The Malaysian Civil Service needs urgent reform.
The Administration's misguided Machiavellian use of it as a social net for incompetent Malaysians and, ultimately, as a vote-producing propaganda engine can no longer be tolerated. Firstly, Malaysians are being encouraged toward mediocrity by the promise of a safe job-haven where performance and ability do not matter. Secondly, the deterioration of the Civil Service, long a bulwark against corrupt politicians, allows and facilitates the misuse and extraction of public money. Thirdly, using the Civil Service as a mini-welfare state by providing income to employees for minimal return cannot be sustained. The Civil Service needs to be downsized and upskilled to (a) reduce costs, (b) minimise leakages and (c) motivate Malaysians and improve their sense of self-worth and self-pride.
The decline of the Civil Service, if left further unchecked, will also see a knock-on impact to the Malaysian economy and the development of the country. The Civil Service is responsible for the efficient running of many aspects of Malaysian life including education, security, health, foreign relations and macroeconomic management. The national fabric is fraying at the edges as the nation develops - communal tensions, health scares and security lapses can all be directly linked to the weakness of the Civil Service.
A key step that needs to be taken is a top-down, bottom-up review of the Civil Service - from functionalities, scope and manpower. Downsizing and upskilling will have to be the order of the day.
Independence, accountability and transparency will also have to be put in place.
[apologies for the waffly nature of this piece - more thought needs to be given than I am currently capable at the moment - had a late night - this is just a placeholder to remind me to come back to this topic]
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Individuals Maketh the State
The continued insistence on a State-led development model runs contrary to claims that Malaysia is well on its way to becoming a developed country.
Competing economic theories argue either way of this divide. Some clearly believing that a degree of State intervention is necessary to correct significant market distortions whilst on the other end of the spectrum, there are those that firmly posit that the business of Government is not to be in business.
In Malaysia, it can be effectively argued that the bulk of the civil service that engage in economic activities, such as State-led investment funds and State Economic Development Corporations, should not be in business. This is for two key reasons: (a) the primary agents in charge are incapable of doing business from lack of qualifications and experience; and (b) the investments do not make economic sense.
Most of the activities indulged by these agencies generate abysmal single digit returns (if any) and represent an inefficient allocation of capital.
Government has no business being in business.
The crowding out of private sector capital (capital is transferred from the private sector to the public sector) is significant. Given no incentive to achieve meaningful profit levels and economic returns, capital is being squandered in a second best manner.
Worst of all, the crowding out effect is stifling a key element necessary for the creation of a resilient and vibrant economy namely entrepreneurship.
The backbone of a developed economy is the SME sector. The chaos that is the SME sector, growing and dying in a continuing act of creative destruction and renewal, acts as a vital component of efficient capital allocation. It is a critical element that ensures and sustains economic growth. It is also a great leveller of the class system.
The Malaysian Government needs to correct this imbalance between a love for giant, inefficient State-owned enterprises and a freeing up of precious financial capital for the use of the SME sector. Privatisation needs to be accelerated and taken to its logical end.
Funds raised can be utilised in a multitude of ways: paying a Merdeka dividend to all Malaysians, reinvesting into the civil sector (to reskill and retool our civil servants to become better public administrators like in bygone days), financing effective investment incentives for entrepreneurs in key areas of economic development and improving and upgrading as well as overhauling our entire education infrastructure.
Government has no business being in business.
The raison d'etre of a Government is to maximise the welfare of its constituents, to create the conditions necessary for its citizens to be able to lead their own lives and create their own wealth and to act as a safety net for those that fall by the wayside.
Plato's Republic was perhaps one of the first pieces of literature to posit the division of labour. It is precisely the case that the Administrative class was to be focused on administering and that the Philosopher Kings focused on governing so that the People could lead their lives in oblivious peace. Our Government needs to find clarity on exactly that - the Executive to focus on governing and the Civil Service to focus on administering.
Government has no business being in business. The people do.
Here endeth the rather convoluted lesson.
Filed under: Civil Service Reform, SME Development
Competing economic theories argue either way of this divide. Some clearly believing that a degree of State intervention is necessary to correct significant market distortions whilst on the other end of the spectrum, there are those that firmly posit that the business of Government is not to be in business.
In Malaysia, it can be effectively argued that the bulk of the civil service that engage in economic activities, such as State-led investment funds and State Economic Development Corporations, should not be in business. This is for two key reasons: (a) the primary agents in charge are incapable of doing business from lack of qualifications and experience; and (b) the investments do not make economic sense.
Most of the activities indulged by these agencies generate abysmal single digit returns (if any) and represent an inefficient allocation of capital.
Government has no business being in business.
The crowding out of private sector capital (capital is transferred from the private sector to the public sector) is significant. Given no incentive to achieve meaningful profit levels and economic returns, capital is being squandered in a second best manner.
Worst of all, the crowding out effect is stifling a key element necessary for the creation of a resilient and vibrant economy namely entrepreneurship.
The backbone of a developed economy is the SME sector. The chaos that is the SME sector, growing and dying in a continuing act of creative destruction and renewal, acts as a vital component of efficient capital allocation. It is a critical element that ensures and sustains economic growth. It is also a great leveller of the class system.
The Malaysian Government needs to correct this imbalance between a love for giant, inefficient State-owned enterprises and a freeing up of precious financial capital for the use of the SME sector. Privatisation needs to be accelerated and taken to its logical end.
