Sudut Fikiran Bakri Musa

28hb. Januari, 2013

http://suaris.wordpress.com

I  Masa Depan Melayu

Kalau lebih ramai lagi memberi dan menyumbang daripada mereka yang bergantung dan menerima, cepatlah maju masyarakat itu…

Dr Bakri Musa agak asing kepada sesetengah pembaca Malaysia. Tambahan pula kepada sesetengah pembaca yang kurang terdedah dengan medium internet berbahasa Inggeris, maka mereka dijangka sedikit kerugian apabila idea-idea bernas dari penulis dan pemikir hebat seperti Dr Bakri tidak dapat diakses kepada mereka.

Suaris telah mengambil inisiatif untuk mendekatkan pembaca berbahasa Melayu khususnya dengan buah fikiran Dr Bakri. Selaku anak kelahiran negeri Sembilan, dan mewakili generasi awal Bumiputera yang mendapat peluang pendidikan luar Negara, Dr Bakri tidak pernah melupakan asal-usulnya dan membalas budi tanah airnya melalui senarai idea dan tulisan, yang sebahagiannya dibukukan.

Terbaru, beliau muncul dengan koleksi tulisannya yang diberi judul ‘Liberating The Malay Mind’ yang diterbit oleh ZI Publication. Sekalipun bermastautin di Amerika Syarikat, membaca naskah tulisan beliau menyebabkan kita berasa amat dekat dengannya.

Dalam kesempatan ini, Dr Bakri berbincang mengenai topik yang penting dan amat relevan dengan situasi orang Melayu di Negara kita, iaitu “Bangsa Melayu dan Masa Depan’. Warga Melayu dilihat berada di persimpangan dalam banyak perkara; persimpangan politik, ekonomi, pembangunan, pendidikan dan sosial amnya. Pendek kata, bagaimanakah rupa perkembangan masa depan orang Melayu dalam dekad akan datang dan bagaimanakah mereka akan menghadapinya?

Ikuti wawancara tersebut selengkapnya.

Suaris:  Apa khabar Dr? Diharapkan Dr dan isteri sentiasa sihat dan diberkati Allah hendaknya.

Dr Bakri:  Beres!  Sehat sahaja, Alhamdullillah!

Suaris : Dr banyak menulis berkenaan ketidaksediaan orang Melayu dalam menghadapi masa depan mereka? Sejauh mana tidak bersedianya mereka ini?

Dr Bakri : Di dalam buku saya Towards A Competitive Malaysia (Ke arah Malaysia Membangun) saya mengemukakan kesimpulan ini: Kemajuan atau kemunduran sesuatu masyarakat dan negeri tergantung kepada empat tiang – pemimpin (leaders), rakyat (people), budaya (culture), dan alam sekitar (geography).

Daripada empat unsur itu, hanya satu sahaja – alam sekitar – yang tidak boleh di ubah. Sama ada negara itu kaya dengan minyak dan tanahnya subur adalah berkat daripada Tuhan. Bersyukur dan untunglah rakyatnya.

Tetapi kalau negara yang bertuah itu mempunyai pemimpin yang korup dan tidak bijak, rakyatnya tidak mempunyai kebolehan atau kepakaran, dan budayanya merosot dan suka membazir, lama kelamaan masyarakat itu akan mundur. Banyak contoh di dunia sekarang, antaranya Brunei dan negera Arab.

Di sebaliknya, jika alam atau geografi negeri itu tidak bertuah, tanahnya penuh dengan gunung-gunung yang tinggi dan dibalut salji yang tebal, dan cuacanya sejuk menyebabkan tanaman boleh tumbuh hanya empat atau lima bulan sahaja setahun, tetapi jika mutu pemimpin, rakyat dan budaya masyarakat itu tinggi, ia akan maju dan terus maju. Contohnya Switzerland.

Kita mudah faham betapa mustahaknya pemimpin yang bijak, cekap dan beramanah. Pemimpin yang saya maknakan bukan sahaja dalam medan politik dan pentabiran negeri (menteri dan penghulu), tetapi juga dalam agama (mufti dan ustaz), masyarakat (sultan dan raja raja), pendidikan (professor dan guru guru), ibu bapa dll.

Mutu rakyat atau modal insan (human capital) tergantung kepada dua ukuran: kesihatan dan pendidikan. Kalau rakyat kita tidak sihat (ketagih dadah, dijangkiti malaria dan denggi), mereka tidak akan cekap dan berupaya. Kalau dasar pelajaran kita mundur, pemuda pemudi kita tidak akan mahir.

Seseorang makhluk itu adalah menyumbang dan memberi, atau bergantung dan menerima daripada masyarakat. Kalau lebih ramai lagi memberi dan menyumbang daripada mereka yang bergantung dan menerima, cepatlah maju masyarakat itu. Sebaliknya jika lebih ramai menerima dan bergantung cepatlah mundur masyarakat atau negeri itu.

Apa yang saya maksudkan dengan istilah budaya ialah acara acara, badan-badan serta adat resam dan nilai-nilai masyarakat itu.

Cuba ambil badan-badan. Bila saya beli daging di kedai saya tahu ada badan-badan dan undang-undang yang mengesahkan bahawa daging itu bersih dan halal. Kalau tidak, ramai pembeli yang akan sakit dan mati akibat makan daging busuk. Bagitu juga jika kita tidak ada badan dan undang-undang yang kita tidak percayai, siapa yang akan mengesahkan bahawa rumah yang saya nak beli itu betul-betul dipunyai oleh si penjual? Banyak masa and jasa akan membazir hanya untuk mengesahkan yang penjual betul-betul tuan punya harta yang nak dijual.

Bagitu juga bila saya simpan wang di bank, saya yakin duit saya itu tidak akan hilang dilarikan oleh manager bank itu.

Tentang nilai budaya, jika kita hormatkan penipu, pencuri dan penyangak, itu memberi tauladan kepada orang ramai terutama yang muda. Mereka pun akan menjadi penyamun dan pencuri seperti kaum Mafia di Italy Selatan.

Keempat empat unsur-unsur itu bertindak balas antara satu dan lain. Maknanya, rakyat yang bijak akan memilih atau mengundi pemimpin yang sama bijak dan tidak akan melayan atau tunduk kepada pemimpin yang angkuh dan penipu. Bagitu juga pemimpin yang bijak akan membina dasar pendidikan yang membolehkan murid murid menerima ilmu dan kemahiran yang membolehkan mereka menjadi rakyat yang soleh.

Rakyat dan pemimpin yang bijak akan mengunakan dan memelihara alam sekitar nya dengan bijak. Misalnya Cancun, Mexico, dalam tahun lima puluhan dulu adalah satu kampung nelayan yang miskin. Tetapi oleh kebijakan pemimpin serta mutu rakyat yang bertambah tinggi, Cancun sekarang bukan lagi pusat nelayan tetapi pusat pelancongan yang masyhur dan maju. Nelayan yang dahulunya miskin sekarang mewah berkerja sebagai “tour guide” untuk pelancong dari America dan Europah yang tiba beribu untuk memancing sebagai sport.

Bila kita periksa keadaan masyarakat Melayu sekarang dari sudut keempat empat elemen yang saya terangkan diatas, iaitu pemimpin, mutu rakyat, budaya, dan alam sekitar kita, apakah markah yang patut kita bagi?

Cuba tengok alam sekitar kita. Pantai-pantai kita indah, ombaknya biru, airnya tidak sejuk, dan matahari selalu sahaja bercahaya. Patutnya berjuta orang Eropah dan Jepun melancong ke negeri kita. Kalah Cancun! Apa sebab tidak begitu? Tengoklah, sampah merata rata, kemudahan awam saperti tandas dan bilik mandi tak ada, kalau ada pun kotor.

Di mana salahnya?  Pemimpin? Betul! Rakyat? Betul juga! Budaya? Susahlah nak cakap! Di dalam buku saya Towards A Competitive Malaysia saya huraikan pelbagai cara memimpin, cara-cara untuk meninggikan mutu rakyat, meninggikan unsur-usur budaya kita, serta membela alam sekitar kita supaya mengutungi masyarakat.

II   Melayu Perlu Merdeka

Masyarakat Melayu sekarang berkehendakkan pertolongan racun Roundup bukan baja Urea untuk menghapuskan ahli lalang dalam masyarakat kita. Kebun kita sudah dibanjiri lalang…

DALAM siri temuramah Suaris bersama Dr Bakri Musa bahagian kedua, Dr menyatakan pentingnya orang Melayu bersama pemimpin-pemimpinnya melakukan anjakan dengan mengubah pemikiran mereka ke arah kemajuan dan rasionaliti. Mereka tidak sepatutnya taksub kepada ajaran mahu pun arahan yang meminta mereka supaya berfikiran jumud, mundur ke belakang sekalipun arahan itu datangnya dari seorang ulama atau pemimpin utama. Mereka juga diseru supaya membuang kebergantungan berlebihan mereka kepada tongkat (bantuan kerajaan) supaya mereka lebih berdikari dan percaya diri.

Ikuti temuramah tersebut selengkapnya.

