Chapter 16: Critique of Current Strategies

Big Governments, Big Problems

The greatest contribution of President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was their demonstration that governments, even modern ones staffed by trained and talented personnel, can at times be part of the problem and not the solution. Imagine the damage wrecked by a government led by the corrupt and incompetent. Think of the living hell endured by the Cambodians under Pol Pot, and the Soviet people under Stalin.

Perversely, those corrupt and incompetent governments are also invariably the biggest. Government creates obstacles to growth in many ways.

First, government costs big money. In many Third world countries, the government consumes more than half of the economy. The Malaysian public sector conservatively consumes more than a third of the GDP. Emoluments at the Federal level rose from RM16.3B in 2000, to 25.6B in 2005, and an estimated whopping RM36.7B for 2010, more than double (125 percent increase) in a decade. That is a conservative estimate; it does not include other liabilities like pension and health care, or the costs of state civil servants.

Second, where the government is the biggest employer, it acts as a sponge, absorbing talent and leaving precious few for the private sector. One reason for the collapse of the Soviet System was that its best and brightest were employed by the government to work in the military and elsewhere. In the West, the bulk of the scientists and engineers are in the private sector.

The same problem exists in Singapore. The government absorbs the best talent, leaving precious few for the private sector. The solution is not for the government to employ third graders—that would not serve it well—but to reduce the size of government. New Zealand has demonstrated the difficulties and the remarkable positive consequences of scaling back the size of government.5 It can be done.

Malay leaders continually lament the low level of Malay participation in the private sector. One reason is obvious. The government by favoring Malays sucks up Malay talent leaving precious few for the private sector. The late Tun Razak was very much aware of this and prompted him to institute early retirement program so Malay civil servants could enter the private sector and at the same time keep their public pensions. If not for that brilliant foresight, there would be even fewer Malay participation in business.

Bureaucrats are good at finding work to keep them busy, Parkinson’s Law being operative. This is where governments inflict the greatest damage through impeding and interfering with legitimate economic activities. These civil servants would want to control, monitor and regulate everything, all in the name of protecting the public good, of course. India is notorious for its “Permit Raj,” lordly bureaucrats who effectively hobble the economy. This is not unique only to the Third World. In America, a popular joke has it that when a farmer dies, there would be three civil servants at the sprawling US Department of Agriculture headquarters crying and mourning the death. Those bureaucrats would now be without a job!

It took the Indians two decades to learn the wisdom of Reagan and Thatcher. India is now scraping many of the regulations and clipping the powers of the Permit Rajs. This, combined with the government’s withdrawal from the marketplace, is turning India into an economic powerhouse. It has a long way to go, but at least it has recognized the errors of its earlier ways.

Humans have infinite ingenuity; no matter how big, powerful and oppressive the government is, people will find ways to circumvent the controls. The informal economy constitutes up to 60 percent of the GNP in a typical developing country, especially where the government is huge, inefficient, and corrupt.6 If it would take 150 days and consume years of the average income to register an enterprise, most would not bother with starting their businesses, or if they do, they would do so illegally and be part of the informal sector.

There may be short-term gains with these underground enterprises in providing jobs for the lowly skilled; in the long term they stifle economic growth simply because they are not productive. If 60 percent of your economy is in the informal sector, how reliable are your official data, and if they were not reliable, how good would be your economic and other policies that were based on those data?

The solution is not to stifle or stamp out these budding entrepreneurs; on the contrary they should be encouraged as they provide much needed services to their consumers besides providing employment. They should be given all the necessary support as discussed earlier in the form of micro credits (“soft” support) or providing them with the necessary stalls (“hard” support). The more fruitful approach would be to streamline the bureaucratic process so they would not be imposed with a huge burden to register their businesses.

More critical than the size and cost of government is what it does with its power and resources. The public sector in Scandinavian countries is substantial, requiring very high taxes to sustain it. Yet their citizens love their socialist governments and would not have it any other way. Their economies are also efficient and productive. The difference is that their governments though large, expend their resources not in controlling the marketplace or the citizens, but in providing social services and improving their citizens’ lives. The Swedes enjoy high quality subsidized health care, education, retirement, and childcare services. Their government does not have a huge police force to spy on their citizens, or an expensive military to protect them. Nor does it interfere with the marketplace or use public funds to buy company shares.

Consider the Malaysian government and how much smaller it would be if it were to restrict itself only to those activities that are properly and legitimately the sphere of government and for which no other entity could provide. These include ensuring law and order, safety and security (defense), community health, and taking care of those unable to provide for themselves. If the government were to go further and not indulge in commerce, it could get rid of the Ministry of Entrepreneur Development and the myriad GLCs. The money saved would be enormous, enough to wipe out poverty and the public debt!

Instead of investing in companies, the government should invest in its people, by ensuring that they get good education and health care. Even in these two areas, the government should not be the sole provider. The government is obliged to provide schooling and health care only for those unable to afford them on their own.

Imagine how much smaller and cheaper the Ministry of Education would be if 30 percent of Malaysian children were to attend private schools and universities. The government schools could then be improved because the same resources would now be spent on fewer schools and children. The poor would benefit greatly from such a policy.

Earlier I argued for dismantling the huge Islamic bureaucracy and the positive consequences that would accrue. Apart from the budgetary savings, it would also free up scarce Malay talent.

Big governments have a way of rewarding and seducing the populace. With their infinite resources and favors, governments could reward their supporters and conversely, punish those against them. We all can find our rationalizations for supporting the system. With time, reinforced by the rewards, we would internalize those values. It would not take long for the citizens to get hooked on government. One of the difficulties the Chinese government experiences in modernizing its industries is the resistance from the workers of GLCs long dependent on the government.

Governments at all levels in Malaysia have a disproportionate influence and control over Malays. To non-Malays, the government is simply the agency to pay their taxes and renew their passports or drivers’ licenses. Unlike Malays, they do not look upon the government to educate their children or house their family. When non-Malays have congresses or forums, all they ask is for the government to allow them to establish more schools or let them open new businesses. On the other hand, when Malays convene, the first thing they ask is for the government to do this and that for them. Malays have become like the Russians, totally dependent on the government.

The objective should be to equip Malays and other Malaysians with skills and talent such that any state would want them to be its citizens. In short, instead of being dependent on the state, make the state dependent on the citizens. The challenge is not only to reduce the size of the government but equally important for the government to stick to activities that are properly within its purview. We should discourage it from indulging in extraneous activities. Were the Malaysian government to do this, it would not only be smaller, cheaper and more efficient, but Malaysians would be much better served.

Malaysia is the most bureaucratized society in Southeast Asia, experiencing what Hans-Dieter Evers calls “runaway bureaucratization” within the last few decades.7 Since the public sector is essentially a Malay institution, it is not surprising that all the negative impacts of a big and inefficient government affects Malays disproportionately.

Next: Right Decision, Right Time, Right Reason, and Right Execution

Chaining The Children of The Poor

M. Bakri Musa

The ancient Chinese bound the feet of their baby daughters so they would grow up with deformed tiny feet, thus limiting their mobility and participation in life outside the little world of their homes. These women would then be totally dependent on their men.

In rescinding the policy of teaching science and mathematics in English, the government is likewise binding the intellectual development of our children. They and future generations of Malaysians would grow up with warped intellect. They would then be totally dependent on the government, just as ancient Chinese women with tiny feet were on their men.

My friend and fellow commentator Azly Rahman has a more apt and colorful local metaphor; we are condemning future generations to the Pekan Rabu economy, capable only of selling pirated versions of Michael Jackson albums. That would be the extent of their entrepreneurial prowess and creative flair. They are only subsistence entrepreneurs and ‘copy cat’ creators.

