Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Malay liberty, its trust and faith in Umno

Source: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/08/31/malay-liberty-its-trust-and-faith-in-umno/

Malay liberty, its trust and faith in Umno

Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz
| August 31, 2011


After more than 50 years of independence, wealth distribution among the races and within the
Malays themselves is not improving.



What does Umno mean to the Malays and to me?

Like the American declaration of independence, Malays hold some inalienable rights, among these are the right to protect the religion of Islam, the rights on the Malay language, culture and ethnic identity and finally the right over this country.

And to secure these rights, Umno was formed. Umno is relevant for as long as it remains loyal to these rights. Or if it can reinterpret these rights better.

These fundamentals on which Umno was constructed can be said to be the ABC of Umno’s mission.

‘A’ stands for agama or religion, ‘B’ is for bangsa, bahasa and budaya (race, language and culture) and C is the country.

Some of the readers may find the comparison between the fundamentals of Umno’s creation with the American declaration of independence disrespectful.

America, after all, is the most powerful nation on earth. It is the only superpower.

My response is why should we be ashamed of declaring what we stand for? This is the basic fault of the current Umno leadership – it no longer gives effect and substance to these fundamentals.


Right to self-determination

How does the Malay understand the concept of a Malay nation?

Looking from a Malay perspective, the following are the traits of a Malay nation. They understand it as being the homeland of the Malays, where the religion is Islam, its culture as that practised by Malays, Bahasa Melayu is the official language.

They understand it to be a land where the monarchy system remains an integral part of their cultural and political heritage.

They understand it to mean that Malays will control some degree of the economy. They understand it further as an embodiment of the inalienable right of self determination.

Having understood this, in the end, the unpopular idea of a Malayan Union was rejected way back in history.

Umno was the driving force behind this rejection. The Malay race is indebted to Umno.

After the first general election in 1955, Umno led the other non Malay political parties to form the government. In 1957, Umno gained independence for us. Since then, this country has developed in leaps and bounds.

Yes yes, the Umno Rottweilers and Dobermans can repeat ad nauseum the achievements of the government – Felda land schemes, modern amenities, schooling etc etc.

Yes, we are indebted to Umno but never, never were we enslaved by, nor were we hostage to Umno.


Trust must be protected

What are the foundations of Umno’s relevance? To my mind it is Malay nationalism.

This is the overriding thread that binds all other Malay interests. All other interests are subsumed under the force of nationalism.

Malay nationalism is about primacy of Malay interests. They must be protected, expanded and defended. This was the basis of trust given by the Malays to Umno.

I fear these interests are perceived as being watered down by the Malay public. It is watered down by weak implementation, failure by Umno to provide leadership, by rhetoric more than substance, by mere words more than action.

These sentiments and emotions emanate from the breasts of ordinary man, not those in the halls of Putra World Trade Centre.

These powerful forces can only be sustained on the backs of economic and educational strength, areas in which the Malays are weaker by the day.


Forgotten virtues

After more than 50 years of independence, wealth distribution among the races and within the Malays themselves is not improving.

Put it simply, Umno has not taken care of its own members.

The perception is that ordinary Umno members, on whom the vision of Umno is carried, are marginalised.

When Malays rallied behind Tunku Abdul Rahman in the early 1950s, they were looking for a leadership that can defend and fight for their inalienable rights to call Malaysia their home.

They placed their trust and faith in Umno. They came from all walks of life. They pawned whatever material wealth they had to fight for a cause.

As author Francis Fukuyama noted in his book ‘Trust: The Social Virtues And The Creation Of Prosperity’, trust and faith are founded on the principle of reciprocity.

When there is trust, people cooperate. We give you our trust and faith believing that you will honour that trust and faith by fighting for what we want.

Once trust and faith are wasted away, you lose our trust. Can it be, after 62 years of Umno’s founding, it has forgotten our trust and faith?


The writer is a former Umno state assemblyman and a FMT columnist.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Dark clouds over US and Europe - Lin See Yan

Source: http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2011/8/27/business/9378418&sec=business

Dark clouds over US and Europe

WHAT ARE WE TO DO
By TAN SRI LIN SEE-YAN


The world is adrift and it will continue to drift in the coming months or even years

Within the past couple of weeks, the world has changed. From a world so used to the United States playing a key leadership role in shaping global economic affairs to one going through a multi-speed recovery, with the emerging nations providing the source of growth and opportunity. This is a very rapid change indeed in historical time. What happened? First, the convergence of a series of events in Europe (contagion of the open ended debt crisis jolted France and spread to Italy and Spain, forcing theEuropean Central Bank or ECB to buy their bonds) and in the US (last minute lifting of the debt ceiling exposed the dysfunctional US political system, and the Standard & Poor's downgrade of the US credit rating) have led to a loss of confidence by markets across the Atlantic in the effectiveness of the political leadership in resolving key problems confronting the developed world. Second, these events combined with the coming together of poor economic outcomes involving the fragilities of recovery have pushed the world into what the president of the World Bank called “a new danger zone,” with no fresh solutions in sight. Growth in leading world economies slowed for the fourth consecutive quarter, gaining just 0.2% in 2Q'11 (0.3% in 1Q'11) according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. The slowdown was marked in the euro area. Germany slackened to 0.3% in 2Q'11 (1.3% in 1Q'1) and France stalled at zero after 0.9% in 1Q'11. The US picked up to 0.3% (0.1% in 1Q'11), while Japan contracted 0.3% in 2Q'11 (-0.9% in 1Q'11).