Suaris:  Dr Mahathir dalam satu rancangan di Astro Awani beberapa hari lepas berkata orang Melayu akan terus ketinggalan sekiranya tidak dibantu, yang diistilahkan beliau sebagai tongkat. Adakah Dr bersetuju orang Melayu terus diberikan tongkat berkenaan. Sampai bila bantuan ini perlu diteruskan?

Dr Bakri:  Kalau orang Melayu sekarang masih lagi kebelakangan selepas lebih daripada 55 tahun di “bantu” oleh kerajaan UMNO, kita patut periksa dengan teliti apakah yang disifatkan “bantuan” itu.

Sebagai ibu bapa kita sedia maklum betapa mustahaknya cara kita membantu anak anak kita. Kalau kita selalu sahaja memanjakan, jangan harapkan mereka menjadi cemerlang. Kalau kita terlalu kuat atau “strict,” mungkin mereka akan hilang ketegasan sendiri (self-confidence). Begitu juga kalau kita selalu memburukkan dan memberatkan kelemahan mereka.

Dalam rawatan moden, seseorang yang sudah dibedah tulang punggungnya jarang diberi tongkat; kalau diberi hanya untuk seminggu dua sahaja. Sebaliknya, pesakit diberi physiotherapy untuk tujuan berjalan sendiri tanpa tongkat. Pesakit yang saya bedah, pada keesokan harinya saya menyuruh dia bangun berjalan tanpa pertolongan.

Banyak bahayanya jika si pesakit terbaring sahaja di atas katil, antaranya darah beku (blood clot) yang boleh mengakibatkan maut. Pesakit yang saya bedah kerana appendicitis biasanya keluar dari hospital pada esok hari dan kembali berkerja dalam tempoh seminggu. Dua puloh tahun dahulu pesakit seumpama (akan mengambil masa yang lama) baru nak keluar dari hospital!

Satu wawasan perubatan ialah jika badan kita (sama ada urat, tulang, dan juga otak) tidak di kerjakan atau dilatih ia akan menjadi lemah dan reput. Jika saya ikatkan bujang (pemuda) yang kuat dan sehat di atas katil dan “bantu” dia makan, mandi dan sebagainya supaya dia tak payah pun bergerak satu urat, tak sampai seminggu hamba Allah itu tidak akan boleh bangun sendiri; dia akan memohon tongkat sebab badannya sudah menjadi lemah. Itu bahayanya “menolong” berlebih- lebihan.

Kita perlu kaji dengan teliti mengapa “pertolongan” yang diberi kepada kaum kita oleh kerajaan UMNO tidak berkesan.

Dr. Mahathir pernah merawat pesakit. Kalau si pesakit tidak sembuh dengan ubat dan rawatan yang diberi, patutkah si doktor terus dengan ubat dan rawatan yang sama bertahun- tahun? Mungkin si pesakit patut dibantu dengan Penicillin, bukan Panadol.

Kadang kadang, walau pun ubat yang diberi itu sesuai, mungkin sukatan yang diberi tidak mencukupi atau berlebihan. Betul, Panadol akan menurunkan demam, tetapi hanya jika diberi dalam sukatan yang berpatutan. Kalau diberi suku pil sahaja, demam takkan turun, dan kita akan salahkan ubat!

Kalau kita bagi ubat berlebihan, itu pun boleh menjadi bisa dan bahaya. Di Amerika setiap tahun berapa orang kanak-kanak maut kerana ibu memberi Tylenol (ubat seperti Panadol) berlebihan mengikut sukatan yang sesuai untuk orang dewasa.

Kalaupun kita bagi ubat yang sesuai serta sukatan yang berpatutan tetapi pesakit masih tidak sembuh, ini bermakna kita patut dan mesti tukar “diagnosis” dan rawatan kita. Penyakit seperti appendicitis memerlukan pembedahan, bukan penicillin.

Mungkin pembaca kurang selesa dengan metafora perubatan, jadi saya gunakan gambaran peladang. Di ladang, kalau kita tidak cabutkan dengan habis-habisan termasuk uratnya, lalang akan gembur dan menimbun serta merosakkan tanaman yang berharga. Apa lagi kalau kita “tolong” lalang itu dengan membajakannya!

Kebun UMNO sekarang ditimbuni lalang. Kalau kita hendak menolong UMNO dan orang Melayu pada umumnya, kita patut semburkan racun Round Up untuk membunuh lalang-lalang itu supaya kita boleh tanam benda yang berguna dan mereka berpeluang bangun. Tetapi apa yang kita buat sekarang? Kita bajakan lalang! Alasannya, betul lalang, tetapi lalang Melayu! Kita mesti tolong sebab Melayu!

“Pertolongan” yang dihebohkan oleh Dr. Mahathir dan pemimpin-pemimpin UMNO saya sifatkan seumpama membajakan lalang. Akibatnya banyak dan lumayan lalang Melayu sekarang; Isa Samad sekarang sembur sebagai peneraju FELDA. Dia dibuktikan bersalah “wang politik” oleh kerabatnya dalam UMNO beberapa tahun lepas. Khir Toyo satu lagi lalang Melayu yang sekarang sembur dalam istana kayangannya yang dibiayai oleh (wang) rakyat.

Di bahagian swasta, lalang Tajuddin Ramli hampir mengorbankan kebun MAS. Banyak lagi lalang di Utusan dan New Straits Times. Dalilnya, pembaca NST sekarang tak sampai separuh daripada sepuluh tahun dahulu. Lalang Melayulah yang menimbun dan akhirnya memusnahkan Bank Bumiputra. Kita tidak hairan dengan kehijauan dan kesuburan lalang, walau pun lalang Melayu!

Pemimpin Melayu seperti Mahathir patut tekun mencari jalan lain yang lebih bererti dan berkesan untuk menolong kaum kita. Jangan hanya suka memuaskan hati dengan mencaci dan membangkitkan kononnya kelemahan bangsa kita. Masyarakat Melayu sekarang berkehendakkan pertolongan racun Roundup bukan baja Urea untuk menghapuskan ahli lalang dalam masyarakat kita. Kebun kita sudah dibanjiri lalang.

Ada pepatah Kristian yang saya terjemahkan lebih kurang seperti berikut. Kalau kita menolong si miskin dengan memberinya seekor ikan, dia akan dapat makan hanya sehari. Tetapi kalau kita tolong dengan mengajar dia mengail, dia akan dapat makan selama hidup. Kalau tolong lebih sedikit, seumpama memberi pinjaman untuk membeli sampan, dia akan mengail laut yang luas dan dapat menanggung sekampung.

Kita tidak menolong kaum kita dengan memberi kuota masuk universiti dengan senang, lesen mengimport dan kontrak-kontrak lumayan, atau menyuruh perusahaan bangsa lain mengambil pengarah-pengarah (biasanya ahli politik) Melayu. Jauh sekali! Itu hanya membajakan lalang. Mereka hanya “ersatz capitalists” atau perusahaan menenggek, bukan tulen.

Pertolongan yang lebih bermakna dan berkatnya berpanjangan ialah jika kita menolong orang Melayu berfikir sendiri. Bebaskan otak orang Melayu. Kalau ungkapan kita masa tahun lima puluhan dahulu ialah “Merdeka Tanah Melayu,” sekarang slogan kita mestilah, “Merdeka Minda Melayu!

Itulah tema buku saya terakhir, “Liberating The Malay Mind.” Apakah yang saya maksudkan dengan minda merdeka? Konsep ini lebih terang dijelaskan melalui cerita seorang alim, Mullah Nasaruddin. Ia terkenal kerana mengajar melalui contoh yang ringkas dan jenaka diri sendiri.

Dia ada jiran yang suka meminjam keldai Mullah tetapi lalai untuk mengembalikannya. Pada satu hari jiran itu datang untuk meminjam binatang itu. Pak Mullah, (yang telah) menjangkakan permintaan itu, telah dulunya menyorokkan binatang itu di dalam reban dan tidak ternampak dari luar. Bila jiran itu memohon, Mullah Nasaruddin dengan lenang membalas, “Keldai ku sudah dipinjam oleh abangku semalam.”

Bila jiran itu kecewa pusing balik, dia kedengaran binatang itu melaung dalam reban. “Kau katakan keldai telah dipinjam oleh abang kau.”

Mullah serta-merta menjawab, “Kau lebih percayai ringkikan keldai lebih daripada suara Mullah?” Seorang yang mempunyai minda merdeka lebih mempercayai laungan keldai itu; mereka yang mempunyai minda yang masih dipenjarakan oleh adat dan budaya akan turut mempercayai Mullah walaupun keldai itu ada di hadapan mata.

Kita mesti melatih orang Melayu supaya bila kita dengar laungan keldai kita mesti mempercayai telinga kita walau pun Pak Lebai mengatakan itu hanya suara rekaan sahaja.

Dalam buku terakhir, saya mengemukakan empat cara untuk membebaskan minda Melayu. Pertama, membebaskan sebaran am dan punca-punca maklumat dan berita serta pandangan. Kedua, mengadakan sistem pendidikan yang bebas (liberal education) dan berlandasan kukuh atas asas sains dan matematik.

