Nicholas and his Empress Alexandra were desperate for a male heir. Their prayers were finally answered with the birth of their fifth child, Alexis. Their joy however, was short-lived as Alexis was soon found to be afflicted with hemophilia. As any mother would, the Empress suffered through the pains of her beloved son, the sole heir to the throne. She became obsessively protective and consumed with the fate of the future Czar.

When there is a personal problem especially within a loving and close-knit family, all other matters become secondary. And when that happens to the first family, then matters of state become neglected. There were many reasons for the collapse of the Russian empire and the subsequent success of the Bolshevik Revolution, but it certainly did not help that the Czar was distracted by the sufferings of his beloved son. Would the fate of the Russian empire be different had the Czar and his consort not been distracted by and consumed with their frail son? In their desperations they became vulnerable to sinister and self-centered influences, exemplified by the character Rasputin, now a metaphor for all things manipulative and evil.

Hemophilia in a Czar-to-be is only one example of the dramatic impact of biology on society. The mutation for this disease was believed to have started with Queen Victoria and spread throughout Europe’s palaces through inbreeding. This fondness for close relatives is typical of aristocrats of many societies, past and present. In Malay society too, royal inbreeding is still very much the pattern. Although there is no single disease comparable to hemophilia among the Malay sultans, nonetheless one wonders of other subtler consequences. The present aberrant and juvenile tantrums of the Brunei royal family (and some of Malaysia’s own) may well be a manifestation of one too many instances of inbreeding.

A corollary to the acceptance of biology as a determinant of human development is the concept that biology also explains individual human behavior. Only a few decades ago scientists were consumed with measuring and quantifying various skull shapes and bodily conformations in the belief that certain body forms and shapes were correlated with certain behaviors and traits. The entire discipline of criminology was once consumed with such anthropometrical studies.

“History followed different courses for different peoples,” writes Jared Diamond in his Guns, Germs, and Steel, “because of differences among peoples’ environments, not because of biological differences among people themselves.” I interpret the meaning of environment here broadly, to include not only the physical but also the social and cultural milieu.

To dismiss biology is not to say that there are no discernible differences among the various races. Indeed, modern biology reveals many pertinent and important variations among different populations. The distribution of certain diseases, blood and genetic tissue types, and the propensity to develop certain maladies are not randomly distributed.

Such knowledge is useful. High blood pressure in certain ethnic groups responds better with certain medications but not to others. Certain environmental conditions (for example high calorie, high fat diet) would impact some racial groups more than others. Note the beneficial use of such insights on human biology, not to aggrandize a particular race over another but to help humanity. Yet another insight of modern biology is the recognition of the considerable variations within a racial group and wide overlapping between groups and races. It is this variability that makes human stereotyping so unproductive and destructive. This diversity is also what makes human society possible. We cannot be a society if we are all clones; we would then be like a colony of bacteria.

Next: Geography As Destiny

Healthcare As A Bottomless Pit
M. Bakri Musa, MD, MS, FRCSC, FACS

[Invited editorial, Malaysian Journal of Medical Science, 17(1):1-2, Jan-Mar 2010. ernd.usm.my/journal/journal/01-171editorial.pdf ]

As a young surgeon at the General Hospital Kuala Lumpur in the 1970s, I remember pleading with Tan Sri Majid Ismail, then Director-General of the Ministry of Health, for funding of my research project.

A distinguished clinician turned policy maker, Tan Sri Majid was professionally interested in my proposal. Nonetheless he politely declined it, but not before offering me a comforting explanation. Between funding me and building a Klinik Desa (rural clinic) in Ulu Kelantan, the choice was clear, he gently told me. Besides, he assured me, I would have minimal difficulty securing funding elsewhere while those poor Kelantanese had no choice.

Tan Sri Majid said something else that reverberates in me today. “Healthcare is a bottomless pit,” he advised me, “but the resources to meet those literally endless worthy needs are limited, so society must set its priorities and draw the line somewhere.” The job of government is to ensure a minimal acceptable level of care for all, he added, and beyond that it is for individuals to set their own limits with their own resources.

Malaysia does this with its dual public and private healthcare systems. Tan Sri Majid was adamant in maintaining this clear separation lest there would be confusion in the respective missions and objectives.