The US slides

Recent data disclosures and revisions showed that the 2008 recession was deeper than first thought, and the subsequent recovery flatter. The outcome: Gross domestic product (GDP) has yet to regain its pre-recession peak. Worse, the feeble recovery appears to be petering out. Over the past year, output has grown a mere 1.6%, well below what most economists consider to be the US's underlying growth rate, a pace that has been in the past almost always followed by a recession. Over the past six-months, the US has managed to eke out an annualised growth of only 0.8%. This was completely unexpected. For months, the Federal Reserve had dismissed the economy's poor performance as a transitory reaction to Japan's natural disaster and oil price increases driven by turmoil in the Middle East. They now admit much stiffer headwinds are restraining the recovery, enough to keep growth painfully slow. Recent sentiment surveys and business activity indicators are consistent with expectations of a marked slowdown in US growth. Fiscal austerity will now prove to be a drag on growth for years. Housing isn't coming back quickly. Households are still trying to rid themselves of debt in the face of eroding wealth. Old relationships that used to drive recoveries seem unlikely to have the pull they used to have. Historically, consumers' confidence had tended to rebound after unemployment peaked. This time, it didn't happen. Unemployment peaked in Oct 2009 at 10.1% but confidence kept on sinking. The University of Michigan's index fell in early August to its lowest level since 1980. Thrown in is concern about the impact of the wild stock market on consumer spending. Indeed, equity volatility is having a negative impact on consumer psychology at a time of already weakening spending.

Three main reasons underlie why the Fed made the recent commitment to keep short-term interest rates near zero through mid-2013: (i) cuts all round to US growth forecasts for 2H11 and 2012; (ii) drop in oil and commodity prices plus lower expectations on the pace of recovery led to growing confidence inflation will stabilise; and (iii) rise in downside risks to growth in the face of deep concern about Europe's ability to resolve its sovereign debt problems. The Fed's intention is at least to keep financial conditions easy for the next 18 months. Also, it helps to ensure the slowly growing economy would not lapse into recession, even though it's already too close to the line; any shock could knock it into negative territory.

The critical key

Productivity in the US has been weakening. In 2Q11, non-farm business labour productivity fell 0.3%, the second straight quarterly drop. It rose only 0.8% from 2Q10. Over the past year, hourly wages have risen faster than productivity. This keeps the labour market sluggish and threatens potential recovery. It also means an erosion of living standards over the long haul. But, these numbers overstate productivity growth because of four factors: (a) upward bias in the data - eg the US spends the most on health care per capita in the world, yet without superior outcomes; (b) government spending on military and domestic security have risen sharply, yet they don't deliver useful goods and services that raise living standards; (c) labour force participation has fallen for years. Taking lower-paying jobs out of the mix raises productivity but does not create higher value-added jobs; and (d) off-shoring by US companies to China for example, but they don't enhance American productivity. Overall, they just overstate productivity. So, the US, like Europe, needs to actually raise productivity at the ground level if they are to really grow and reduce debt over the long-term. The next wave of innovation will probably rely on the world's current pool of scientific leaders - most of whom is still US-based.

US deficit is too large

The US budget deficit is now 9.1% of GDP. That's high by any standard. According to the impartial US Congressional Budget Office (CBO), even after returning to full employment, the deficit will remain so large its debt to GDP will rise to 190% by 2035! What happened? This deficit was 3.2% in 2008; rose to 8.9% in 2010, pushing the debt/GDP ratio from 40% to 62% in 2010. This “5.7% of GDP” rise in the deficit came about because of (i) a fall of “2.6% of GDP” in revenue (from 17.5% to 14.9% of GDP), and (ii) a rise of “3.1% of GDP” in spending (from 20.7% to 23.8% of GDP). According to the CBO, less than one-half of the rise in deficit was caused by the downturn of 2008-2010. Because of this cyclical decline, revenue collections were lower and outlays, higher (due to higher unemployment benefits and transfers to help those adversely affected). They in turn raise total demand and thus, help to stabilise the economy. These are called “automatic stabilisers.” In addition, the budget deficit also worsened because, even at full-employment, revenues would still fall and spending rise. So, the great recession did its damage.