Ketiga, mendorongkan perusahan dan perdagangan dalam masyarakat kita; iaitu mengalakkan orang Melayu menjadi kaum perusahaan. Bila kita berdagang, kita sifatkan orang bangsa lain bukan sebagai pendatang tetapi bakal pelanggan kita. Maknanya, asas keuntungan kita!

Keempat, kita mesti kaji semula bagaimana kita mengajar agama kepada anak- anak kita serta bagaimana kita mengamalkan agama yang suci ini. Islam telah membebaskan kaum Bedouin Arab yang kanun, membebaskan mereka dari Zaman Jahiliyah kepada Zaman Cahaya. Begitu juga Islam patut membebaskan orang Melayu memulai dengan membebaskan minda kita.

Tanpa membebaskan minda Melayu, tidak kira berapa billion pertolongan kita beri, seberapa lumayan kontrak, AP serta kuota-kuota lain kita hadiahkan, atau berapa senangnya anak-anak kita masuk universiti, itu semuanya tidak bermakna atau berkesan. Semuanya itu bukan “pertolongan” yang tulin, bahkan hanya candu untuk syok sendiri dan hisapan khayalan sahaja. Semuanya saya umpamakan membajakan lalang.

Sebagai negara merdeka Malaysia telah mencapai banyak kejayaan. Kalau kita merdekakan minda Melayu, tidak terhad kejayaan kita sebagai perseorangan dan juga sebagai masyarakat. Yang indahnya, bila minda kita merdeka, ia tidak boleh lagi dipenjarakan.

Tidak payahlah kita ragukan unsur-unsur seperti globalisasi dan neokolonial. Kita tidak lagi bimbang bila anak kita fasih dalam bahasa Inggeris atau bahasa asing. Dengan minda merdeka kita tidak akan berasa terancam bila makhluk Allah lain menggunakan istilah ‘Allah’.

Merdekakan minda Melayu! Itulah satu pertolongan yang berkesan dan tak terharga!Berbalik semula ke ‘tongkat’ yang paling dihargai oleh Mahathir dan kerabatnya dalam UMNO, bagaimana kita boleh mengharap orang-orang kampung membuang tongkat kecil kayu mereka sedangkan tongkat emas yang beberapa lagi indah dan besar diberi kepada sultan-sultan, raja- raja dan menteri- menteri?

Kita marah bila Pak Mat di Kampong Kerinchi menyelewengkan wang pinjaman MARA dua tiga ratus ringgit untuk memajukan warung kopinya untuk membeli baju sekolah anaknya, tetapi bila suami menteri menyelewengkan berjuta- juta duit rakyat untuk membeli kondo mewah, pemimpin seperti Mahathir senyap sahaja.

Melayu tak payah diberi tongkat apa-apa pun. Pertolongan yang patut diberi ialah untuk membebaskan minda kita. Kalau hendak beri pertolongan, hanya tolonglah sedikit mencabut lalang di kebun kita supaya pisang, timun dan kacang kita boleh berpeluang tumbuh. Kalau enggan berbuat demikian, tolong janganlah bajakan lalang tu!

A Tribute to Sir Patrick Moore

December 17, 2012

by Professor Martin Barstow, University of Leicester (December 11, 2012)

Growing up a the time of the Moon Landings, like many others I was inspired to become a scientist by Patrick through his coverage of Apollo and his appearances on Sky at Night. He already had a strong connection with the University when I joined the Physics and Astronomy Department and it was a thrill to meet him in person for the first time.

His support for our work has been tremendous over the years and he became a patron of our efforts to create the National Space Centre here in the Leicester (the planetarium is now named after him).

I was delighted when he was awarded the Distinguished Honorary Fellowship of the University in recognition of 50 years of Sky at Night together with his association with the University and was privileged to act as his host for the day. The weather was terrible, but Patrick insisted we walk to the De Montfort Hall. It was slow progress, as everyone we passed stopped to say hello and he took time for a personal word with all.

I always had an ambition to appear on Sky at Night as a young astronomer and, in recent years have had the good fortune to be involved in a number of programmes. Becoming part of Sky at Night is like joining an extended family, with Patrick being the glue that held it all together. He was one of nature’s gentlemen with time for everyone. His hospitality was generous and trips to his home at Selsey became events for my whole family.

When my daughter, Jo, was about to start a PhD working on Venus, Patrick remarked, “I wrote a book on that”. Several days later a copy of the book appeared with a personal message inscribed on the title page. My musician son, Nick, was allowed to try out the famous xylophone and caused some consternation for the BBC film crew when Patrick insisted on delaying a recording while he “dug out” some music for him.

We last saw Patrick in person at a wonderful evening in Selsey celebrating the 55 year anniversary of Sky at Night earlier this year. Many of the Sky at Night family were there and we closed the evening with a truly terrible, but enjoyable (to us at least), karaoke rendition of ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’. I am not sure what Brian May (another great friend of Patrick’s) would have thought of that.

I have many fond memories of Patrick that I will aways treasure. He was a great man and a great friend. I will miss him tremendously, but he will be missed by millions more.

Professor Martin Barstow, Head of the College of Science and Engineering

What Dr Mahathir told war survivor Soros

September 27 ,2012

by Steven Gan of Malaysiakini. com

EXCLUSIVE: Former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad told billionaire financier George Soros, a survivor of the Second World War, how he had personally witnessed a British soldier being killed by Japanese troops.

In a three-page personal letter he wrote to Soros six years ago to seek the support of his then-nemesis for his Perdana Leadership Foundation’s global anti-war efforts, Mahathir recalled the unforgettable incident in Alor Setar during the Japanese invasion of Malaya.

“The bayoneting death of a young British soldier by the Japanese in my hometown had left a lasting impression on me,” Mahathir wrote in his January 11, 2006 letter, a copy of which is with Malaysiakini.

“It may seem a minor incident but I cried for this young boy, 8,000 miles from home and family, feeling the bayonet piercing his body. And he screamed two or three times. And then there was silence. I was a teenager and I could not help imagining the thing happening to me. How could we kill people so cruelly and feel no sense of guilt.”

According to author Barry Wain in his book, Malaysia Maverick, this was one of the traumatic events that shattered Mahathir’s teenage innocence, and “thoroughly politicised him and changed the course of his life”.

Horrors of war

Soros himself is no stranger to the horrors of war. Born in Budapest, Hungary, to a Jewish family, he survived the Battle of Budapest, where German and Soviet troops fought house-to-house during the last days of the Second World War. In 1947, still a teen, Soros migrated to post-war England.

Mahathir had written to Soros to urge the much-maligned currency speculator to join him in his Global Peace Forum, which sought to criminalise war and outlaw it as an option to settle international conflicts.

“I write to invite you to lend your name to this effort to achieve the ultimate human rights – the right to life,” Mahathir says in his January 11, 2006 letter.

Both Octogenarians – Mahathir is 87 and Soros, 82 – have had a bitter war of words, with Mahathir calling Soros a “moron” and blaming the currency speculator for igniting the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis, while Soros hit back by describing the Malaysian Premier as a “menace to his country”.

Mahathir also says in the letter: “We regard killing a person as a crime punishable with the most extreme punishment.It seems to me hypocritical – on the one hand, regarding killing as murder and a serious crime, and at the same time training our young men to kill people, ordering them to kill and glorifying their deeds.”

‘Identical views’

In highlighting their common war-time experiences both men had witnessed when they were in their teens, Mahathir had hoped that the billionaire philanthropist would “lend his name” to the global anti-war movement.

“Whatever may be the differences between us, we seem to have identical views on war, i.e. on killing people in the pursuit of a national agenda.”

It is not known what Soros had said in his response to Mahathir, but it is likely to have been a polite “no”, given that he did not join the Global Peace Forum.

Mahathir met with Soros in Kuala Lumpur 11 months after his letter to the billionaire financier, during which the two foes buried the hatchet.

Following the meeting, Mahathir said he accepted that Soros was not involved in the devaluation of Malaysia’s currency. However, four days ago, Mahathir dug up the hatchet and took another stab at Soros, claiming that the international financier was seeking regime change in Malaysia.

The enmity between Mahathir and Soros can be traced back to the early 1990s when Bank Negara Malaysia – then considered by financial observers as a rogue central bank for dabbling heavily in high-risk currency speculation – lost a whopping RM5.7 billion to the likes of Soros.

Yesterday: Dr M asks for Soros’ help in peace project

Malaysia slides from 21st to 25th Slot in Global Competitiveness Ranking

September 6, 2012

Global Competitiveness Ranking: Malaysia  slides faom 21st to 25th Slot

by Koh Jun Lin (09-05-12)@http://www.malaysiakini.com

Malaysia has dropped from 21st to 25th slot out of 144 countries in global competitiveness, according to the Global Competitiveness Report 2012 – 2013.

The annual report, released by the World Economic Forum (WEF) today, also shows that Malaysia’s ‘technological readiness’ is ranked 51st, maintaining a five-year downtrend.