Make no mistake about it. The government’s professed concerns for the poor and those from rural areas notwithstanding, reversing the current policy would adversely and disproportionately impact them. The rich and those in the cities have a ready escape; the rich through private English classes, urban children from the already high levels of English in their community.

The most disadvantaged will be the poor kampong kids. That means Malay children. Thus we have the supreme irony if not perversity of the champions of Ketuanan Melayu actively pursuing a policy that would ensure Malay children be perpetually trapped economically and intellectually. I thank Allah that I grew up at a time when the likes of Muhyyuddin were not in charge of our education system. Otherwise I would have been trapped in my kampong.

The idiocy of the new move is best illustrated by this one startling example. In 2012 when the new plan will be implemented, students in Form IV will be taught science and mathematics in Malay, after learning the two subjects in English for the past nine years. Then two years later when they will be entering Sixth Form or the Matriculation stream, they will again have to revert to English.

Pupils in the vernacular schools would have it worse. They would learn the two subjects in their mother tongue during their primary school years, then switch to Malay for the next five while in secondary school, and then switch again, this time to English, in Sixth Form and university!

Had these policymakers done their homework and diligent downstream analysis, such idiocies would not crop up. Then again this is what we would expect from our civil servants. They have been brought up with their minds bound up; they cannot think. They have depended on others to do the thinking for them.

Najib Razak’s flip-flopping on this major national issue eerily reminds me of similar indecisiveness and lack of resolve of his immediate predecessor, Abdullah Badawi. No wonder he supports Najib in this policy shift. Najib should not take comfort in that, unless he expects a similar fate as Abdullah’s. Abdullah was kicked out by his party; with Najib, it would be the voters who would be kicking him out. Public sentiments are definitely against this policy switch.

Failure of Policy Versus Failure of Implementation

The cabinet reversed course because it deemed the policy did not produce the desired results. However, in arriving at this pivotal decision the cabinet failed to address the fundamental question on whether the original policy was flawed or its implementation ineffective.

It just assumed the policy to be flawed. Muhyyuddin and his senior officers relied heavily on the 2005 UNESCO Report which suggests that “‘mother tongue first’ bilingual education” may (my emphasis) be the solution to the dilemma of members of minority linguistic groups in acquiring knowledge.

Muhyyuddin and his advisers seriously misread the Report. It was concerned primarily with the dilemma at the societal level of members of a linguistic minority having to learn the language of the majority (“national language”) versus the need to maintain linguistic diversity generally and minority languages specifically. UNESCO was rightly concerned with the rapid disappearance of languages spoken by small minority groups. The report was not addressing specifically the learning of science and mathematics.

Malay language is not at risk of disappearing; it is the native tongue of literally hundreds of millions. To extrapolate the UNESCO recommendations for Malay language is a gross oversimplification and misreading of the report.

The UNESCO Report does not address the issue of when and how best to introduce children to bilingual education. Later studies that focused specifically on the pedagogical and psychological aspects instead of the sociological and political have shown that children are quite capable of learning multiple languages at the same time. Even more remarkable is that the earlier they are exposed to a second language the more facile they would be with that language. They would also learn that second language much faster; hence second language even at preschool.

The acquisition of bilingual ability at an early age confers other significant cognitive advantages. These have been documented by clinical studies with functional MRIs (imaging studies of the brain). Malaysia should learn from these more modern studies and the experiences of more advanced societies, not from the UNESCO studies of backward tribes of Asia.

The other basis for the cabinet’s decision was ‘research’ by local half-baked and politically-oriented pseudo academics. They should be embarrassed to append their names to such a sophomoric paper. The quality is such that it will never appear in reputable journals. As for the Ministry’s own internal ‘researchers,’ remember that they came out within months of the policy’s introduction in 2003 documenting the ‘impressive’ improvements in students’ achievements!

The one major entity that would be severely impacted by the cabinet’s decision is our universities. Yet our Vice-Chancellors have remained quiet and detached in this important national debate. They have not advised the cabinet nor lead the public discussions. Again that reflects the caliber of leadership of our major institutions.

Had the cabinet decided that the policy was essentially sound but that the flaws were with its implementations, then measures other than rescinding it would be the appropriate response. This would include recruiting and training more English-speaking teachers and devoting more hours to the subject.

What surprised me is that when Mahathir introduced the policy in 2003, he was supported by his cabinet that included Najib, Muhyyuddin, Hishamuddin, and over a dozen of current ministers who now collectively voted to reverse the policy. Likewise, the policy was fully endorsed too by UMNO’s Supreme Council then. Like the cabinet, many of those earlier members are still in that body today. Yet today the Council also voted to disband the policy. Muhyyuddin, Hishamuddin and the others have yet to share with us why they changed their minds. The conditions that prompted the introduction of the policy back then are still present today. This reversal will do not change that.

Najib, Muhyyuddin and Hishamuddin are “lallang leaders,” they bend with the slightest wind change. Unlike Margaret Thatcher’s famed resolve of “This lady is not for turning,” with Najib, Muhyyuddin, et al., all you have to do to make them undertake a U turn would be to blow slightly in their faces. Blow a bit harder and they would scoot off with their tails between their legs. These leaders will never lead us forward.

This reversal will not solve the widening achievement gap between urban and rural students. The cabinet has yet to put forth new ideas on ameliorating that problem. So, just as ancient Chinese women were physically handicapped because of their bound feet, rural or more specifically Malay children will continue to be intellectually handicapped by their warped and small minds, the consequence of this policy shift. Perhaps that is the real objective of this policy reversal, the shackling of the intellectual development of our young so they will forever be dependent on their ‘leaders.’

Chapter 16: Critique of Current Strategies

Islam Hadhari (“Civilizational” Islam)

Local commentators generously refer to Abdullah Badawi as an Islamic “scholar,” despite the fact he graduated with only a first degree and had not contributed an iota of scholarship. It is the ethos of the Malay culture to be generous, and to have low expectations especially of its leaders. Islamic Studies was not Badawi’s first choice. He could not handle the mathematics to pursue his first choice of economics. Then, as now, Islamic Studies was the fallback for those not academically inclined.

Abdullah takes the “scholar” label seriously, and therein lies the problem. He feels compelled to demonstrate his Islamic manhood and to better those ulamas in PAS. In 2004 Abdullah introduced his Islam Hadhari (Civilizational Islam) with great fanfare. Few would disagree with its ten lofty and lengthy principles. Cynically one could view them as nothing more than a pretentious attempt at besting the Ten Commandments, minus the brevity, clarity, and gravity.

When citizens started asking whether “money politics” and corruption, afflictions of UMNO, are compatible with Islam Hadhari, the Prime Minister became decidedly testy. Of course both challenge the core of Islam Hadhari: moral integrity. When further questioned on whether the Internal Security Act, which calls for detention without trial, is in the spirit of the third principle of Islam Hadhari (free and independent people), and its second (just and trustworthy government), Abdullah threatened anyone who challenges Islam Hadahri with … the ISA! It is a sad reflection of Islam Hadhari that books written by John Esposito and Karen Armstrong, both sympathetic and influential commentators on Islam, are banned by the Abdullah administration.

Today, Islam Hadhari is one of Abdullah’s many forgotten slogans. The 9MP makes occasional respectful references to it.

The premise of Islam Hadhari is that this great faith is compatible with modern development and democracy. No one challenges that. The problem is not in enumerating the many great qualities of Islam (a grade school pupil could do that), but in living up to them. Nor is there any point in recalling the glory days of Islam and of the renaissance of Andulasia, those too are well documented. More important is to learn what made those Muslims great and what contributed to their subsequent decline. That would require diligent studies, not coining springy slogans.