Looking ahead, the Obama administration's budget proposals would add (according to CBO) US$3.8 trillion to the national debt between 2010 and 2020. This would raise the debt/GDP ratio to 90% reflecting limited higher spending, weaker revenues from middle and lower income taxpayers, offset in part by higher taxes on the rich. Even so, these are based on conservative assumptions regarding military spending, no new programmes and lower discretionary spending in “real” terms. No doubt, actual fiscal consolidation would imply much more spending cuts and higher revenues. According to Harvard's Prof M. Feldstein, increased revenues can only come about, without raising marginal tax rates, through what he calls cuts in “tax expenditures,” that is, reforming tax deductions (eg cutting farm subsidies, eliminating deductions for ethanol production, etc). Such a “balanced approach” to resolve the growing fiscal deficit will be hard to come-by given the political paralysis in Washington. Worse, the poisonous politics of the past two months have created a new sort of uncertainty. The tea partiers' refusal to compromise can, at worse, kill off the recovery. The only institution with power to avert danger is the Fed. But printing money can be counter-productive. Fiscal measures are the preferred way to go at this time. Even so, the US fiscal problems will mount beyond 2020 because of the rising cost of social security and medicare benefits. No doubt, fundamental reform is still needed for the long-term health of the US economy.

Eurozone stumbles

Looming large as a risk factor is Europe's long running sovereign debt saga, which is pummelling US and European financial markets and business confidence. So far, Europe's woes and the market turmoil it stirred are worrisome. The S&P 500 fell close to 5% last week extending losses of 15.4% over the previous three weeks, its worse streak of that length in 2 years, and down 17.6% from its 2011 high. The situation in Europe has been dictating much of the global markets' recent movements. The eurozone's dominant service sector was effectively stagnant in August after two years of growth, while manufacturing activity, which drove much of the recovery in the bloc shrank for the first time since September 2009. Latest indicators add to signs the slowdown is spreading beyond the periphery and taking root in its core members, including Germany. The Flash Markit Eurozone Services Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) fell to 51.5 in August (51.6 in July), its lowest level since September 2009. The PMI, which measures activity ranging from restaurants to banks, is still above “50”, the mark dividing growth from contraction. However, PMI for manufacturing slid to 49.7 the first sub-50 reading since September 2009. Both services and manufacturing are struggling.

Going forward, poor data show neither Germany nor France (together making- up one-half the bloc's GDP) is going to be the locomotive. Indeed, the risks of “pushing” the region over the edge are significant. Germany faces an obvious slowdown and a possible lengthy stagnation.

European financial markets just came off a turbulent two weeks, with investors fearing the debt crisis could spread further if Europe's policy makers fail to implement institutional change and new structural supports for the currency bloc's finances. In the interim, the ECB has been picking up Italian and Spanish bonds to keep borrowing costs from soaring. The action has worked so far, but the ECB is only buying time and can't support markets indefinitely. So far, the rescue bill included 365 billion euros in official loans to Greece, Portugal and Ireland; the creation of a 440 billion euros rescue fund; and 96 billion euros in bond buying by the ECB. Despite this, market volatility and uncertainty prevail. Europe is being forced into an end-game with three possible outcomes: (a) disorderly break-up - possible if the peripherals fail in their fiscal reform or can no longer withstand stagnation arising from austerity; (b) greater fiscal union in return for strict national fiscal discipline; and (c) creation of a more compact and more economically coherent eurozone against contagion; this implies some weaker members will take “sabbatical” from the euro. My own sense is that the end-game will be neither simple nor orderly. Politicians will likely opt for a weak variant of fiscal union. After more pain, a smaller and more robust euro could emerge and avoid the euro's demise. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman gives a “50% chance Greece would leave and a 10% odds of Italy following.”

Leaderless world

The crisis we now face is one of confidence. Starting with the markets across both sides of the Atlantic and in Japan. This lack of confidence reflected an accumulation of discouraging news, including feeble economic data in the US and Europe, and signs European banks are not so stable. The global rout seems to have its roots in free-floating anxiety about US dysfunctional politics and about euroland's economic and financial stability. Confidence is indeed shaky, already spreading to businesses and consumers, raising risks any fresh shock could be enough to push the US and European economies into recession. Business optimism, at best, is “softish.” Consumers are still deleveraging. Unfortunately, this general lack of confidence in global economic prospects could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the end, it's all about politics. The French philosopher Blaise Pascal contends politics have incentives that economics cannot understand. To act, politicians need consensus, which often does not emerge until the costs of inaction become highly visible. By then, it is often too late to avoid a much worse outcome. So, the demand for global leadership has never been greater. But, none is forthcoming not for the US, not from Europe; certainly not from Germany and France, or Britain.

The world is adrift. Unfortunately, it will continue to drift in the coming months, even years. Voters on both sides of the Atlantic need to demand more from their leaders than “continued austerity on autopilot.” After all, in politics, leadership is the art of making the impossible possible.

Former banker, Dr Lin is a Harvard educated economist and a British Chartered Scientist who now spends time writing, teaching and promoting the public interest. Feedback is most welcome; email:starbizweek@thestar.com.my.