This was despite the overall score remaining relatively steady at 5.06 points out of a maximum of seven points, compared to 5.08 previously.

“Malaysia and other countries are putting in a lot of initiatives. There are four countries which are faster growing in terms of their competitiveness here, and they are South Korea (ranked 19th), Luxemburg (22nd), New Zealand (23rd) and the United Arab Emirates (24th),” said Malaysia Productivity Corporation (MPC) Senior Director Lee Saw Hoon in explaining the drop in ranking.

Lee was speaking at a press conference at MPC’s headquarters in Petaling Jaya today in conjunction with the release of the report.She also said that the report also “upgrades” Malaysia’s status from an efficiency-driven economy to a country that is “in transition” to an innovation-driven economy.

In the report, the criteria for the latter classification is to have a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita between USD9,000 to USD17,000 and the change entails a shift in the weightage of various performance indicators towards those that promote innovation.

The report also places Malaysia’s competitiveness second to Singapore in the Asean region, and eighth in the Asia-Pacific region.

Low level of technological readiness

With regard to Malaysia’s technological readiness, the report notes three areas that require improvement, namely: international internet bandwidth in kilobits per second per user (ranked 83rd), broadband internet subscriptions per 100 population (68th) and mobile broadband subscriptions per 100 population (64th).

“Its (Malaysia’s) low level of technological readiness (51st) is surprising, especially given its achievements in other areas of innovation and business sophistication and the country’s focus on promoting the use of ICT.

“Lack of progress in this area will significantly undermine Malaysia’s efforts to become a knowledge-based economy by the end of the decade,” the report wrote.

In a press statement today, International Trade and Industry Minister Mustapa Mohamed said there is a discrepancy between perception and what the data shows, and does not reflect Malaysia’s actual condition.

“Towards this end, the government will ensure that consolidated and comprehensive data and information is provided to international data sources such as the International Communications Union and the World Intellectual Property Organisation,” he said.

Mustapa (right) added that the upcoming launch of the 1Malaysia Affordable Broadband Package could be expected to improve the situation.

Meanwhile the report also praised Malaysia’s markets for being “efficient and competitive” and supported by both a well-developed financial sector (ranked 6th) and business-friendly institutional frameworks (28th).

The report further praised the government’s efforts to combat excessive bureaucracy and lack of transparency, saying, “in a region where many economies suffer from lack of transparency and the presence of red tape, Malaysia stands out as particularly successful at tackling those tow issues.”

Regardless, in an opinion poll of 79 business executives in Malaysia conducted as part of the report, respondents still reported inefficient government bureaucracy as the biggest problem for doing business in Malaysia, followed by corruption and an inadequately educated workforce.

A Post-Industrial Future for Penang?

August 28, 2012

by Zairil Khir Johari

The advent of the digital era, characterised by seamless and instantaneous transfer of information and unprecedented levels of global interconnectedness, has seen a paradigm shift in social, political and economic strategies worldwide.

In fact, it is commonly said that the world has entered into “the knowledge revolution or knowledge economy”, which some have argued to be “the latest phase of capitalism”[1]. In this age of knowledge, mobile capital and the easy spread of technology have meant that the production of goods have increasingly shifted to low-cost countries.

“This is a natural progression, especially for developed economies,” notes international investment banker Julian Candiah. “As GDP per capita rises and countries gets richer, a lot of the lower-valued components of the economy have migrated to low-cost countries. We have seen this hand-off many times, first in the 1970s to the South-East Asian Tigers, and then in the 1990s to China, and now to Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. Even China is now moving up the value chain.”

As developed economies begin to decouple themselves from industrial production, it is suggested that future success would no longer be predicated upon traditional factors such as land, labour and raw materials, but upon the creation of value extracted from knowledge, skills and creativity.

In other words, future jobs in the so-called knowledge economy would require working with our brains and not with our hands. Soft power, and not hard power, would drive the world forward.

So how exactly has this experiment fared?

e-Britain

In 1997, Tony Blair was elected as Prime Minister of Britain on the wave of Cool Britannia and the promise of ushering in a new golden age. Having successfully rejuvenated and remodelled a now centrist, market-embracing Labour Party, the youngest British Prime Minister in nearly two centuries sought to catapult a then lagging Britain into the “forefront of the knowledge economy”.

According to Blair and other deindustrialisation advocates, this new knowledge-driven economy is the “equivalent of the machine-driven economy of the industrial revolution”[2].In other words, future British success would lie in the country’s ability to shift from an industrial economy to one based on services. To borrow Blair’s own words, Britain needed to transform the “workshop of the world” into the “e-commerce capital of the world”.

This premise, though an innovation, was not a new one. Margaret Thatcher had been the first, two decades before, to prescribe deindustrialisation as the cure for what she deemed to be an uncompetitive, manufacturing-based British economy. By articulating the “knowledge economy” in the context of a globalising world driven by ICT, Blair gave the strategy renewed direction.

For over a decade, the government pursued this policy, turning the British economy into the world’s second largest services exporter after the US. This was achieved on the back of creative services such as film, music, fashion and advertising, as well as other traditional services such as finance, computing and ICT. The picturesque vision of a knowledge economy looked set to come true.

Today, more than a decade later, Blair’s vision remains just that. Having experienced the largest deindustrialisation exercise in post-war Europe, in which the industrial share of the economy saw a decline from 30% in the 1970s to about 11% today, one would be hard-pressed to opine that the British economy is in a better shape than it was.

The British used to make cars, ships and engines for the world. They gave all that up to sell culture, tourism and financial advice, only to find that selling things simply cannot provide the same volume of employment that making things can. Unemployment is now at its highest level since 1995, while income inequality has reached a 30-year peak.

The British northeast, once the proud home to numerous factories, warehouses and dockyards, has now become the poster child of a post-industrial wasteland, sprawling with hollow buildings and muddy estates. Not only have the cacophonous activities come to an end, so too have the jobs, apprenticeships, local industries and support services that typically characterise an ecosystem built around making things. Meanwhile, the vacuum left behind remains vivid for a generation of displaced Britons.

Services-driven Penang?

Though it took a while, the same debate has now made its way to Penang’s shores. In recent times, certain quarters have spoken out about the need to reinvent Penang’s traditional economic base. Citing a fast-depleting land bank and competition from more cost-effective neighbours, they argue that the manufacturing sector has reached its zenith.

Their solution? To transform the services sector to replace manufacturing as the next engine of growth. According to them, Penang no longer has a comparative advantage in manufacturing, and should instead focus on building resources and talent in service industries such as tourism, healthcare, ICT and finance. After all, Penang is no stranger to economic change, having evolved from a free port into an industrial beacon. The question is, is it time to change?

Today, manufacturing remains the bedrock of the Penang economy, easily contributing more than half of Penang’s economic output. In the last two years, Penang has etched itself as the top destination in the country for manufacturing investment, notching RM12.2bil in 2010 and RM9.1bil in 2011. Of this amount, RM17.7billion came in the form of FDI, which means that the second smallest state in Malaysia had managed to attract nearly a third of total national FDI. At the rate the trend is going, there is nothing to indicate a need for a realignment of strategies.

This is not to say that an over-reliance in manufacturing is without its pitfalls. In fact, Penang’s industrial, export-dependent economy is necessarily more exposed than other states to shifts in global economic trends. This was the case during the 2008 financial crisis, resulting in a GDP dip of over 10% in real terms (based on constant 2000 prices). In contrast, Malaysia’s GDP only fell by 1.6% during the same period. Manufacturing output in Penang also decreased by 20.2%, double the decline suffered nationally.

Global economic forces are of course hard to resist. That said, Penang managed to bounce back with a real GDP growth of 10% in 2010. And despite this rough patch, Penang’s GDP per capita had actually increased slightly over this period of time. This was achieved because, over the years and more so in recent times, Penang has been able to build up an industrial base that is not merely made up of low-skills and low value-added assembly lines but also cutting-edge technology with leading brands such as Intel, Motorola, Sony, Dell, Honeywell, Bose and National Instruments.

As Candiah says, “The trick is not so much to do ‘manufacturing correctly’, but to do ‘correct manufacturing’. The game must be value-added, high-productivity manufacturing. And to the credit of the folks in charge, they have managed to get it right so far.”

Today, Penang is moving towards high-end manufacturing such as solar panels, LEDs, medical devices and the like. Just last year, Singapore Aerospace Manufacturing opened a facility in Penang to produce precision components for the aviation and aerospace industry. Such value-added industries are exactly the kind that will provide the ingredients needed for Penang to move up the manufacturing value chain.

The myth of the services-based economy

But what about the developed countries that have managed to “graduate” into services-based economies? Singapore, for example, is typically used as an example of a successful former industrial power-turned-services provider. Should that not be Penang’s future direction?

Though widely accepted, the above hypothesis is not entirely accurate. Ha-Joon Chang, a leading Cambridge economist, has frequently pointed out that high income knowledge economies that appear to be services-based are in fact highly industrialised economies. For example, Switzerland, believed to be a post-industrial economy reliant on services such as the banking sector and tourism, in fact ranks as the country with the second highest manufacturing value-add (MVA) per capita[3] in the world. Singapore ranks third. And in the Competitive Industrial Performance Index, Singapore is the world number one.