Again, my solution is simple: Dump Islam Hadhari. It is dying anyway. It is obscene to see UMNO leaders endlessly quoting the Quran—with its pristine message of universal justice and respect for individual dignity and liberty—while at the same time defending such intrusive and inhumane laws as the ISA. That they fail to appreciate the jarring irony of their position is a stunning reflection of their collective moral blindness.

Today’s Muslims confuse between being “Islamic” and being good. Do good, and you will be following the moral imperatives of the Quran and the teachings of the prophet (pbuh). Evil deeds, no matter what their presumed justifications, can never be Islamic. Killing is evil not because the Quran says it is, rather killing is evil; that is why the Quran prohibits it. The difference is not at all subtle.

If Abdullah were intent on being the Grand Imam a la the Rightly Guided Caliphs, then he should emulate the legendary second Caliph, Omar. He was best known not for his erudite recitation of the Quran or for leading congregational prayers but for his effective and progressive leadership. Omar would stroll incognito through the evening bazaars to find out exactly how the citizens were faring, instead of relying on the glowing reports from his subordinates. Today’s Muslim leaders, out to prove their piety, would rather spend their evenings in mosques.

Imam Abdullah is taking his religious role too seriously. He forgets that he has a nation to lead, and the intractable problems of Malaysia cannot be solved through sermonizing and endless dispensing of homilies. Nor would prayers alone do it. A hadith says it well; first tie your camel, only then pray it does not escape. First be an honest and effective leader, then pray to God and seek His Guidance and Mercy.

Reduce poverty, eliminate corruption, and respect the dignity of the citizens—those are meritorious deeds in the Holy Book of any religion. Abdullah would be better off concentrating on crafting effective policies to address these pressing problems instead of being distracted by the empty rhetoric of Islam Hadhari. The citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims, elected him to be their chief executive, not their imam.

Multimedia Super Corridor and Bio Valley

The Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC) and the Bio Valley projects, both started by Abdullah’s predecessor, were to spearhead Malaysia into the K-economy. They represented the vision and farsightedness of Mahathir. As Abdullah was a senior member of Mahathir’s administration, it would be safe to assume that Abdullah also endorsed both initiatives.

Wrong! With Mahathir’s mercurial personality, his ministers cowed themselves into agreeing with him. It is difficult to tell whether their subsequent enthusiastic public cheerleading represented genuine support or merely expressions of bodek (sucking up). Soon after succeeding Mahathir, Abdullah cancelled many projects dear to Mahathir, indicating that Abdullah’s earlier support was nothing more than attempts at ingratiating himself to Mahathir.

With MSC, Mahathir managed to get the leading luminaries like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, and Alvin Toffler to be on his advisory panel. In America, Gates and Ellison were fierce competitors, but with Mahathir at the helm, they were willing to cooperate. That was a singular achievement, a tribute to Mahathir’s vision. MSC aspired to be a jungle version of Silicon Valley, with Mahathir designating a swath of land twice the size of Singapore for that very purpose.

Yet on its tenth anniversary in 2006, MSC felt compelled to re-brand itself, a sure sign of an enterprise not doing well. It is futile to argue whether MSC is successful or not, as that would bog one down with definitions and criteria. Suffice to say that it did not live up to expectations; it did not jumpstart Malaysia into the ICT age, its primary mission.

While Mahathir may have been successful in getting the top honchos at IBM, HP and Microsoft to be on his advisory panel, those companies saw fit to site their regional headquarters in Singapore, not at MSC.

In trying to replicate Silicon Valley in the Malaysian jungle, Mahathir had the formula only half right. To use the language of computers, he had the hardware right but not the software. Indeed the physical infrastructure was way ahead of Silicon Valley, with T-1 cables laid out ahead of time. It even had government-funded venture capital firms ready to assist would-be entrepreneurs. It was the software—personnel and culture—that was sorely deficient.

The man who headed the project was a scientist who had long ago abandoned the laboratory for the administrator’s desk. In demeanor and personality, he was cautious, plodding and very much the civil service type. Bluntly said, he was uninspiring, more comfortable in his dark suit and being ensconced in his air-conditioned office. He was far from the image of the electronic tinkerer or entrepreneur.

The local universities have not contributed their part in producing the necessary personnel; the curriculum used was outdated and the graduates could hardly communicate in English, the language of ICT. Meanwhile, securing visas for foreign talent was a bureaucratic maze.

A few years later, Mahathir started the Bio Valley project to spearhead the nation into the biotech age. This time he learned his lesson. Instead of having a civil servant be in charge, he had a Malaysian entrepreneur-scientist from abroad to head it. Unfortunately, that was not enough. Again, it suffered through many of the failures of the MSC, in particular, lack of trained personnel and difficulty in recruiting foreign talent.

The September 2005 issue of the prestigious journal Nature carried a highly unflattering review of Bio Valley.3 To even casual observers, what the journal reported was not new. Despite appearing in a prominent publication, the report did not create any stir in Malaysia. The reason was simple: Not many Malaysians read the journal as few libraries carry it. That more than anything else reveals the dismal state of science in Malaysia.

The sad part is that there are many capable and talented scientists in Malaysia working at the universities and research centers. Scientists at the Rubber Research Institute successfully produced a transgenic rubber plant carrying the gene for human albumin.4 That was a landmark scientific achievement, a potential commercial success. Despite living thousands of miles away I was aware of that brilliant achievement, but policy makers and even fellow scientists in Malaysia are blissfully unaware of it.

While the government pours huge sums of money into Bio Valley, these proven scientists at the universities and research institutes are starved for funds. A scientist friend at a local university lost a valuable resource because his superb technician manning the NMR machine quit because he could make more money selling fried bananas. As the technician was only a high school graduate, there was a ceiling to his earnings per civil service protocol. Worse, my scientist friend could not get the necessary funding for his research assistants.

Both MSC and Bio Valley represent what is alas too common in Malaysia, good ideas executed poorly.

Next: Big Governments, Big Problems

Test Scores, Meritocracy, and a Dysfunctional Education System

M. Bakri Musa

Three recent and apparently unrelated news items reflect our distorted view of merit and our dysfunctional education system. We believe that merit is measured only by test scores. As for our flawed education system, its current minister is seeking UNESCO’s help while his immediate predecessor commissioned the World Bank. As in the past, there will be an expensive and voluminous report, and that will be the end of it.

The first news item was the law lecturer who flunked over 97 percent of her students; second, the tragic death of a college dropout at UTM’s campus dormitory in Johor Baru; and third, Prime Minister Najib’s announcement of special ‘merit’ scholarships.

That law lecturer is actually proud of the fact that only 4 out of her 157 students passed her test. She is now a cause celebre among those who have legitimate misgivings of our education system. However, I would gently suggest that perhaps teaching is not her calling. That assessment would change of course had she approached her dean early in the academic term to discuss her classroom problems.

For her to realize only at the end of the year that nearly her entire class was not prepared to undertake rigorous law studies is incredulous. She must have been totally out of touch with her class. If what she claimed were true, that should have been obvious within the first few weeks, not at the end of the year.

The second, the death on UTM campus, was tragic in many ways. This, together with the recent snafu over processing applicants at the supposedly ‘apex’ Universiti Sains Malaysia, reflects the quality of our campus management. Her and her baby’s bodies were not found until two days later. Where were her dorm mates? Were they deaf and blind? This is a pathetic reflection of the campus social environment.