Saturday, August 20, 2011

The Myth of Malaysia’s Middle Income Trap

Source: http://econsmalaysia.blogspot.com/2011/08/myth-of-malaysias-middle-income-trap.html

MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2011

The Myth of Malaysia’s Middle Income Trap

It’s a stylised fact and almost universally accepted that Malaysia is caught in a middle income trap. But a funny thing happened when I went looking for the evidence – it’ incredibly hard to find. And thinking about the issue made me more convinced that the whole idea is about as real as Hogwarts.

Taken at face value was does the term mean? Simply that a middle-income country stays a middle income country, and doesn’t make the leap into high income status. There’s also the notion of a poverty trap for countries; that low-income countries are unable or unwilling to make the necessary structural changes to achieve a growth “take-off” and start on the long road of development.

I hadn’t the time to try and track down the antecedents of both ideas, though they appear to have originated in the 1950s and 1960s (concurrent with the advent of development and growth economics) and formed the basis of large scale foreign aid to low income countries by the likes of the World Bank. In fact you could say that the whole raison d’être of development institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank is that countries need “help” – especially large scale, expensive “help” – to get going. I don’t want to get sidetracked into that particular debate, so I’ll just concentrate on Malaysia’s particular “problem”.

The reason why I haven’t been able to fully track these ideas down is that, despite a decent literature search, there’s an incredible lack of academic papers on the “trap” condition itself, as opposed to how to get out of one. That doesn’t make sense to me – where I’ve been able to find references, the idea of a “trap” is taken as a given, with lots of advice to aspiring countries on what to do to get out of one. There’s hardly anything empirical on what middle or low income “traps” actually are, much less if they actually exist. How you can define a policy path based on a particular problem, yet almost completely ignore the conditions and particularities of the problem itself, is beyond me.

There is however a consistent narrative that underscores the idea of a middle income trap and it goes something like this:

  1. Low income country begins by development through low wage manufacturing;
  2. Growth is driven by a shift in labour resources from low productivity agriculture to higher productivity manufacturing;
  3. Investment in the accumulation of capital relative to labour drives productivity improvements, both absolutely and relative to agriculture and mining;
  4. Rapid growth comes from both an increase in productivity and an increase in the quantity and quality of factors of production (investment in fixed and human capital; improvements in healthcare and diet cuts mortality rates and increases population levels);
  5. At some stage, diminishing returns sets in for capital, while population growth slows to a maintenance level;
  6. Since growth is now dependent solely on total factor productivity, rather than increases in the factors of production themselves, countries that lack the capability to improve productivity find growth potential limited by this constraint and remain stuck as middle income countries.

This narrative seems to describe Malaysia pretty well – we’ve nowhere near matched the record of development posted by the likes of Singapore or Korea for instance. There’s no doubt as well that manufacturing – especially export-oriented manufacturing – appears to have hit a wall:

06_manu

07_nx

But there’s a number of ways I can pull this argument apart. Let’s take the obvious first – for a middle income country to remain a middle income country, growth has to have stalled relative to the high income target. Here’s the raw data (GNI per capita; RM ‘000; 1970-2010):

02_ngni

Apart from three identifiable recessions (1985-87, 1996-2001, 2009-2010), growth has been steady, if not spectacular. The World Bank’s definition of high income only came into being around 1987 (click here for the data and history of the World Bank’s income definitions) – here’s the chart above as a ratio to that definition (GNI per capita in USD; ratio to World Bank High Income Level; 1987-2010):

03_ratio

You’ll notice that there’s a lot of movement here – the 1997 financial crisis caused a massive loss in relative welfare, as did this past recession, though not quite to the same degree. It took nearly five years for Malaysia to make up the ground lost in 1997, something which we’ve almost achieved in a year this time. The 2001 recession on the other hand was a mere speed bump.

But looking at the ratio above, there’s one thing you don’t see – stagnation. At almost no point, save in the early 1990s, could you reasonably point to and say “TRAP!” In fact, the recent record is actually pretty good, as we’ve almost covered a third of the distance to the high income threshold in the past decade alone. More formally, ADF and PP tests strongly reject the hypothesis that the ratio is stationary in levels.

Another way of looking at the same thing using different data is through the Penn World Tables, which has a few indicators measuring per capita GDP as a ratio to US per capita GDP (index levels; US=100; 1960-2007; G-K method;PWT ver6.3):

04_rgdp

The picture here’s slightly different, but the conclusion’s the same – Malaysia’s per capita income is still gaining ground on that of developed economies. There’s only a few periods (pre-1968; 1980-86; 1997-2001) where you could say that Malaysia’s economy was “trapped” – otherwise, we’ve made continually progress. Again, formal tests point to non-stationarity.

Digression: It was interesting to look at the experience of the NIEs in this context – we’ve always been treated as poorer cousins to them, despite starting off on nearly the same footing. So I can’t resist inserting the following (log ratios to US GDP per capita; US=100):

05_y

Singapore and Hong Kong started off richer than Malaysia and maintained their lead. We started better off than Korea and Taiwan, but ended up behind because of two factors – poor growth pre-1970 and losing a lot of ground in the 1985-87 recession. More research required here obviously…and now back to the topic at hand.