What most fail to understand is that the success of countries like Switzerland and Singapore is based upon their industrial foundations. And it is from such a foundation that they are able to spin off a services supply chain encompassing research, design, engineering, legal, financial and sales. In other words, one first needs to make a product before one can add value to it and finally, consumerise it. The same trend is also evident in other high income Asian economies such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan.

As the world progresses, there can be no doubt that consumption of technological products will only increase. Economic downturns may temporarily dampen demand, but in the end, more rather than less manufacturing will be needed to cater to the growing market. Instead of reducing manufacturing, the strategy should be to leverage upon the existing base and focus on value-adds through technology, automation and productivity improvement.

Not what you produce, but how you produce

Years after sounding the clarion call for deindustrialisation, the British government is now talking about a “march of the makers”. In last year’s budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proudly proclaimed that the words “Made in Britain” will once again drive the nation forward.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has embarked on a manufacturing drive in a bid to revive the lacklustre American economy. In a recent speech by Gene Sperling, director of the National Economic Council, at a conference aptly titled “The Renaissance of American Manufacturing”, it was pointed out that manufacturing is responsible for 70% of R&D in America, despite being only 12% of the economy.

Not only that, manufacturing jobs pay on average 25% higher than non-manufacturing jobs. Sperling then added, as if struck by an epiphany, that manufacturing would be the key to tackling the country’s ballooning trade deficit.

Whether it is too little too late remains to be seen, but the fact is that the US and Britain have finally realised the potential multiplier effect, in terms of jobs and services, that is inherent in manufacturing. What is understood to be a knowledge-based economy is in fact a corollary resulting from a mature industrial base. In other words, manufacturing is a prerequisite for innovation.

Closer to home, it is critical that we learn from the experiences of others before it is too late. To say that manufacturing has peaked is disingenuous. If anything, it holds even more potential today than it did a few decades ago. What is needed is not to replace manufacturing but to create depth and specialisation through innovation and technology. Moving forward, it will be about how we produce rather than what we produce.

“Today, the buzzword is ‘reindustrialisation’,” says the Penang Development Corporation (PDC) Deputy General Manager Iskandar Basha Abdul Kadir. “After playing an integral role in the industrialisation of Penang for 40 years, it is time for the PDC to facilitate the reinvestment and revitalisation that is currently being undertaken by most pioneer plants and facilities in our industrial zones.

“We cannot afford to lie around idly by while the whole world is moving. Besides attracting new, value-added industries, we also need to revitalise and reenergise the ‘old’ ones so they can become ‘new’ again.”

According to Iskandar, the premise for the future of the Penang economy is simple. “If we can successfully add value to our existing manufacturing capacity, then we will set off a chain of events that will produce higher value services and, ultimately, higher paying jobs.”

Penang’s  Intellectual Capital Incubator

---

[1] Rikowski, R. (2003), “Value – the Life Blood of Capitalism: knowledge is the current key”, Policy Futures in Education, Vol.1 No.1, pp. 160-178.

[2] Speech by Tony Blair at the Knowledge 2000 Conference, www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/mar/07/tonyblair

[3] A basic indicator of a country’s level of industrialisation. The higher the MVA, the more industrialised the country.

Peaceful Assembly Our Legal Right

May 3, 2012

by Azmi Sharom

The Bersih organisers, the Police and DBKL should have met and sorted out the logistics of getting such a huge number of people together in Dataran Merdeka for a couple of hours.

WITHIN hours of BERSIH 3.0 being over, I received an angry e-mail from a reader asking me in no uncertain terms: “Are you happy now?” The writer was furious at the scenes of violence, and I suppose I was a convenient and appropriate target for his vitriol.

After all, I have been a consistent supporter of the right to assemble and have gone on record (along with nine other concerned citizens) to demand that the Government allow BERSIH 3.0 to go on without harassment at Dataran Merdeka.

Well, to answer the question, of course I am not happy that people, mostly participants, were injured during BERSIH 3.0.However, some perspective is needed here.

If thousands of people set out to cause trouble, the damage and injuries would have been astronomical.The fact that the number of injured was minuscule only serves to confirm that the vast majority of people went there with peaceful intentions.

The Police have been going on about how there would have been no trouble if the organisers had just listened to them and staged a sit-in at a stadium.This makes them look reasonable to the casual observer.

Why insist on going to Dataran Merdeka when alternatives were offered? I beg to differ. The issue is not about alternatives; the issue is about the constitutional right of the people to gather in public spaces.

According to our Constitution, and a plethora of international legal documents relating to human rights, the only limitation and consideration that authorities should take into account is with regard to national security and public order.

Traffic jams are not a national security or public order issue.This being the case, the organisers, the Police and DBKL should have got together and sorted out the logistics of getting such a huge number of people together in Dataran Merdeka for a couple of hours.

The duty of the authorities is to facilitate this right, not to offer alternatives based on their own convenience.

The violence on Saturday is unfortunate and regrettable. It is hoped that all culprits will be brought to book. I would also hope that if there is to be another BERSIH rally in the future, less prominence should be given to political parties.It is of course within the rights of political parties to take part in Bersih events, especially if they too have been calling for clean and fair elections.

However, in order to minimise the usual accusations that BERSIH is a mouthpiece for Pakatan Rakyat, it would be prudent if, in the future, the role of political parties be more one of solidarity, with no need for speech-making and the like.

However, what has almost been forgotten amid the accusations, blaming and finger-pointing, is that the largest ever group of Malaysians rallied together to demand clean and fair elections.The fact that so many people would take their feelings to the streets surely indicates that there is an important groundswell here.

Our right to choose our leaders must be done in a way that is above suspicion. The question that remains is: “Are those who matter listening?”

NY Times Review: The Idea Factory by Jon Gertner

March 21, 2012

Ny Times Book Review

What Hath Bell Labs Wrought? The Future
‘The Idea Factory,’ by Jon Gertner

By Michiko Kakutani (03-19-12)

In today’s world of Apple, Google and Facebook, the name may not ring any bells for most readers, but for decades — from the 1920s through the 1980s — Bell Labs, the Research and Development wing of AT&T, was the most innovative scientific organization in the world.  As Jon Gertner argues in his riveting new book, “The Idea Factory,” it was where the future was invented.

Indeed, Bell Labs was behind many of the innovations that have come to define modern life, including the transistor (the building block of all digital products), the laser, the silicon solar cell and the computer operating system called Unix (which would serve as the basis for a host of other computer languages). Bell Labs developed the first communications satellites, the first cellular telephone systems and the first fiber-optic cable systems.

The Bell Labs scientist Claude Elwood Shannon effectively founded the field of information theory, which would revolutionize thinking about communications; other Bell Labs researchers helped push the boundaries of physics, chemistry and mathematics, while defining new industrial processes like quality control.

In “The Idea Factory,” Mr. Gertner — an editor at Fast Company magazine and a writer for The New York Times Magazine — not only gives us spirited portraits of the scientists behind Bell Labs’ phenomenal success, but he also looks at the reasons that research organization became such a fount of innovation, laying the groundwork for the networked world we now live in.

It’s clear from this volume that the visionary leadership of the researcher turned executive Mervin Kelly played a large role in Bell Labs’ sense of mission and its ability to institutionalize the process of innovation so effectively. Kelly believed that an “institute of creative technology” needed a critical mass of talented scientists — whom he housed in a single building, where physicists, chemists, mathematicians and engineers were encouraged to exchange ideas — and he gave his researchers the time to pursue their own investigations “sometimes without concrete goals, for years on end.”

That freedom, of course, was predicated on the steady stream of revenue provided (in the years before the AT&T monopoly was broken up in the early 1980s) by the monthly bills paid by telephone subscribers, which allowed Bell Labs to function “much like a national laboratory.” Unlike, say, many Silicon Valley companies today, which need to keep an eye on quarterly reports, Bell Labs in its heyday could patiently search out what Mr. Gertner calls “new and fundamental ideas,” while using its immense engineering staff to “develop and perfect those ideas” — creating new products, then making them cheaper, more efficient and more durable.

Given the evolution of the digital world we inhabit today, Kelly’s prescience is stunning in retrospect. “He had predicted grand vistas for the postwar electronics industry even before the transistor,” Mr. Gertner writes. “He had also insisted that basic scientific research could translate into astounding computer and military applications, as well as miracles within the communications systems — ‘a telephone system of the future,’ as he had said in 1951, ‘much more like the biological systems of man’s brain and nervous system.’ ”

Mr. Gertner’s portraits of Kelly and the cadre of talented scientists who worked at Bell Labs are animated by a journalistic ability to make their discoveries and inventions utterly comprehensible — indeed, thrilling — to the lay reader. And they showcase, too, his novelistic sense of character and intuitive understanding of the odd ways in which clashing or compatible personalities can combine to foster intensely creative collaborations.