The university released a statement that she was a fourth-year unmarried ‘dropout’ who had been renting a room from the university. No mention of condolence to the poor victim’s family. I wonder if the campus Imam had performed the funeral rites on her and comforted her grieving family. More than likely, he too had condemned her for her sins. If I am wrong in my assumption, I unreservedly apologize to the Imam.

A fourth-year student just does not ‘drop out.’ She must have had other than academic difficulties, most likely her pregnancy. That undoubtedly was a mistake, but not a reason for dropping out. The university could have granted her leave of absence. To expel someone at that level is unnecessary.

Nor should the UTM victim pay for her one mistake with her life, as well as that of her innocent baby. That she felt isolated and without any help right on campus is an indictment of her university. The campus should not have punished her or aggravated her problem by not offering her medical and counseling care. The campus environment must be supportive such that students like her could readily seek help.

The university should provide adequate sex education and the necessary medical services. This is not just to prevent unwanted pregnancies but also the spread of sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS. The moral qualms of the officials should not blind them to the needs of their students.

The third news item is the giddiness that greets Prime Minister Najib’s announcement of special scholarships based only on ‘merit.’ This response is most pronounced from those who feel that awards where Malays would predominate, as with JPA scholarships, would by definition lack ‘merit.’

Najib’s announcement followed an earlier controversy where students with 21 A’s in the SPM examination were denied the honor in favor of those with only 10 or 11 A’s. Never mind the absurdity of sitting for so many subjects. ‘Merit’ to these folks is a simplistic concept, something that can readily be measured by a paper and pencil (or pen) test. If that were the case, there would be no need for selection committees or interviews, just use computers to select the candidates.

These folks would be bewildered if told that even top universities have large admissions department to look out for potential talents that could have been missed from just looking at their test scores alone. For its part, JPA has not seen fit to learn from the great universities on how they select their candidates, like having them write personal essays. With JPA scholarships, I would have eligible candidates write personal essays in both Malay and English, in addition to separate interviews conducted exclusively in Malay and English.

One company has interviews with a twist. A day before the interview, the candidates were assigned a real-life problem. During the interview the candidate would discuss his or her approach to solving it. It is a revelation to see how candidates approach a problem.

Those who view merit strictly as test scores obviously do not have the humility or capacity to understand the limitations of those tests. There are at least three variables to a test. One is the test itself, its validity and reliability. Meaning, does it really measure ‘merit’ (however we define the term) and are its results reproducible? Then there are the students. The third would be the teacher and her teaching. The students may be intelligent, willing and capable, but if her teaching skills are wanting, the results would also be poor.

It is presumptuous if not outright arrogant for that law lecturer to assume that she is a superb teacher and that the fault lies entirely with her students. Even if she is a superb teacher (or others have convinced her that she is), she still could not attribute her class failure entirely to her students. She may have been inept in designing effective test questions. The only way for her to prove that her tests were valid would be to administer them to two control groups: one would be those who should pass her examination (positive control), and the other would be where you expect them not to do well (negative control).

The first could be her senior students and the second, other than law students. If the first group excelled on her test while the second did poorly, then she could rightly conclude that her examination questions were valid. Short of that she is unjustified in assuming that her students were all duds and that her teaching and tests were blameless.

If as she claimed that her students were totally unprepared to pursue law studies, a good or at least diligent teacher would have changed her emphasis and approach to bring them up to par. There is no point piling on materials that the students could not absorb. If need be she could have alerted her dean on the need for remedial instructions. Perhaps she could have asked the dean to put the entire class in a year of preparatory instructions.

Any or all of these approaches would have been more productive. Had she done so she would have won the eternal gratitude of her students. She would also make a national contribution by producing a class of competent lawyers. More importantly, she would not have been fired. Instead all she achieved with her strutting was to brand her entire class as failures, a stigma that will tag them for the rest of their lives. In the process she also branded herself a failure as a teacher.

On many American campuses, even at the most prestigious, there are preparatory summer classes before the new academic year where students could enroll to better prepare themselves. Many students, even bright ones, avail themselves to such programs. Even top MBA programs have similar summer programs so students could brush up on their mathematics, for example.

It is amazing how once you have correctly identified the problems, it is remarkable easy to craft the needed solutions. On the other hand, if you fail to identify or comprehend the problems clearly, then you are more likely to seek gimmicky solutions. Najib Razak’s plan for ‘merit’ scholarships is one such example.

Najib is frankly admitting that the current program is based on other than merit. I wonder how those current JPA scholarship holders feel now that the awards they had worked so hard for had been trashed by no less than the Prime Minister.

Like the USIM law lecturer, Najib Razak is confused on the meaning of education and learning, as well as the significance of tests, test scores, and merit.

Chapter 16: Critique of Current Strategies

Islam Hadhari (“Civilizational” Islam)

Local commentators generously refer to Abdullah Badawi as an Islamic ‘scholar,’ despite the fact that he graduated with only a first degree and had not contributed an iota of scholarship. It is the ethos of the Malay culture to be generous, and to have low expectations especially of its leaders. Incidentally Islamic Studies was not Badawi’s first choice. He could not handle the mathematics to pursue his first choice, economics. Then, as now, Islamic Studies was the fallback for those not academically inclined.

Abdullah takes the ‘scholar’ label seriously, and therein lies the problem. He feels compelled to demonstrate his Islamic manhood and to better those ulamas in PAS. In 2004 Abdullah introduced his Islam Hadhari (Civilizational Islam) with great fanfare. Few would disagree with its ten lofty and lengthy principles. Cynically one could view them as nothing more than a pretentious attempt at besting the Ten Commandments, minus the brevity, clarity, and gravity, of course.

When citizens started asking whether “money politics” and corruption, afflictions of UMNO, are compatible with Islam Hadhari, the Prime Minister became decidedly testy. Of course both challenge the core of Islam Hadhari: moral integrity. When further questioned on whether the Internal Security Act, which calls for detention without trial, is in the spirit of the third principle of Islam Hadhari (free and independent people), and its second (just and trustworthy government), Abdullah threatened anyone who challenges Islam Hadahri with … the ISA! It is a sad reflection of Islam Hadhari that books written by John Esposito and Karen Armstrong, both sympathetic and influential commentators on Islam, are banned by the Abdullah administration.

Today, Islam Hadhari is one of Abdullah’s many forgotten slogans. The 9MP makes occasional respectful references to it.

The premise of Islam Hadhari is that this great faith is compatible with modern development and democracy. No one challenges that. The problem is not in enumerating the many great qualities of Islam (a grade school pupil could do that), but in living up to them. Nor is there any point in recalling the glory days of Islam and of the renaissance of Andulasia, those too are well documented. More important is to learn what made those Muslims great and what contributed to their subsequent decline. That would require diligent studies, not coining springy slogans.

Again, my solution is simple: Dump Islam Hadhari. It is dying anyway. It is obscene to see UMNO leaders endlessly quoting the Quran—with its pristine message of universal justice and respect for individual dignity and liberty—while at the same time defending such intrusive and inhumane laws as the ISA. That they fail to appreciate the jarring irony of their position is a stunning reflection of their collective moral blindness.

Today’s Muslims confuse between being “Islamic” and being good. Do good, and you will be following the moral imperatives of the Quran and the teachings of the prophet (pbuh). Evil deeds, no matter what their presumed justifications, can never be Islamic. Killing is evil not because the Quran says it is, rather killing is evil; that is why the Quran prohibits it. The difference is not at all subtle.

If Abdullah were intent on being the Grand Imam a la the Rightly Guided Caliphs, then he should emulate the legendary second Caliph, Omar. He was best known not for his erudite recitation of the Quran or for leading congregational prayers but for his effective and progressive leadership. Omar would stroll incognito through the evening bazaars to find out exactly how the citizens were faring, instead of relying on the glowing reports from his subordinates. Today’s Muslim leaders, out to prove their piety, would rather spend their evenings in mosques.