The past, as they say, is prologue. Just because growth has rather inconveniently not stalled as per the “trap” hypothesis, doesn’t mean it can’t happen in the future. But even here, there’s more than enough grounds for rejecting it.

Recall the narrative of the middle income trap above – rapid factor accumulation plus higher productivity from the shift to manufacturing drive the initial growth phase out of low income status. As economies mature, factor accumulation slows and productivity gains become harder to achieve, “trapping” countries who can’t make the transition to higher value added manufacturing.

The first and very obvious shortcoming here is that this narrative essentially recognises only one path to development – that of industrialisation. But looking at the milieu of high income economies today, it’s obvious that there’s more than one way to skin this particular cat. Of the East Asian economies to make the full transition to industrialisation, I think it’s fair to say that only Korea and Japan have followed that road. Taiwan’s more of a mixed economy, and Hong Kong and Singapore have thrived on services. Europe’s experience is similar – for every Germany, there’s a Norway or Switzerland.

If we look at development policies, again there’s considerable heterogeneity. Japan and Korea followed an almost socialist style industrial policy, with Hong Kong’s laissez faire economy diametrically opposite. Singapore’s policies falls somewhere in between with an emphasis on pragmatism, and you could say that Taiwan’s policy with respect to development to be one of benign neglect. Yet all these economies managed to make the leap to high income status. This suggests that there’s the individual structure of the economies in question matters – and means that there’s no single “answer”.

Malaysia’s economy, need I point out, is pretty diverse. While export oriented manufacturing carried the initial brunt of development (from the 1980s onwards), we’ve continued to maintain a sizeable primary sector and now have a burgeoning services sector:

08_services

Focusing development efforts and investment on the latter (where measured productivity can be higher than in manufacturing) is likely to produce greater benefits than trying to counteract a trap that doesn’t exist.

Lastly, and the biggest reason why I reject the notion of Malaysia’s middle income trap, is that we’re not past the factor accumulation stage. Malaysia’s demographics are highly supportive of future per capita income growth. Birth rates have already fallen below replacement levels, yet we have a big cohort in the school years that will raise the ratio of the labour force to the population. Any investment made to raise productive capacity or factor productivity will produce considerable dividends down the road. We’re about to experience a baby-boomer induced economic growth phase on par with that experienced by developed economies in the post-WWII era.

Mark my words: fifty years from now, people will look back and see these next 2-3 decades as Malaysia’s golden era. While the ETP and NEM will probably get the credit, this is a structural transformation that’s been years in the making.

Technical Notes:

  1. GDP and GNI data from the Economic Planning Unit of the PM’s Dept.
  2. World Bank income data from the World Bank
  3. International per capita GDP data from the Penn World Tables

Varsities get transformation message

Source: http://www.nst.com.my/nst/articles/17mar/Mobile/article_html

Varsities get transformation message

AT the 34th convocation of Universiti Putra Malaysia in October last year in my ucapan balas for the conferment of an emeritus professorship at the university, I had suggested a defined new role for our public universities in line with the emphasis on national transformation, and that they be called transformational universities (TU).

What also prompted me to do so was the active discourse on the changing role of universities among academics in the West.

During a talk in Kuala Lumpur in July 2007, Professor Tim Wilson of Hertfordshire University described his university and a few others in the United Kingdom as business-facing.


They deliver education through a business perspective. Courses are designed with industry input. They adopt a "revolving door" approach to business. They support entrepreneurship. They promote user-driven research and development. They give credits for business internship. They are, therefore, different from the older academic-facing UK universities such as Oxford and Cambridge. However, most universities now are a mixture of both.

Richard Levine, writing in the August 2006 issue of Newsweek magazine, described a number of "global universities".

"They seek students from around the world. They send their students abroad. They offer courses that address the challenges of an interconnected world. They undertake collaborative research programmes to benefit all humanity."


The top five global universities were American. Cambridge and Oxford came in sixth and eighth respectively. Two Japanese and two Australian universities were in the top 40. The only Asean representative was the National University of Singapore, at 31st position.

Similar to the global-university concept is the third generation university (3GU). This was described by Professor J.G. Wissema of Delft University of Technology, Netherlands, in his 2009 book Towards the Third Generation University.

3GUs are characterised by active competition globally for the best students, academics and research contracts, undertaking interdisciplinary research focusing on global issues, pursuing active R&D commercialisation and encouraging the development of technostarters from among students and faculty.


Because of the importance attached to commercialisation, they have an elaborate organisation and management structure. Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Cambridge are among the 3GUs, while Institut Teknologi Bandung is an example of a university in transition to a 3GU.

There was also an argument for UK universities to focus more on the local community.

Professor John Goddard of Newcastle University had in 2009 called for reinventing the civic university in a publication by the national endowment for science, technology and the arts.

What then is the situation in Malaysia? UPM was modelled after the United States land-grant colleges whose functions were teaching, research and extension. Extension was a major activity of UPM. Facilities for practical aspects were extensive in order to serve well its constituency -- the farming community.