Mr. Gertner (right) deftly puts these scientists’ work in the context of what was known at the time (and what would rapidly evolve from their initial discoveries in the decades since), even as he describes in remarkably lucid terms the steps by which one discovery led — sometimes by serendipity, sometimes by dogged work — to another, as well as the process by which ideas were turned by imaginative engineers into inventions and eventually into products that could be mass-produced.

Most notably, there’s the team that would win a Nobel Prize for its work on semiconductors and the transistor: the brilliant, aggressive physicist William Shockley (later to become infamous for his unscientific views on race), who “enjoyed finding a hanging thread so he could unravel a problem with a swift, magical pull”; the soft-spoken John Bardeen, who “was content to yank away steadfastly, tirelessly, pulling on various corners of a problem until the whole thing ripped open”; and Walter Brattain, “a skeptical and talkative experimentalist” who played extrovert to Bardeen’s introvert.

Restlessness and curiosity were traits shared by many of Bell Labs’ most creative staff members. Mr. Gertner describes John Robinson Pierce, father of the communications satellite, as an “instigator” who “had too many interests (airplanes, electronics, acoustics, telephony, psychology, philosophy, computers, music, language, writing, art) to focus on any single pursuit” but possessed a knack for pushing others to do their best work.

As for Shannon, the mathematician and engineer whose information theory laid the groundwork for telecommunications and the computer industry, he burned off excess energy by riding his unicycle up and down the long hallways of Bell Labs (sometimes juggling as he rode) and building whimsical machines like a primitive chess computer and an electronic mouse that could learn to navigate a maze, demonstrating the ability of a machine to remember.

Many Bell Labs scientists, including Brattain, Kelly and the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Charles H. Townes, who helped develop the principles of the laser, grew up on farms or in small towns, which Dr. Townes argued were the perfect “training grounds for experimental physics.” Such childhoods, he contended, taught a person how to “pay attention to the natural world, to work with machinery and to know how to solve practical problems and fix things innovatively, with what is on hand.”

Mr. Gertner nimbly captures the collegial atmosphere of Bell Labs and the mood of intellectual ferment — a blending of entrepreneurial zeal, academic inquiry and passion to achieve things that initially seemed technologically impossible — that suffused its New Jersey campuses.

The very success of Bell Labs, he notes, contained the seeds of its destruction. Not only was it producing too many ideas for a single company to handle, but some of its innovations (like the transistor) also altered the technological landscape so much that its core business would be reduced to a mere part of the ever-expanding field of information and electronic technology — a field increasingly dominated by new rivals, with which a post-monopoly AT&T had difficulty competing.

In addition, as a Bell Labs researcher named Andrew Odlyzko observed, the new business environment meant that “unfettered research” was no longer a logical or necessary investment for a company, which, in Mr. Gertner’s words, “could profit merely by pursuing an incremental strategy rather than a game-changing discovery or invention.”

AT&T’s original mission — to create and maintain a system of modern communications — has largely been fulfilled. And according to Mr. Gertner, the current Bell Labs President, Jeong Kim, believes that the future of communications may be defined by an industry yet to be created: a business that does not simply deliver or search out information, but also somehow manages and organizes the vast flood of data that threatens to overwhelm our lives.

The larger idea, Mr. Gertner concludes, is that “electronic communication is a miraculous development but it is also, in excess, a dehumanizing force. It proves Kelly’s belief that even as new technology solves one problem, it creates others.”

A version of this review appeared in print on March 20, 2012, on page C1 of the New York edition with the headline: What Hath Bell Labs Wrought? The Future.

The George Washington University Global Forum, 2012

March 20, 2012

While Dr. Kamsiah and I were in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, for the Asia Economic Forum, The George Washington University held its Global Forum: Global Growth and Innovation (March 16-17, 2012) in Seoul, Korea. It is regrettable that as an Alumnus, I could not participate in what turned out be a very successful forum.

Here is a report on the forum for the benefit of GW Alumni in ASEAN and elsewhere who could not make it to Seoul (below) this time.– Din Merican, GW’70

GWToday Report

Global Forum Explores Economic Growth, Democratization

General Colin Powell, Alec Ross and Chris Anderson address hundreds in Republic of Korea.

March 19, 2012

When GW President Steven Knapp greeted General Colin Powell in Seoul, the General saluted the University President and said, “Reporting for duty, sir!”

Although Gen. Powell’s comments were made in jest, Dr. Knapp told the more than 300 attendees, “There is no higher duty that we as a university community have than to come together to reflect on and to shed whatever light we can on those events, issues and trends that are shaping the destiny of our shared world.”

The Third GW Global Forum, held March 16 and 17 at the Grand Hyatt Seoul, brought together GW alumni and friends of the university from 18 countries to discuss global issues related to growth and innovation.

A video message from Republic of Korea President Lee Myung-Bak, former Visiting Scholar at GW and recipient of an honorary degree, kicked off the forum. Next, Alec Ross, Senior Advisor for Innovation in the Office of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, discussed what he called the massive shift of geopolitical power around the world.

“This shift of power is made possible by the Internet and by increasingly ubiquitous and powerful information networks,” said Mr. Ross. “It’s moving power from hierarchies, including nation states and governments, to citizens and networks of citizens. The Internet shines sunlight and makes the world more transparent. And one of the things we know is that sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

Following Mr. Ross’ remarks, Chang Dae Whan, M.A. ’76, Chairman and Publisher of Maekyung Media Group (Maeil), reflected on his concept of one Asia momentum. “The basis of one Asia is realizing one Asia through regional economic integration in Asia and eventually achieving cultural and political system integration,” he said. Trust, economic freedom and entrepreneurship are key to realizing the concept, he said.

Gen. Powell, M.B.A. ’71, delivered one of the Forum’s keynote addresses in which he shared his optimism for the future and the importance of advancing technology and education. While the former U.S. Secretary of State addressed the world’s current problems and dangers, he argued that the global community has overcome greater hurdles in the past.

“Accept the reality that more people are living in a democracy than ever before,” said Gen. Powell. “More nations are democracies than ever before. There are fewer wars than ever before. It is a different world.”

“People are moving to a different dynamic that will make the world a better place through innovation and change. The most important part of that is economic growth and wealth creation–wealth creation that brings all people up, wealth creation that creates jobs.”

Gen. Powell also stressed the importance of education.“I see a world of promises,” he said. “I see a world that we can shape in a better way. I see a world where we can educate youngsters. I see a world where we can teach children to believe, believe in themselves, believe in their country, believe in their society. But the one thing girding all of this is the education of our children. That’s why we need such wonderful institutions like the George Washington University.”

Following a networking lunch, three concurrent panel discussions were held. Zeb Eckert, B.A. ’03, Reporter for Bloomberg Television, Hong Kong, moderated a panel focused on the interconnectedness of financial markets. Sonn Young Chang, M.B.A. ’86, Founder and Chairman of Midas International Asset Management; Jae Woo Lee, M.B.A. ’83, Managing Partner at Vogo Investment; Sandiaga Uno, M.B.A. ’92, Managing Director of Saratoga Capital; and Scheherazade Rehman, Professor of International Business and International Affairs, participated in the discussion.

Danny Leipziger, Professor of International Business and International Affairs, moderated a discussion on how education and intellectual property foster creativity. Peg Barratt, Dean of the Columbian College of Arts and Sciences; Paul Schiff Berman, Dean of the Law School; Michael Feuer, Dean of the Graduate School of Education and Human Development; and Ki-Su Lee, Cchair of the Sentencing Commission of the Supreme Court of Korea, took part in this panel.

The third panel was moderated by David Dolling, Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, and featured Lynn Goldman, Dean of the School of Public Health and Health Services; Young-Key Kim-Renaud, Professor of Korean Language and culture and international affairs; and Jie-ae Sohn, President and CEO of Arirang TV and Radio. This panel discussed how people interact, think, behave and access public health.

The forum also included a segment with Frank Sesno, Director of GW’s School of Media and Public Affairs and former CNN White House correspondent, and Ms. Sohn, who discussed how media affects politics and policy. Nobel Laureate and University Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Ferid Murad spoke about the innovations that followed his initial discoveries related to nitric oxide almost 40 years ago.

Chris Anderson, Editor-in-Chief of Wired Magazine, provided the closing keynote address and shared his vision of a third industrial revolution fueled by desktop prototyping and new models of manufacturing.

“We have the capacity to be manufacturers,” he said. “This is a big deal. It’s a combination of desktop prototyping and global access to manufacturing for anybody of any scale. It allows us to replicate the web model with physical goods.”

Michael Brown, Dean of the Elliott School of International Affairs, wrapped up the forum with a discussion on how to address global challenges and invent the future.

“One of the reasons I’m optimistic about the future is because I believe in the power of universities. Universities can do things that other institutions can’t do or they don’t do very well. Universities can look far into the future and make long-term commitments to long-term problems. Universities can adopt a more global perspective. Universities tend to be non-partisan, which makes our recommendations more credible in the eyes of many around the world. Universities bring scholarly weight and rigor to bear on certain problems, and understanding the problem is the first step toward devising a solution.”

“And finally, universities are engines of research and innovation. All of this makes universities extremely important as we think about tackling the challenges of the 21st century,” he said.