Imam Abdullah is taking his religious role too seriously. He forgets that he has a nation to lead, and the intractable problems of Malaysia cannot be solved through sermonizing and endless dispensing of homilies. Nor would prayers alone do it. A hadith says it well; first tie your camel, only then pray it does not escape. First be an honest and effective leader, then pray to God and seek His Guidance and Mercy.

Reduce poverty, eliminate corruption, and respect the dignity of the citizens—those are meritorious deeds in the Holy Book of any religion. Abdullah would be better off concentrating on crafting effective policies to address these pressing problems instead of being distracted by the empty rhetoric of Islam Hadhari. The citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims, elected him to be their chief executive, not their imam.

Next: Multimedia Super Corridor and Bio Valley

Chapter 16: Critique of Current Strategies

The Ninth Malaysia Plan (9MP)

According to the accompanying blurb, which was meant to be complimentary, it took over a year to plan for the 9MP. Meaning, the entire 2005—the last year of the 8MP—was taken up with the chore. With personnel consumed with planning for the 9MP, no wonder many of the 8MP’s projects were not completed.

The 9MP document is hefty, nearly 600 pages and covers nearly everything. There are even plans for developing culture and sports champions. How presumptuous! It is billed as the “National Mission” towards that glorified goal of Vision 2020, and to “excellence, glory and distinction,” theme of the earlier election campaign.

In trying to cover everything, the Plan covers nothing in depth. The problems of grooming sports champions get the same billing as improving the government machinery and the education system. There is little attempt at setting priorities. The Plan is long on wish lists (improving this and enhancing that) but does not indicate how to achieve them. It is woefully short on the details of execution, the bane of previous Plans.

It reminds me of my days in the 1970s teaching medical students and young doctors in Malaysia. The best that my colleagues could tell their students and trainees were simply, “Study hard!” “Go to the libraries,” and “Read the books and journals.” Nothing beyond endless exhortations!

When I took over, I did not tell the students and trainees to hit the books, instead I made them do that by instituting regular seminars and teaching rounds where they would have to make the presentations. In order to do an effective job, they would have to read the books and journals as well as organize and prepare their materials. I also had mandatory reviews of our major clinical cases. My students and trainees thus took their studying in stride; it was part of their daily work. Consequently they did well at external examinations; a few even published in international refereed journals.

It was not easy. I had to personally supervise and guide them on how to conduct library searches, write articles, and prepare seminars. I did more than simply tell them; I showed them. All too often our leaders are good only at making speeches and lecturing: “Be efficient!” Don’t be corrupt!” “Be creative!” They never show their followers how to be so. The reason of course is that those leaders are themselves clueless.

Likewise with the 9MP; it would make national schools the school of choice, but offers no idea on how to achieve that goal except to make Mandarin and Tamil available as electives. The planners forget that parents are abandoning national schools because of their declining quality and ever increasing influence of religion. The Plan does not address both important issues let alone come up with ideas on overcoming them.

To improve rural schools, the Plan would post experienced teachers there, with again no mention on how to entice them. The Plan would provide for teachers’ quarters in rural schools, but there was no assurance that such houses would be reserved for teachers of critical subjects like English, mathematics, and science. At present such houses are occupied by religious teachers, of which there is a glut. In my An Education System Worthy of Malaysia, I suggested that teachers of those critical subjects be given special allowances, and if they agree to be posted to rural schools, they would get an additional allowance. Both allowances would effectively double their income.

The 9MP would designate the five oldest public universities as “research universities.” Simply designating does not make it so; more difficult is how to inculcate the research culture. The objective of ensuring that 60 percent of the universities’ academic staff should have terminal qualifications is laudable, but how to achieve that goal is not addressed. The universities are not attracting talent simply because the pay is lousy, especially in the professions, sciences, and technology. In my Education book I suggested paying professors in specialized and much needed disciplines additional “market allowances” to attract and retain them.

One of the biggest problems facing the nation is pervasive corruption. It is the root cause of the decline in the quality and effectiveness of institutions and government machinery. Corruption is responsible for the massive leakages of otherwise sound programs.

The government’s solution was to set up the National Integrity Institute, staffed by personnel drawn from the very same corrupt civil service. The obvious and most effective solution, one recommended by experts, is to have the Anti Corruption Agency be independent and answerable only to Parliament instead of to the Prime Minister and thus subject to political considerations. Unlike establishing the National Integrity Institute, the administrative change of making the ACA report directly to Parliament would incur no additional costs.

There are 27 chapters in the thick 9MP document. The one chapter that is missing and badly needed would be one titled: “The Lessons From Past Plans.” Every Plan had a backlog of incomplete projects, and of projects later proven to be useless or inadequate. At the beginning of the last year of the 8MP (2005), nearly 80 percent of the allocated funds had yet to be disbursed.

My solution to the Malaysia Plan is simple: get rid of it.

Next: Islam Hadhari (Civilizational Islam)

The Poison of “Unity” Government

M. Bakri Musa

The two Malay political parties – UMNO and PAS – are battling each other to convince us that each is better than the other in advancing the “Malay agenda.” The two are like ageing fighters stuck with their same old tired moves. They are oblivious of the fact that we are fed up with their act; their lack of vigor and imaginative new strategies.

In a clumsy if not desperate attempt for new moves they concocted a ‘vision’ for a ‘unity’ government based on the two parties! Left unstated is the question: Unity for what and against whom?

I wish that they would expend their efforts on making our people competitive, and thus lifting us out of poverty. That is the most important Malay agenda today. Better yet, I would prefer that they just exit the ring and let others run the show for a change.

I fail to see how this ‘unity’ government would make Malays more competitive. The track record for UMNO is for all to see. Corruption is now rampant, as well as the erosion of the integrity of our institutions and the deepening polarization of Malaysians. The Melayu Baru (New Malay) of UMNO has now morphed into Melayu Barua (Malay scoundrels).

As for PAS, after decades of ruling Kelantan, the young still has to leave the state to seek a better life. The state is regularly plagued with such diseases as cholera. Tok Guru Nik Aziz may be pious and religious, with honesty and humility thrown in massive doses, but he is completely inept in running a modern state. Apparently his humility does not extend to his intellect for he has not seen fit to seek competent help in such ‘secular’ matters.

New Political Reality

UMNO and PAS are so used to fighting each other that they have forgotten what it is they are fighting for. While they are busy fighting each other, the world has passed them by. Today with the increasing plurality of the Malaysian electorate, securing the majority Malay votes would not necessary translate into political power, at least at the national level.

In a rare display of political wisdom, PAS recognized the need to reach beyond by, for example, fielding non-Malay candidates in the last election and establishing a new wing within the party for non-Muslims. However, whatever inroads the party may have made with non-Malays have since evaporated with its ill-conceived pursuit of a “unity government” with UMNO.

UMNO, a slow learner, has yet to recognize this new political reality. Thus it treats its non-Malay coalition partners in Barisan with undisguised contempt. UMNO leaders are quick to brandish their kerises, preferably dripped with ketchup for dramatic effect, at the slightest provocation.

Chauvinistic appeals of Ketuanan Melayu to win Malay votes might still work, but only regionally in Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, and Trengganu. Unfortunately those are not exactly the economic or power centers of the nation. In terms of population, landmass, and most importantly economic activities, the contributions of those states to the national total are at best miniscule.