When UPM changed its name to Putra, the facilities were largely dismantled and the extension service discontinued. UPM became just like any other Malaysian university. However, UPM is now repositioning itself to lead again in the new agriculture, implying the application of hi-tech and modern management, high value-added agribusiness and sustainability.

Five Malaysian public institutions of higher learning are now research universities, one of which is the apex university. All have strengthened their infrastructure for science, technology and innovation (STI) and their effort in research, development and commercialisation (R,D&C).

They are also developing the organisation and management structure for R,D&C in the manner of the 3GU described earlier, but with less global engagement.

Our research universities are, therefore, in a good position to contribute directly to the national socio-economic transformation programme. This is one major attribute of a transformational university, the other being holistic human capital development.

Holistic human capital development means the development of the full human potential comprising "a portfolio of different skills and assets" required by both government and industry.

The concept embraces intellectual capital (strategic thought process), skill capital (technical competency), social capital (inter-personal skill, communication, cooperativeness, smart partnership), entrepreneurial capital (creativity, innovativeness, entrepreneurship, managerial), physiological capital (commitment, passion, dedication, self-belief) and spiritual capital which includes ethical values and integrity.

The holistic human capital components can be delivered either formally as part of the courses or non-formally through a conducive campus environment. For example, elements of entrepreneurship and management can be incorporated as part of the core of all courses.

The ethnic composition of our students together with the presence of foreign students can be harnessed to enhance the social and physiological capital.

Success in developing holistic human capital will produce superior knowledge workers. These are people who can provide solutions to problems, working alone or in a team; are equipped with core competency; be highly motivated, adaptable and possess the capacity for life-long learning to master new skills; and become risk-taking technostarter, with smart partnership work ethics.

The holistic human capital development will create an innovative and creative workforce, critical for success in the innovation economy.

Unfortunately, the task of developing holistic human capital cannot be left to the university alone. It has to begin at home, through the school system and eventually, at work. However, the TU does not have to wait. It can start designing programmes and create the ecosystem immediately.

A transformational role for our public universities implies a commitment to the national socio-economic transformation programme through two major initiatives. First, a holistic human capital development contributing to a creative, innovative and civilised workforce; second, an enhanced capacity for excellence in STI and R,D&C contributing to capacity building and wealth creation.

Universities in the country are under pressure to change. The pressure from global ranking is one. But there are concerns also on the declining quality of graduates as expressed by the industry community and the public at large. It's time to transform, to be transformational.

Tan Sri Omar Abdul Rahman is senior fellow and founding president, Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Copyright © New Straits Times 2010

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Bank Negara: Pertumbuhan ekonomi Malaysia susut ke paras 4%

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/bahasa/article/bank-negara-pertumbuhan-ekonomi-malaysia-susut-ke-paras-4/

Bank Negara: Pertumbuhan ekonomi Malaysia susut ke paras 4%

August 17, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, 17 Ogos – Pertumbuhan ekonomi Malaysia menurun ke paras empat peratus – tahap paling rendah sejak kelembapan 2009 ekoran kesan penurunan permintaan luaran dan pendekatan sederhana dalam perbelanjaan kerajaan, kata Bank Negara hari ini.

Ia merupakan penurunan suku tahunan kelima berturut-turut dan merosot daripada 4.6 peratus dicatatkan pada suku pertama tahun ini.

Gabenor Bank Negara Tan Sri Zeti Akhtar Aziz bagaimanapun berkata pertumbuhan yang kukuh dijangkakan pada separuh kedua tahun ini.

Sementara itu laporan Bernama Online memetik beliau berkata, gangguan dalam rantaian bekalan pembuatan global yang tercetus hasil daripada bencana di Jepun dan kelemahan secara keseluruhan dalam permintaan di negara-negara maju yang menyebabkan kelembapan dalam pembuatan, yang hanya meningkat 2.1 peratus.

Bergerak ke hadapan, beliau berkata yang ekonomi mampu mengekalkan unjurannya iaitu lima hingga enam peratus tahun ini, disokong oleh asas-asas kukuh ekonomi serta projek-projek daripada Program Transformasi Ekonomi (ETP).

Sumber utama pertumbuhan dalam suku kedua terus dirangsang oleh pengembangan mampan permintaan domestik swasta/persendirian dan perdagangan intra serantau yang disokong oleh eksport komoditi dan produk berasaskan sumber ke rantau ini,” kata beliau dalam persidangan akhbar di sini untuk mengumumkan angka Keluaran Dalam Negara Kasar (KDNK) bagi suku kedua 2011.

“Sehubungan itu, permintaan domestiklah yang menyokong pertumbuhan kita dalam suku kedua tahun ini,” kata beliau.

KDNK dalam suku kedua mengembang sebanyak 8.9 peratus sementara ia meningkat 4.4 peratus dalam tempoh enam bulan pertama tahun ini.