America today is in the midst of a wrenching debate on healthcare reform, specifically its massive price tag and the provision for a “public option,” a government-run insurance company. Similar debates occur elsewhere, Malaysia included. These deliberations would be elevated greatly if we were to heed Tan Sri Majid’s observation on resources being necessarily limited and the necessity to set priorities.

It is understandable for America, the richest country, to have difficulty acknowledging the first, and as for the second, the setting of priorities is too often confused with rationing, a highly emotive issue.

This need for setting priorities is never more urgent today. In the past, the best that physicians could do was to bring our patients back to their pre-morbid state. Today the goals go far beyond, from enhancing lives (cosmetic surgery) to eliminating genetic diseases through bio-genetic engineering.

Consider the wonders of modern drugs. In the past they were for curative purposes in a limited setting, as with antibiotics for infections. Today the biggest expenses are for drugs in maintaining chronic conditions (anti-inflammatory medications), enhancing life (Viagra and oral contraceptives), and reducing risk of diseases (the statins).

Similarly with public health; in the past interventions were limited to specific communicable diseases as with childhood immunizations. Today we have the various screening tests for cancers.

Regular exercise, good diet, and smoking cessation too are also health enhancing and good preventive measures. Issues would arise however, if we insist that health insurers pay for our lean cuisine and health club membership. Where to draw the line, in the public health as well as clinical setting, is the great challenge.

Also often forgotten is that there is minimal correlation between outcomes and expenditures in healthcare. America spends twice as much as Britain (relative to the economy), yet it would be hard to argue that Americans are as healthy as the Brits, let alone twice that.

While the bulk of the healthcare dollar is expended on hospitals, pharmaceuticals, and physicians, nonetheless the costs are primarily physician-driven. Many are thus misled into believing that focusing on physicians specifically is the key to improving citizens’ health and or controlling costs.

In truth, much of our present good health is due more to civil engineering marvels as central sewer and water treatment plants, as well as modern refrigeration. Malaria, still a scourge in the Third World, was eliminated in California’s Sacramento Delta through the building of levees and consequent drainage of the swamps, not advances in parasitological research.

This observation is worth emphasizing. With rapid urbanization, the inadequacy of these basic infrastructures has turned Third World cities into public health time bombs. Stroll through an exclusive neighborhood of Kuala Lumpur and you will see garbage strewn all over, stagnant drains spewing unbearable stench, and septic tanks leaking their waste. Esthetics aside, those are real health hazards.

These infrastructures are prerequisites for our good health, yet perversely they are not considered as healthcare expenses. Malaysia spent hundreds of millions on the aborted new bridge to replace the existing causeway in Johor Baru, yet it does not have a water treatment plant. The returns on investment for a new water treatment facility would be much more in terms of health and thus productivity of citizens.

In between necessary infrastructure spending and providing basic medical care, there is the legitimate need for publicly-funded medical research even, if not especially, for a developing country like Malaysia.

I did research in transplant immunology before returning home but felt minimal inclination to continue it in Malaysia even though the country then had an active kidney transplant program under the capable leadership of Drs. Hussein Awang and Bakar Sulaiman. For one, I did not think that we could compete intellectually and resource-wise with programs in the West. For another, I was more attracted to the neglected but more relevant area of immunology of parasitic infections. You can be assured that there is minimal interest in the West to undertake such research, hence the need for countries like Malaysia to undertake them. Besides, they are best done locally as we have the most at stake.

Incidentally, Dr. Hussein’s brother Yahya, once my medical officer in Johor Baru, would later perform the first heart transplant in the region.

I am grateful to the wisdom Tan Sri Majid imparted on me. All of us involved in healthcare, from the policymakers to administrators and practitioners to researchers ought to participate in the exercise of acknowledging our limitations and setting our priorities.

PART I: Perspective on Development

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

—Shahnon Ahmad, Malaysia’s National Literary Laureate

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

Chapter 2: Why Some Societies Progress, Others Regress

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

—Ibn Khaldun, 14th century Muslim historian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next: Biology in Human History

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

Part Six of Six: Q&A Con’td

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beyond that I have nothing against the institution of sultans.

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

M. Bakri Musa

December 5, 2009

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