The elements overrepresented in those states are poverty and the underdevelopment of the people, and the overwhelming majority of whom are, sadly, Malays. Oh, yes, combined those four states have nearly half (four out of nine) of the sultans. For some, that is a source of endless pride.

As for the much-vaunted Malay agenda or even Ketuanan Melayu, I am at a loss as to what exactly these Malay politicians are fighting for. If it is for retaining the Malay language, sultans and other key elements of Malay culture, including and especially Islam, those are already enshrined in our constitution. Even if non-Malays were to oppose that, there is not much that they could do about it. By themselves they could never secure the necessary two-third majority needed to amend the constitution.

The only way for non-Malays, or anyone else for that matter, to do away with those constitutional provisions would be to bribe Members of Parliament (Malays and non-Malays) to amend the constitution. Then just to be sure, also bribe the Senators and also the King and sultans so they too would agree with the changes.

The price tag would be cheap. The late Tun Ghaffar once suggested that for a few hundred million ringgit you could buy the entire UMNO Supreme Council. With a billion or two you could get the whole parliament and the Council of Rulers.

The colonial British secured the entire country for considerably much less, even after factoring in for inflation and devaluation (of both the sterling and ringgit). Flattery made up for what they could not afford in gold. The British offered fancy titles like the Knighthood of some Medieval Order to our leaders and sultans to win them over.

The corollary to my observation is that if we Malays truly wish to preserve our cherished special privileges, we better start electing honest and incorrupt leaders. Corrupt leaders would not only sell off those special privileges, they will also sell away our country.

Unity for What and Against Whom?

Following the Barisan election rout of March 8, 2008, the fear that the coalition, specifically UMNO, would lose power at the national level was palpable. This desperation led misguided souls in UMNO to seek those in PAS who had been longing for power. This quest for a ‘unity government’ was nothing more than UMNO securing an insurance policy for its continuing hold on power; for PAS, it was a seductive teasing on the taste of power.

It is ironic that the pursuit of a “unity government” resulted only in sowing distrust within the existing coalitions. In pursuing PAS, UMNO succeeded only in straining relations with its long-time Barisan partners. PAS meanwhile managed only to poison its still frail Pakatan Rakyat coalition with PKR and DAP. Worse, as we are now seeing, it also threatens the unity of PAS.

The proponents for this “unity government” have obviously not done their due diligence or any downstream analysis. Those UMNO warlords would not take kindly to sharing their bounty with their new kopiah-clad upstart colleagues. Far from ‘purifying’ UMNO, PAS would end up being just as corrupt as UMNO.

It is remarkable that both Tun Mahathir and Tok Guru Nik Aziz are against the idea. I do not know their individual motives, but the fact they are both in rare agreement should serve as a cautionary note.

If the disintegration of UMNO and PAS were the consequence of this “unity” movement, I could not care less. However, the initiative would poison race relations in the country on a scale comparable to the May 1969 tragedy. Indeed the venom has already seeped out. That should concern everyone.

This “unity government” scheme is nothing more than a crude and greedy power-grab by the UMNO and PAS pair. It is not to be confused with Tun Razak’s version following the May 1969 tragedy. Then it was truly a unity initiative, with the wise Tun opening up the old Alliance coalition to all willing participants.

This latest scheme is the ugliest manifestation of Malay ultra chauvinism. It would lead not to unity but greater polarizations among Malays as well as between Malays and non-Malays, and at a time when we can least afford it.

Even if UMNO were to merge with PAS, the new coalition would still never command a two-third majority in Parliament. At last count, even if every Member of Parliament with a Malay-sounding name were to vote in “unity,” that would still fall far short of a supra majority needed to amend the constitution. The political calculus has changed irreversibly.

The central reality is that Malays will have to advance with and not at the expense of non-Malay Malaysians. Likewise, non-Malays would advance along with and not at the expense of Malays. The unity that we should all strive for must not only be among Malays but also among Malaysians. We can begin that process not by pursuing a “unity government” but decreasing the rhetoric that polarizes our society. Demanding that our political leaders be civil and courteous to each other would be an excellent beginning. Oh yes, please also keep those kerises sheathed!

It amuses me that the most vigorous proponents of this “unity government” in UMNO and PAS are also the shrillest and most divisive voices before they discovered this ‘unity’ religion.

A New Direction For Malays

Instead of wasting time and effort in chasing the mirage of Malay ‘unity’ and in the process unnecessarily alienating others, Malay leaders should focus on the more difficult and critical problem of enhancing Malay competitiveness. This problem cannot be solved simply by shouting slogans of Malay unity or Ketuanan Melayu. Instead we need leaders who are smart, competent, diligent, and above all, not corrupt.

Look at the schools Malay children attend. How can we expect them to learn English or science when we do not provide them with competent teachers? Examine the institutions run predominantly by Malays, the civil service for example. As Malays we should be ashamed of this. We need these institutions to be effective as they are a key to making Malays competitive.

The list is endless. What is limited, and severely so, is the willingness to acknowledge, let alone solve them. I have yet to hear something sensible from either PAS or UMNO leaders. So far PAS wants Malays not to learn English and to ban Sisters in Islam. Well, that is an advancement of sorts; at least they are not harping on hudud. As for UMNO leaders, they cannot even decide whether to continue teaching science and mathematics in English.

Malay leaders should not be deluding the masses with half-baked ideas of “Malay unity.” These leaders succeed only in deluding themselves.

Chapter 16: Critique of Current Strategies

The Umpteenth Malaysia Plan

Malaysia had just ended its Eighth Malaysia Plan covering the years 2000–05. Abdullah presented the Ninth covering 2006–10 to Parliament on March 31, 2006. The 9MP bears his imprint.

I am biased against Five-Year Plans; they have a bad Soviet smell to them. The whole process smacks of central planning. If we have learned anything from the failure of the Soviet system, it is that tight central planning rarely works. Even the Russians have abandoned it.

There is nothing magical or rational about a five-year time frame. In ICT, five years would be an eternity. The computer I bought five years ago is now hopelessly slow and inadequate. On the other hand, trade, business, and investment policies need to be stable; we cannot change the rules every few years and expect to attract investors and encourage trade; likewise with tax laws. With education, the planning should span decades, not five years. Education policies instituted today would not see fruition until decades later. When Malaysia introduced an all-Malay instruction in its schools in the 1970s, the destructive effects are apparent only now, three decades later.

When Tun Razak introduced the First Malaysia Five-Year Plan in 1965 as part of his massive rural development scheme, he had in place the mechanisms and processes to execute and monitor the various projects. That First Malaysia Plan was actually the third for the nation, the first being developed under colonial rule covering the period 1950–55; the second and third were developed by Tun Razak before Malaya became Malaysia.

The Tun modeled his plan after the earlier successful National Operations Council under General Templer, the man who broke the back of the communist insurgency. Tun Razak had his own famed National Operations Room at his ministry, and at the various state and district levels. He made frequent visits in a Land Rover, often unannounced and without great fanfare, to check on developments at the ground level. Those line officers could not simply give him glossy reports for he would inspect the projects himself and assess their progress, or lack there of. Often on the way to visit a project, Tun would stop and inspect one that was on the way. Such unexpected visits were crucial; they gave a more realistic picture of the reality. It also kept those civil servants on their toes.

Tun’s visits also served another useful function; they afforded him opportunities to check first hand on the quality of personnel in the field. It was his way of spotting talent. On seeing a spark in the district, he would bring him or her back to headquarters on a fast track career development. This important leadership responsibility is largely ignored by his successors.

Contrast that with how Abdullah does his inspections. He would arrive on the government’s corporate jet (which he now treats as his private toy), and then be transferred to an air-conditioned Perdana limousine. Thousands would greet him and there would be the obligatory speech making and all round handshaking. All the while he would be immaculately dressed in his dark double-breasted woolen suit. This while visiting a village project in hot, humid, tropical Malaysia!