Ditanya sama ada unjuran pertumbuhan 5-6 peratus akan dikekalkan, beliau berkata,

“Buat masa sekarang, penilaian kita tidak mungkin ekoran prestasi separuh pertama dan pertumbuhan tahun sepenuhnya akan hampir kepada 5.0 peratus.

“Justeru itu, tiada semakan semula pada peringkat ini tetapi kita akan membuat penilaian yang teliti apabila Bajet 2012 dibentangkan Oktober ini dan jika terdapat sebarang semakan perlu dibuat, ia akan dilakukan ketika itu,” katanya.

“Bagaimanapun, jika kita mempunyai situasi di mana Amerika Syarikat dan Eropah tergelincir memasuki kemelesetan atau apa-apa sahaja faktor pencetus yang menjurus kepada kebinasaan dalam pasaran kewangan antarabangsa, maka, kita perlulah membuat penilaian semula,” kata beliau.

Tetapi sekiranya itu tidak berlaku, kata beliau, “penilaian kita ialah kita boleh mencapai sekurang-kurangnya 5.0 peratus pertumbuhan kerana ekonomi kita masih kekal dengan pertumbuhan kukuh dan pelaburan sektor persendirian swasta yang menggalakkan.”

“Kita tahu dalam separuh kedua tahun ini, banyak lagi pelaksanaan agresif Rancangan Malaysia Kesepuluh dan projek-projek ETP,” katanya.

Monday, August 8, 2011

Dilema Melayu: Ketinggalan tetapi lalai — Salleh Majid

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/dilema-melayu-ketinggalan-tetapi-lalai-salleh-majid/


Dilema Melayu: Ketinggalan tetapi lalai — Salleh Majid

July 16, 2011

16 JULAI — Orang Melayu hari ini berdepan dengan satu suasana yang menimbulkan dilema kepada mereka. Memandangkan kepesatan perubahan yang berlaku, orang Melayu ada yang cuba bersuara tetapi setiap orang Melayu bersuara terutama sekali tentang hak mereka walaupun termaktub dalam Perlembagaan, mereka akan dilabel rasis, sedangkan dia menyaksikan satu demi satu tuntutan daripada bangsa lain ditunaikan sehingga yang tidak mereka tuntut pun diberikan.

Orang Melayu difahamkan bahawa apa jua yang tersirat dalam Dasar Ekonomi Baru dulu tersurat dalam Modal Ekonomi Baru dalam bentuk tindakan afirmatif berlandaskan keperluan dan merit.

Syarat merit inilah membuatkan usahawan Melayu melepas dalam projek mega seperti MRT yang bernilai RM50 bilion. Merit inilah membuatkan usahawan sahih Melayu melepas projek ladang udang bersepadu. Merit inilah menyebabkan 300 vendor Melayu dalam Petronas akan terkapai- kapai kerana liberalisasi membenarkan orang asing menguasai perniagaan yang sama tanpa syarat, dulu mewajibkan mengambil rakan kongsi Melayu.

Kini Initiatif Perubahan Strategik yang diumumkan salah satu daripadanya ialah liberalisasi perkhidmatan untuk meningkatkan sumbangan perkhidmatan daripada 55 peratus kepada Keluaran Dalam Negara Kasar (KDNK) kepada 70 peratus.

Apa jua jenis perkhidmatan yang ada pada hari ini seperti pengangkutan, penjagaan kesihatan, khidmat pengurusan, kewangan dan bermacam lagi akan dibuka. Perkhidmatan profesional juga akan dibuka seperti arkitek, perakaunan, perkhidmatan sekretarial dan yang berkaitan dengan kewangan.

Pada masa ini perbankan dan pengurusan syarikat broker saham sudah dibuka kepada pemilik asing. Malangnya syarikat broker saham asing lebih gemar mengambil pelabur tempatan daripada membawa masuk pelabur asing.

Menyentuh tentang memperbaiki keadaan usahawan Melayu, salah satu inisiatif yang digariskan ialah merapatkan jurang antara syarikat kecil dan sederhana dengan yang besar. Tanggungjawab ini diserahkan kepada Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yaacob. Apa yang diperlukan ialah apa yang dihasrat oleh Majlis Tindakan Bumiputera yang sekretariatnya Unit Peneraju Agenda Bumiputera (Teraju).

Teraju difahamkan tidak mempunyai kakitangan yang mencukupi dan tidak mempunyai belanjawan yang cukup juga.Terpenting sekali Teraju tidak mempunyai kuasa dibandingkan dengan Unit Pengurusan Prestasi dan Pelaksanaan (Pemandu).

Dewan Perniagaan Melayu Malaysia dalam suatu kenyataan mengulas apa yang telah dilakukan oleh Pemandu menyatakan bahawa Dewan telah hilang kepercayaan kepada Pemandu dan banyak perkara yang dilakukan oleh Pemandu tidak ambil pusing bahawa majoriti penduduk di negara ini ialah orang Melayu.

Pemandu telah mengambil alih fungsi jabatan-jabatan penting seperti Unit Perancangan Ekonomi (EPU) dan Unit Pelaksanaan dan Koordinasi (ICU) dan segala-gala transformasi ditentukan oleh Pemandu.