GW chose to hold the third Global Forum in Seoul because of the university’s deep ties to the nation. The Republic of Korea is home to nearly 1,000 GW alumni, the most alumni in any overseas country. The University has a special historic relationship with the Republic of Korea that dates back to the 1800s. Philip (So Chae-p’il) Jaisohn, the first Korean to get a medical degree in the United States in 1892, started his medical education at GW. The first President of the Republic of Korea, Syngman Rhee, attended GW along with President Lee Myung-bak, who spent a year and a half as a Visiting Scholar at GW.

Past GW Global Forums were held in Hong Kong in 2009 and in New York City in 2010.

Singapore: Becoming Asia’s Hub for Talent

December 17, 2011

http://www.telegraph.co.uk

The Singapore Government’s intent is to become the hub for talent in Asia. This means it wants to attract the brightest and best people to work there. This may sound like a lofty aim but it is backed up with long-term planning and clear policies.

by Octavius Black (12-04-110

In the ballroom of the Raffles Hotel, Singapore’s Minister for Trade and Industry, Lim Hng Kiang (left), finishes his speech to commemorate the signing of a trade agreement between his country and the UK.

There is healthy applause. The mood is upbeat after his sunny version of what the glorious relationship between our two countries could grow into. Vince Cable takes to the stage to respond.

“When I studied economics at Cambridge in the 1960s”, he begins, and so marks the contrast between one nation looking steadfastly forward with masterful strategic intent and steely determination, and the other, all too often, revelling in nostalgia.

There is an old saying: “It matters not where a man is standing but which way he is facing.” Singapore may have a population smaller than London but after a packed week of 33 meetings, I am left in no doubt both which way it is facing and quite how serious it is about getting there.

The Singapore government’s intent is to become the hub for talent in Asia. This means it wants to attract the brightest and best people to work there. This may sound like a lofty aim but it is backed up with long-term planning and clear policies.

An executive from BP tells me that when he secured his work permit, he was delicately told that while it was officially to work for his esteemed employer, they would happily extend it for five years if he chose to stay and work for anyone else. A senior vice- president at Deutsche Bank was, I’m told, called up by a caring civil servant when, after a tour of duty, he decided to return West. The bureaucrat reminded him exactly how much tax he had paid, thanked him for his contribution and explained that if the banker did decide to stay on a little longer, they would greatly reduce any future tax take.

These may sound like cunning tactics. Indeed, they are. But they are part of a much grander strategy.

I went to visit Chee Wei Kwan(right), who heads up the Human Capital Leadership Institute (HCLI). The HCLI is seed funded by the government to provide intellectual leadership on how to build leadership and manage talent (meaning employees) in Asia. It conducts pan-Asian research on what makes people tick (at work) as well as programmes that bring in worldwide leaders from business, government and academia.

Perhaps most impressive of all is its fledgling alternative to the Harvard Business Review, HQ Asia. The topics range from a Confucian view on talent development to how Asian leaders can make more impact in Western head offices. The first edition went to 4,000 people; the second edition to a cool 11,000 (they had to do a reprint).

I’m even more surprised when I visit Zee Yoong Kang(left), CEO of the learning hub at NTUC, the Singaporean equivalent of the TUC. He tells me the days of collective bargaining are over. Instead, the unions’ focus is to work with the government to build skills that make Singaporeans even more employable; the more they do this the more powerful their lobbying of government and so the more funds they receive. At the moment, the focus is on building the management skills of people in organisations with fewer than 300 employees. The government has lots of money to invest in this area, he assures me.

It’s not just small businesses. Unilever is investing €40m in a vast new corporate university in Singapore. All their leadership development from across the world will be done in just two locations: London and Singapore. The ratio between the two is 40:60. Get the drift? Unilever does. With 3,000 chemistry grads a year in the UK (1,000 of whom are from overseas and so likely to return home) and more than 30,000 a year in China, it’s clear to them where the next generation of soap powder is likely to be invented. They have set up a research and development Centre in China which means, in a few years, the Singapore campus is going to grow even more.

My week in Singapore tells me four things: first, when a government shows clear, long-term strategic intent it can be formidable. The unions are hand in glove with an unequivocally capitalist government and civil servants neatly put their politicians’ policy into delightfully practical action.

Second, that a government that chooses the attraction of top talent as one of its core planks for growth gives a clear message to businesses that don’t.

Third, the nexus of smart people is moving East. This is partly because Asians who go to university in the West are returning home and partly because more smart Westerners are heading East (there are over 30,000 Brits in Singapore). Mainly though, it will be from the colossal investment in learning that Asians are making for themselves.

And my last lesson. My business, Mind Gym, needs to open there fast. This shouldn’t be difficult: as the civil servant told us only half joking, “if it takes you more than two hours to set up your company here, you’re doing something wrong”.

Octavius Black is CEO of Mind Gym. http://www.themindgym.com

Stand Up for Academic Freedom, my Friends

October 20, 2011

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com

October 20, 2011

FMT LETTER: From Lawyers for Liberty, via e-mail

Lawyers For Liberty strongly condemns the suspension of Prof Aziz Bari’s duty as professor of constitutional law at the International Islamic University of Malaysia regarding his comments on the scope and limitations of constitutional powers of the King.

This is clearly a denial of his basic right to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution and the principles of academic freedom enshrined in free speech.

The right to intellectual discourse, debate and articulation is an indivisible part of academic development and excellence.

This suspension will certainly curtail world-class academic research and thought-provoking discussions, which Malaysian universities badly need to regain past glory.

Intellectualism, research excellence and academic freedom are pre-requisites for innovation and creativity to thrive, crucial for Malaysia to successfully transform itself into a developed nation that fully subscribes to democratic principles and human rights.

This suspension is a mockery of the Najib administration’s so-called ‘Greater Reforms’ to make Malaysia a more democratic and liberalised nation. This action proves that Najib’s reforms are insincere, superficial and dishonest but intended to solely fish for votes with the upcoming general election.

We demand that this unjustified suspension be lifted immediately while calling upon MCMC not to step beyond its boundaries. We also urge the Police to immediately cease harassing Prof Aziz Bari with investigations under the draconian Sedition Act.

http://www.themalaysianinsider.com

UM Academics back Prof. Abdul Aziz Bari

By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal

Academics from Malaysia’s oldest university threw their support today behind Professor Dr Abdul Aziz Bari, urging an end to the “gross violation” of academic freedom.

Police investigations as well as Universiti Islam Antarabangsa’s (UIA) suspension of Abdul Aziz should immediately be dropped, the Universiti Malaya Academic Staff Union (PKAUM) said in a strongly-worded statement today.

It also defended Abdul Aziz’s recent remarks critiquing the Selangor Sultan, saying that “a criticism of a Ruler is valid if it is intended to constructively show that the Ruler has erred.”

Selangor Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah had decreed recently that the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (JAIS) had found evidence of proselytisation by non-Muslims during a dinner held at the DUMC on August 3 but said it was insufficient for further legal action.

Following Abdul Aziz’s (picture) statement that the intervention was “unusual and inconsistent” and should have been done in line with Islamic teachings, it caused a furore in Parliament among Barisan Nasional (BN) MPs who urged action to be taken against the IIUM law lecturer.

Although a police report has been lodged against him, the outspoken academician has decided against apologising for his remarks, insisting he had not meant to challenge the Sultan.

“In the case of Professor Aziz, what he has done is merely to suggest that a Ruler has acted beyond his Constitutional bounds. This is a legitimate comment with no statement, direct or implied, made to incite hatred against the Ruler,” PKAUM president Azmi Sharom said today.

The law academic said the action taken by the Police and UIA in probing Abdul Aziz and suspending him of his duties will only “instil fear” in the academic community and halt any development in the country’s intellectual capacity.

Azmi also said that the Sedition Act ought not to have been used in the first place and that it should be repealed “due to the vast potential of abuse against fundamental freedoms of expression that it carries.”

UIA has suspended Prof Dr Abdul Aziz Bari pending investigations into his remarks on the Selangor Sultan’s recent decree.The suspension order was issued in the show-cause letter sent to the law professor yesterday.

When contacted by The Malaysian Insider today, Aziz said he would leave the matter in the hands of his lawyer.His lawyer Dr Dzulkarnain Lukman confirmed the suspension includes Aziz being barred from campus to meet with its staff or any person of position within the university.

“According to the show-cause letter, these criteria will be in place until the conclusion of the inquiry,” he said, adding that Aziz has been given until 4pm on October 25 to respond to the letter.

Dzulkarnain also confirmed that Aziz is facing action under Article 15(1) of the university’s disciplinary orders for his statement published on Malaysiakini, which is said to have tarnished UIA’s image.

“I was made to understand this is the third time that Professor Aziz Bari has been issued a show-cause letter,” said Dzulkarnain, adding he was unaware of the reasons or contents of the previous two letters.

It is believed, however, this is the first time the law professor has been barred from entering the university. Police opened investigations into Aziz’s statement under the Sedition Act yesterday, following a report lodged by UMNO Senator Ezam Mohd Nor on October 1.