Tun Razak’s successors relied exclusively on their coterie of advisers. Mahathir expected talented Malaysians to come knocking on his door or lobby through his many hangers-on. Abdullah restricts himself to the buddies of his son-in-law. Unfortunately, bright young Malaysians are too busy being wooed by the private sector or engrossed in the excitement of starting their own enterprises. They have little time for hanging around at UMNO Youth’s meetings. Those who do, obviously their time and talent are not much in demand elsewhere.

These elaborate and all consuming Five-Year-Plans are also disruptive to the normal workings of the government. Months if not years before the beginning of a plan period, time and resources would be consumed with endless meetings to “coordinate and review” the master plan. These meetings typically take place during the last year of the previous Plan, when there were still many projects yet to be completed or even started. With resources and personnel consumed in formulating the next Plan, projects of the existing Plan are ignored. At the end of every Plan period, billions are unspent and numerous projects abandoned, incomplete, or not even started.

If the end of the Plan period were consumed with planning for the next, halfway through the five-year period there would be an exhaustive “Mid Term Review,” again another series of meetings and briefings. One wonders where the time would be for actually working on those projects that are so beautifully and ambitiously laid out in the blueprints.

The budgets for these Plans are impressive, billions for this and that. What is not clear is how much is for operations and how much for capital expenditures (new schools, buildings, bridges, etc.). On scrutinizing the figures, most of the funds are for salaries of civil servants and other operating expenses. The allocation for actual capital expansion is much less impressive.

In late 1970s I was involved in a Five-Year Plan for a major hospital, in particular its radiology service. Most of the funds were used for expanding the square footage of the unit, the bigger the better, as that would impress the minister. When I suggested that the major part of the allocation should be for acquiring better X-ray machines like a CAT scan, everyone was surprised. They were more interested in the building. In my hospital here in California, the MRI machine is located in a trailer! The machine is more important than the building!

Nor were there allocations for such essentials as staff training, landscaping, and the inevitable minor renovations that would be necessary even in a new building. Walk into any new government facility, and there would be no landscaping and the access road still unpaved. Inside, the needed tenant improvements are neglected; they are not even budgeted. Consequently, these expensive spaces end up being used as storage. Dewan Bahasa undertook a multimillion dollar expansion of its headquarters, but most of the expensive floor space was taken up simply to warehouse its unsold books!

Ungku Aziz, the distinguished former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Malaya, once related his experience in building a new library for his campus. Millions were spent for the building, but when he asked for additional allocations for books and journals, they were denied. The officials would not allow the purchase of new books and journals until all existing ones had been read! Presumably, the money for new books would have to wait for the next Malaysia Plan.

A more recent and glaring example of ineptness and lack of proper planning was this: with the teaching of science and mathematics to be conducted in English, there was a shortage of trained teachers. I would have thought they had anticipated the problem when they instituted the new policy. No! They discovered the problem only after the plan was introduced! Hishamuddin Hussein, the Minister of Education, was reduced to declaring blandly that the problems would be addressed in the next (Tenth) Malaysia Plan, a good six years away, at least.

The whole approach to the Malaysia Plan is flawed. Currently, a certain sum of money is allocated, usually based on a percentage increase over the previous Plan. How this increase is arrived at is never explained. The money is then divvied up. The first to get a bite is of course the Prime Minister’s pet projects. Rest assured that if the Prime Minister had been invited to Timbuktu, there would be an allocation for the setting up of an embassy there. Next would be the politically powerful agencies. Anything that MARA or the Ministry of Entrepreneur Development (two agencies concerned exclusively with Bumiputra affairs) asked for is routinely approved. These agencies could do no wrong and their requests never challenged. No one has yet analyzed how effective or efficient they are with the funds allocated. Similarly, billions are expended on GLCs, again with no critical examination of their mission or effectiveness.

The mindset seems to be the more money poured, the more important is the problem, and the more committed the government is to solving it. These rigid Five-Year Plans could be reduced to irrelevance very quickly by rapidly changing external events. The economic crisis of 1997 quickly reduced the Seventh MP (1995–1999) to shambles.

As there is no hiatus between one Plan period to the next, there is no time to pause and reflect, and to learn from the mistakes of the preceding plan. The Mid- Term Review is merely perfunctory, despite the endless meetings and extensive reports. There is no attempt to examine the underlying assumptions or to consider major course changes. The 1997 economic crisis occurred midway through the 7th MP, yet the second half of the plan proceeded as if nothing had happened.

It is time to jettison the whole idea of Five-Year Plans. A better approach would be to establish four or five priority areas. That would include improving education, eradicating poverty, improving our competitiveness, attracting foreign investments, and strengthening institutions. It is amazing that when the problems are clearly delineated, how much they are interrelated. If we have good schools and universities, that would go a long way to reducing poverty, improve our competitiveness, and make our workers attractive to foreign investors.

Once the major issues are identified, let the involved agencies work on them and set their own priorities. The problem of increasing access to higher education need not necessarily mean building new campuses or expanding existing ones, rather to encourage the entry of the private sector or foreign institutions. All these initiatives and course changes require a radical change in attitude and mindset. That is the difficult part.

Next: The Ninth Malaysia Plan (9MP)

Something Sensible From UMNO Youth

M. Bakri Musa

I am heartened that UMNO Youth supports the proposal that a pass in English be mandatory in securing the SPM certificate. I commend the organization in going further then merely supporting the proposition. Among others, UMNO Youth suggests increasing the number of English teachers in rural schools and hiring foreign native-speaking English teachers as well as those retired teachers trained under the old system and thus fluent in English.

I wish that UMNO Youth would be more daring and follow the example of its sister wing, UMNO Puteri, and support the continuation of the teaching of science and mathematics in English. I would also prefer that they would support the proposal making a pass in MUET be mandatory for university entrance. That notwithstanding, the stand taken by these two junior UMNO organizations is in stark contrast to that taken by Pakatan Rakyat partners.

Supporting or adopting a policy is one thing; effectively implementing it is entirely another. This is where our leaders and institutions have failed us miserably. And when they fail in executing a policy effectively, the blame would go not on these ineffective and incompetent officials but on the policy itself. This makes the later resurrection of an otherwise sound policy that much more difficult.

The policy of teaching of science and mathematics in English is a prime example of this. When Prime Minister Mahathir introduced it in 2003, I suggested that it be implemented in stages, beginning first with our residential schools. There the students are generally brighter, teachers more well trained, and facilities much superior. It would be much easier to work out the inevitable kinks like the availability of teachers and textbooks in such a controlled environment. When those issues are resolved, the program could then be extended.

As for textbooks, I suggested that instead of wasting time and effort at re-inventing the wheel, meaning retranslating existing texts in Malay into English, we should buy already available modern textbooks in English from established global publishers. With the ministry’s purchasing clout (we were looking at literally hundreds of thousands of copies) it should be able to secure substantial discounts.

Additionally we should convert some existing teachers’ training colleges into exclusively English-medium institutions. Recognizing that the language skills of new teacher trainees were highly deficient, I suggested that they be given a year of English-immersion classes combined with improving their science and mathematics before they enter teacher training.

As an added enticement, prepare the more talented students to take the American SAT examination and send the high scorers to top universities in America. With their now enhanced language skills as well superior proficiency in science and mathematics, they would be more than well-prepared for the SAT.

We all recognize that the teaching of science and mathematics is not the best way to enhance the English proficiency of our students. It would however ease their acquisition of new scientific knowledge; we cannot depend on translations because of the inevitable time lag.