Ia dianggotai oleh perunding-perunding asing yang dibayar mahal-mahal dan menafikan peluang orang tempatan untuk turut serta. Tidak hairan kalau perunding-perunding asing ini berkongsi maklumat dengan pihak-pihak luar yang tidak sepatutnya ada akses kepada perancangan negara kita.

Perunding tempatan tidak sebaik perunding asing. Kalau ada seorang dua pun diambil sebagai “token”. Segala-gala pembahagian dalam proses transformasi ekonomi ini sudah ditentukan, siapa dapat apa.

Orang Melayu dilihat sebagai tidak layak dalam apa jua bidang walaupun misalnya dalam bidang binaan, 39 peratus daripada keseluruhan syarikat binaan adalah orang Melayu.

Inilah dilema orang Melayu. Mereka membawa ke tengah pelbagai usul termasuk memperkasakan Mara supaya dapat membantu usahawan Melayu, disusun semula, diperkuatkan strukturnya, diberikan suatu bentuk baru dan dikemukakan kepada Ahli Majlis Tertinggi Umno supaya sesuatu dilakukan, malangnya selepas dua tahun berlalu, tiada juga tindakan.

Mereka mendengar taklimat demi taklimat oleh Teraju tetapi mereka diberitahu masalah yang dihadapi oleh Teraju bukan apa yang ingin dilakukan oleh Teraju untuk mempertingkatkan kedudukan usahawan Melayu.

Teraju hanyalah sekretariat tetapi Pemandu diketuai oleh seorang menteri. Di situ boleh dilihat perbezaan kuasa yang ada.

Inilah dilema orang Melayu. Kalau mereka menyuarakan rasa tidak puas hati, mereka dilabel bersifat perkauman sedangkan mereka melihat saja orang lain “memetik buah-buahan yang ranum-ranum.”

Orang Melayu juga dibuai oleh hiburan. Pelbagai usaha untuk melalaikan orang Melayu atas nama perniagaan berlaku. Pelbagai macam festival, jom heboh, festival telekom dan seribu satu macam acara lagi semuanya dihujani oleh orang Melayu.

Begitu juga di media elektronik televisyen, orang Melayu disuapkan hari-hari dengan drama-drama kurafat yang kebanyakannya menunjukkan perkara yang melanggar akidah seperti nasi kangkang, sejundai dan ilmu hitam yang tidak patut dipertontonkan.

Dalam bidang pendidikan orang Melayulah yang ketinggalan. Pelajar insitutusi awam tidak dapat menguasai komunikasi, pengetahuan am dan keyakinan diri seperti pelajar institusi pengajiran tinggi swasta. Mereka lemah dan bilangan mereka bertambah setiap tahun memenuhi angka pengangguran. Yang menerima biasiswa daripada syarikat milik kerajaan pun menganggur.

Seperkara lagi bilangan pelajar perempuan hampir lima kali ganda pelajar lelaki. Ke mana perginya pelajar lelaki. Di pusat serenti? Kita mengetepikan bahasa Inggeris kerana takutkan bahasa Melayu tergugat kedudukannya sedangkan realiti di luar, misalnya di syarikat-syarikat lebih rela mengambil graduan yang fasih berbahasa Inggeris.

Apakah terkorban kedudukan bahasa Melayu bila kita berbahasa Inggeris? Pergi sahaja mana-mana mesyuarat jabatan kerajaan dan dengarlah bahasa apa yang digunakan. Yang menjadi mangsa pelajar-pelajar kita. Sedih melihat mutu penguasaan bahasa Inggeris mereka walaupun mereka di universiti.

Dalam bidang perniagaan kita tahu bahawa rantaian bekalan dikuasai oleh bukan Melayu. Kalau dapat pun projek bahan binaannya boleh didapati daripada pembekal bukan Melayu dan harganya berbeza daripada kontraktor bukan Melayu. Rantaian bekalan patut ditembusi supaya keadaan atas belas kasihan bukan Melayu ini tidak berlarutan.

Begitu juga barang makanan. Pembekal boleh memboikot sesuatu usaha untuk memperbaiki keadaan. Misalnya penangkap ikan di laut dalam baru-baru ini boleh mogok kerana soal subsidi kepada mereka. Akhirnya kompromi terpaksa dilakukan, melemahkan pendirian kerajaan.

Begitu juga dalam soal gula dan tepung dulu. Mereka tidak mahu dilesenkan. Ini menunjukkan “kartel” ini perlu dipecahkan supaya tidak terus mencengkam kita.

Inilah dilema orang Melayu, sudahlah ketinggalan dalam pelbagai bidang terus dibuaikan dengan hiburan yang tidak berfaedah supaya terus lalai dan tidak menghiraukan masalah yang dihadapi. — Utusan Malaysia

* Datuk Salleh Majid ialah bekas Presiden Bursa Saham Kuala Lumpur (kini Bursa Malaysia).