It is believed that at least five police reports have been lodged against the professor. On Monday, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) had also questioned Aziz.

Our Universities out of THE top 400 ranking

October 10, 2011

Our Universities: Malaysian Government not willing to invest in research, says Higher Education Minister

It will take up to eight years before Malaysian universities can hope to make the cut in the Time Higher Education (THE) top 400 ranking of global universities, Higher Education Minister Mohd Khaled Nordin says.

Malaysian universities did not participate in the THE rankings study as research – which accounts for 92.5 percent of the judging criteria – was still at the nascent stage in local higher learning institutes, he said.

“This needs time to mature. When you push research, it requires a lot of funds and you need to publish your findings and get a lot of citations,” Khaled told a press conference after the National Academic Awards ceremony at the Putra World Trade Centre in Kuala Lumpur today.

To compete with the world’s top universities on the THE rankings, Malaysian universities would have to spend hundreds of millions of ringgit to push their research. “Singapore universities spent between S$800 and S$900 million a year on research… it’s not cheap. But we can’t just pump in all that money on research. What about our teaching and learning, which are our strengths?” Khaled added.–Joseph Sipalan@http://www.malaysiakini.com

University ranking and intellectual honesty

AB Sulaiman@http://www.malaysiakini.com
1:45PM Oct 10

COMMENT: The Times Higher Education World University Ranking has recently announced the results of its survey and the ranking of universities from all over the world for 2011-2012.

In the past, some of our universities have done modestly well, slotted in the low 200 -300 positions. But for the first time, none did any better than 400 this year. We Malaysians have every right to be stumped. What has gone miserably, pathetically, pitifully wrong?

We all know that in this country, education as an institution has broken down, but surely not this badly! Many concerned citizens like (DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang, usually the first to highlight the issue to the public domain) have voiced their opinions.

They cite the application of the quota system, Malay-only vice-chancellors policy or practice, poor funding for research, etc. But here I am not about to collate or reiterate and summarise these reasons, plausible as they might be.

Rather, I wish to present another and more fundamental explanation that might have escaped the attention of commentators.

The reason to me is that our collective approach to higher learning is off tangent from universal practice in that it encourages and nurtures close-mindedness and not open-minded thinking.

A quick check with the visions and missions of three top ranking universities namely Harvard, Cambridge and the National University of Singapore, would amply substantiate this point.

Harvard and Cambridge are consistently among the top ten, while the NUS hovers at around the forties or higher. They are among the crème de la crème of world universities.

First, Harvard. Its webpage says:

‘Harvard strives to create knowledge, to open the minds of students to that knowledge, and to enable students to take best advantage of their educational opportunities. To these ends, the college encourages students to respect ideas and their free expression, and to rejoice in discovery and in critical thought; to pursue excellence in a spirit of productive cooperation; and to assume responsibility for the consequences of personal actions. Harvard seeks to identify and to remove restraints on students’ full participation, so that individuals may explore their capabilities and interests and may develop their full intellectual and human potential.’

Note some key governing phrases, namely ‘to respect ideas and their free expression’, ‘to rejoice in discovery and critical thought’, and ‘to assume responsibility for the consequences of personal actions’.

Cambridge University has its own mission statement as well:

‘The mission of the University of Cambridge is to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.’

This university’s core values are as follows: Freedom of thought and expression, and freedom from discrimination.

National University of Singapore (NUS)

NUS in its turn aspires to be ‘a bold and dynamic community, with a “no walls” culture and a spirit of enterprise that strives for positive influence and impact through our education, research and service’.

All three universities seem to have virtually the same vision and mission namely to make their students to think openly and even courageously.

These august institutions are aware that the human mind works best when it is free from encumbrances and pre-determined parameters, or the ‘walls’ of NUS. They know that only with this complete and total freedom can the mind explore the smallest atoms and the farthest reaches of the universe.

Their approach to learning thereby is to develop and encourage original cutting edge thinking, of daring to explore, of initiative and creativity, of developing an open mind free from conservatism, conformity, prejudice, myth and dogma.

Wrong vision

I believe our universities are not looking into education in this time-tested way. For this I’d highlight the vision and mission statement of the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). Its charter says it seeks to protect the sanctity and supremacy of God, and to put theory into practice.

It also strives to promote the Malay language. I remember reading about this some time ago. A quick check on its webpage indicates this vision is basically unchanged. A closer examination of this vision indicates that this university does not teach its students to ‘respect ideas and their free expression, and to rejoice in discovery and in critical thought’ as articulated by high achieving universities like Harvard.

Instead it stresses its students to protect the sanctity of Islam, and to champion the rebirth or strengthening of the Malay language and culture. Now, I have nothing against the protection of Islam or any religion. Nor do I have any aversion to the vision of nurturing the health of the Malay language and culture. Only that they are far and away from open, objective and critical thinking.

Instead, this thinking puts encumbrances and limitations to the pursuit of ‘excellence in a spirit of productive cooperation; and to assume responsibility for the consequences of personal actions.’ They are in fact the symptoms of the closed or ethnocentric mind.

In a nutshell UKM does not go for truth, but instead for what the authorities want the truth to be. It does not go for intellectual honesty. No analysis is encouraged, but what is encouraged is the passive acceptance of past wisdom and prejudices. All these do not promote proper thinking, but they propagate value judgments: prejudices, doctrines and dogmas, speculations. They are discriminatory.

History written by the victors

The present issue of history text books would amply illustrate this government-sponsored ‘truth’ and its agenda of pushing for this truth to the minds of the younger generation. To the authorities, history is to be written by the victors and they have rewritten school texts to suit the government’s ‘victorious’ views.

History is to be made a compulsory subject in schools thus forcing the young to absorb and internalise these doctored views. To reiterate I have no qualms about any person championing the welfare and well-being of his race or religion, for I suppose any reasonable person would have an affinity and love for his race and religion.

But this should remain as a personal trait and remain there. To make it into an overt university vision and mission statement is too much. Why? Because by doing so the university is consciously and deliberately propagating racial and religious preferences.

Race and religion are emotive and subjective and are far and away from objective principles.It becomes understandable to state that UKM does not educate its students in intellectual honesty, but instead its antithesis i.e. intellectual deviousness and dishonesty.

It is for this that I feel no Malaysian universities are ranked among the top in the world, but instead will slide down further and further as the years go by. I think they deserve this.

I might be accused of being anti-Malay and anti-Islam for saying the above. My detractors and critics might counter by saying that surely Malaysian university education is not all that bad? For this I refer to two articles written by Susan Loone in Malaysiakini on October 6. The first is her report on a presentation made by Professor Mohd Asri Zainal Abidin, former mufti of Perlis and an outspoken critic of conservative and conformist Islam.

“Professor Mohd Asri Zainal Abidin has attributed the lack of intellectual development in the Malay community to the ‘restrictions imposed by the authorities’ on their freedom of thought and expression”, writes Loone. She continued by quoting Mohd Asri as saying that “Knowledge should not be dependent on political power as control of people’s thoughts can ‘kill’ intellectual discourse.”

Mohd Asri said if the authorities continue to “control and direct” intellectual content, the rakyat would never be able to obtain the right facts. Loone’s second article carries the headline ‘Historian: We are trapped in an intellectual coffin’.

This time according to her, a Malaysian historian (Ariffin Omar, a lecturer) bemoaned the disappearance of cultural and political freedom as reasons for the stagnation of the nation’s intellectual development. Omar said (Loone writes further) that a nation needs a healthy dose of culture, politics and knowledge if it wants a steady growth of intellectual discourse from issues ranging from mainstream to ones considered ‘sensitive’.

“But what happens here is that when you speak your mind, you are persecuted as a traitor of the nation. Why is there no maturity in politics?” he queried.

The two thinkers have bravely and frankly voiced out this glaring weakness and we owe them a vote of thanks for speaking out.

In addition we should thank Loone for her part in sharing and spreading their views to the public domain. For my part I am assuming she ‘allows’ me to virtually reproduce her work here and to thank her for it.

Decay of Intellectualism

The country is suffering from the stagnation and decay of intellectualism which in turn is reflected in the poor showing of Malaysian universities in the THE survey. We see the products and symptoms of this stagnation and decay every day, as highlighted by the following short list:

• Incompetence instead of professionalism in the public workplace. The ratio of civil servants to the population is among the highest in the world.

• Intellectual dishonesty instead of personal integrity. A Judge for example is under public suspicion for plagiarising a judgment. The breaking down of the rule of law and the rise in corruption are other illustrations.

• Fracture and cleavage in between different ethnic groups. The Malays are asserting their ‘Malayness’ at the expense of the other ethnic groups.

• Religious intolerance. The leaders are determined to implement hudud law despite the constitutional objections to such a ruling.

It’s painful to add more into this list although it’s too easy to do so. To conclude, a friend, Paul Laine, from Finland, imparted to me a saying from his country: ‘The rotting of a fish starts from the head’. I remember this now as I see the rot in the university education producing mediocre leaders who then drag the country intellectually downhill. Thanks Paul, for your wisdom.