Consequently, in addition to teaching science and mathematics in English I suggested also teaching one or two other subjects in English. My prime candidate would be Islamic Studies because of its high language content as well as the increasing number of literature now written in English. Next to Arabic, English is now the most important language in Islam. As an added bonus, it would also broaden our students’ understanding of our faith. It would also attract others whose mother tongue is not Malay to learn about Islam.

Similarly in making MUET mandatory for university admission, I would introduce the policy incrementally. To begin with, those currently qualified to enter sans a pass in MUET be given a year or two to make up their deficiency. Meaning they would have to defer their admission until they pass their MUET. They would be more likely to make up their deficiency if they were to concentrate only on improving their English.

Incidentally, taking a year or two off between high school and university is now fast becoming very popular with American students. They use that hiatus to travel, acquire specific skills, or just to earn some money for college.

Had our leaders and officials done these (and many others) our students today – particularly Malays – would have enhanced English language skills as well as superior proficiency in science and mathematics. That in turn would enhance their value in the market place, quite apart from making them more educated in the broadest sense of the word.

Most importantly, we would not again be distracted by yet another unneeded major controversy in our education policy.

All Is Not Lost

All is not lost, however; we could still recover from our initial fumble by being better prepared this time. Consider the proposal to hire retired and foreign teachers.

If we hire any Australian or British teacher without carefully scrutinizing their abilities then we would not advance the policy. Apart from having the necessary academic qualifications, these teachers must also demonstrate an ability to be free from what is euphemistically termed thick “mother tongue influence” (accent). This is a major problem with teachers and lecturers we recruited from India and Pakistan. Similarly, a teacher with a thick Cockney or outback accent would be equally incomprehensible in our classrooms.

I suggest that we recruit teachers from English Canada or Midwestern United States because they speak as close as possible to what is termed standard or international English. Another equally good and much cheaper source would be Eastern Europe. Learning another language is tough; there is no need to burden our young in trying to decipher a thick Cockney, Australian, or for that matter, a heavy Southern accent.

Having Polish teachers serves another advantage; I am amazed how well Polish students could speak English even though that is not their mother tongue. They do not even have an accent. Their success and experience could help our students overcome their own problems of learning a second language.

Recruiting retired teachers too presents its own sets of problems. As they speak English well, their presence would only expose the glaring inadequacies of current teachers. This would not sit well with them, especially the headmasters. When talking to these retired teachers, the greatest obstacle they face (apart from the bureaucratic hoops the have to undergo) is the unwelcome attitude of their current colleagues. To overcome this we need to give financial incentives for headmasters to recruit these retired teachers or find ways to overcome the resistance of the current teaching personnel.

Regardless, when we do recruit these retired and foreign teachers, we must ensure that they are not assigned alone to a particular school. We must have at least five or six of them at any one school. In that way they could find mutual support for each other and because of their “critical mass,” they could influence the students and the rest of the teachers.

Attention to these details is important to a policy’s success. If our officials ignore them or are not diligent when implementing the policy, it would surely fail. Then we would end up again with never-ending controversies and divisiveness.

The current controversy over the teaching of science and mathematics in English is not due to the inherent defect of the policy (on the contrary it is a sound policy) rather its implementation had been botched by our incompetent officials. Let us ensure that we do a better job in trying to enhance the English skills of our students.

Chapter 16: Critique of Current Strategies

Thirty years after the death of Tun Razak in 1976, and three Prime Ministers later, the nation’s basic socioeconomic policies still bear his trademark. His NEP gave way to the National Development Policy in 1990, and in 2000 to the National Vision Policy. In 2006, under Abdullah Badawi, Malaysia has its National Mission Policy to take it to 2020.

The labels may change but the policies’ underlying thrust remains the same, and could be briefly described thus: more of the same, but with bigger and further reach together with an ever increasing price tag. There is little attempt at examining the assumptions. As there is little critical analysis, the learning curve is flat, and mistakes get replicated and amplified, and they call that experience!

In its first decade under Tun Razak, the NEP was remarkably effective and there was minimal leakage. Abuses began soon after his death, and accelerated under Mahathir. The rot began slowly, and because it was tolerated and not dealt with harshly, the pattern set in very quickly. When the first few scholarships went to ministers’ children and contracts to politicians and their cronies without there being any howling protest, the message quickly registered that those practices were acceptable.

From there to the present rot, the slope is steep and slippery. Today politicians and ministers, and their kin and kind, are the first to hog the public trough. They consider it their divine right to such bounties; challenge them at your own risk. UMNO’s “money politics” is merely one ugly manifestation, and far from being the most egregious. These abuses are taken in stride; they are no longer considered aberrations. They have become embedded in the normal ethics and culture. That is the most destructive aspect.

There is no shortage of responsible parties contributing to this sorry state. Foremost are the leaders for tolerating and thus implicitly encouraging such behaviors. They do not set the necessary high standards of integrity and competence for themselves and others. These abuses occur during their watch; they must be held accountable.

These leaders do not operate in a vacuum. As per my diamond of development, citizens, culture and institutions, and geography all contribute. If Allah had not blessed Malaysia with all those natural bounties, the greed of these leaders and their level of corruption would have been considerably less. If citizens had not readily endorsed what these leaders were doing, that might have restrained them. If our culture and institutions had been strong, that would have nipped early those corrupt and abusive tendencies.

There is a danger that having implied that all is responsible, no one is. Ultimately the leaders must bear the greatest burden and have the most to answer. Those in the political opposition too have not lived up to their constitutional responsibilities. Leaders of the Chinese Democratic Action Party cannot see beyond their narrow parochial interests. They cannot frame their criticisms beyond racial boundaries. The leaders of PAS are no better. To them, the solution to every problem is in the Quran. Just read it, they would smugly proclaim.

Their simplistic dismissal of those who disagree with them as kafir (a particularly insulting epithet) merely degrades their stature as leaders and as Muslims. Scholars, intellectuals, editors, and pundits too must share the blame. When the nation sorely needs sober analyses and critical evaluations, they grovel themselves to be apologists and spinmeisters for the establishment. They do not serve the nation with such postures, nor are they being true to themselves or their calling.

With Mahathir’s long tenure over and Abdullah comfortably in his, these commentators are now, without any trace of embarrassment, singing a different tune. Many who previously were unabashed supporters of Mahathir are now damning him, all in their effort to ingratiate themselves to the new leader. Scholars like Shamsul A B and commentators like Johan Jaafar who in the past endlessly glorified Mahathir are now using unflattering words to describe him.

Ministers, who used to kiss Mahathir’s hand and unhesitatingly genuflected themselves in other ways in front of the man, are now calling the elder statesman names. Kalimullah Hassan, now an Abdullah cheerleader and appointed by him to head The New Straits Times, once chided me for a critical piece I wrote on Mahathir. Kali’s tune is decidedly different today. He and others are revolting caricatures of Mahathir’s “Melayu mudah lupa!” (ungrateful Malays) and Syed Husin Alattas’ “Ugly Malays.” These and other Melayu Baru (New Malays) have morphed into Melayu Barua (Malay scoundrels).

In part this reflects the general Malay culture that in order to praise someone you have to damn his peers. By attempting to besmirch Mahathir’s legacy they hope to elevate Abdullah’s status. Abdullah should concentrate on ensuring that his candle is burning bright. There is no need to blow out his predecessor’s or anyone else’s candle in order to make his appear brighter.

In this chapter I will critique the current strategies of the Abdullah administration,

applying the same tough criteria I used in evaluating Mahathir’s.

Next: The Umpteenth Malaysia Plan