Funds raised can be utilised in a multitude of ways: paying a Merdeka dividend to all Malaysians, reinvesting into the civil sector (to reskill and retool our civil servants to become better public administrators like in bygone days), financing effective investment incentives for entrepreneurs in key areas of economic development and improving and upgrading as well as overhauling our entire education infrastructure.
Government has no business being in business.
The raison d'etre of a Government is to maximise the welfare of its constituents, to create the conditions necessary for its citizens to be able to lead their own lives and create their own wealth and to act as a safety net for those that fall by the wayside.
Plato's Republic was perhaps one of the first pieces of literature to posit the division of labour. It is precisely the case that the Administrative class was to be focused on administering and that the Philosopher Kings focused on governing so that the People could lead their lives in oblivious peace. Our Government needs to find clarity on exactly that - the Executive to focus on governing and the Civil Service to focus on administering.
Government has no business being in business. The people do.
Here endeth the rather convoluted lesson.
Filed under: Civil Service Reform, SME Development
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Stick to the Knitting
An Islamic State.
Government knows best.
Hollow statements. An administration that spends too much time on platitudes and too little on substantive governing efforts must surely be lost or at the very least, on its last legs.
There are a multitude of issues facing the country. Rather than worry about bloggers, national unity or the labeling of the state and acting as high priests, perhaps it can be argued that government should be just a government and focus on creating a just state.
A government's role is to govern. In Malaysia, that government is particularly charged with the responsibility to govern and to govern justly. To balance the needs of the many against the needs of the few. To provide a means by which the underprivileged and the disadvantaged can build a better life in society. Not to equalise but to equip and to empower. To protect the people's civil rights and freedoms long denied by their former colonial masters. To build a free and just nation. A beacon of tolerance, inclusion and acceptance. To leverage the strength that is our diversity. Not to divide and conquer as the colonialists did in the past.
Amongst the centrepieces of the policy recommendations currently being drafted there will be a focus on the role of government; specifically, the roles of the Executive and the Legislature (ie the politicians).
Commenting on party politics is beyond the scope of this site but the setting of guidelines for qualification to sit in either Houses of the Legislature is well within its remit. This will also be an area touched upon.
It is truly a sad thing that after nigh 50 years of Independence our Executive and Legislative branches of Government appear to have diminished rather than strengthened. From the quality of debate, policy-setting and an appreciation of the responsibility to govern, the nation appears to have become that much poorer.
We have to gain back that which has been lost.
Government knows best.
Hollow statements. An administration that spends too much time on platitudes and too little on substantive governing efforts must surely be lost or at the very least, on its last legs.
There are a multitude of issues facing the country. Rather than worry about bloggers, national unity or the labeling of the state and acting as high priests, perhaps it can be argued that government should be just a government and focus on creating a just state.
A government's role is to govern. In Malaysia, that government is particularly charged with the responsibility to govern and to govern justly. To balance the needs of the many against the needs of the few. To provide a means by which the underprivileged and the disadvantaged can build a better life in society. Not to equalise but to equip and to empower. To protect the people's civil rights and freedoms long denied by their former colonial masters. To build a free and just nation. A beacon of tolerance, inclusion and acceptance. To leverage the strength that is our diversity. Not to divide and conquer as the colonialists did in the past.
Amongst the centrepieces of the policy recommendations currently being drafted there will be a focus on the role of government; specifically, the roles of the Executive and the Legislature (ie the politicians).
Commenting on party politics is beyond the scope of this site but the setting of guidelines for qualification to sit in either Houses of the Legislature is well within its remit. This will also be an area touched upon.
It is truly a sad thing that after nigh 50 years of Independence our Executive and Legislative branches of Government appear to have diminished rather than strengthened. From the quality of debate, policy-setting and an appreciation of the responsibility to govern, the nation appears to have become that much poorer.
We have to gain back that which has been lost.
Friday, July 13, 2007
The Long Game
The end justifies the means.
Means to an end.
End game.
Too many fall by the wayside when they lose sight of their beginnings, their principles and especially of the end-point of their journeys.
Political crusaders begin life with a set of principles that shape their view of the end-state of the world that they would like to see. Along the way, life and society may alter, in small or significant ways, their principles and maybe even their view of the End.
Most times, the world around them manages to do a bit more. The temptation to focus on the now and on short term glory, for whatever reason, infects and infiltrates even the most hard-core of political puritans. The delusion that single acts in one short, finite space of time will yield spectacular results that will hasten the achievement of the End takes hold in their minds.
The result is that he or she resorts to committing acts of supreme folly that ultimately leads to not even a phyrric victory but a supreme defeat; the loss of one's position and all that has been worked for as well as distancing the achievement of the End.
Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A move that hastened the end of the Second World War but at the same time, was an act of brutal and indiscrimnate murder that ranks with the Holocaust. So did good triumph over evil? Was the End envisioned by Allies of a freer and more just world achieved? Did it bring about the End or some other second-best, twisted end?
Realpolitik. Tactics versus strategy.
I choose to argue that in politics of principle, one must stay true to principles and the End. There is no excuse for not thinking through one's steps and rushing headlong. To use a cliche, there are no gambles only calculated risks.
To achieve the End, one has to always keep to the principles that have shaped one's vision of the End. Anything less serves to diminsh one's position and makes the bringing about of the End that much harder.
Bringing about the End takes time. So be it. Take the time.
Means to an end.
End game.
Too many fall by the wayside when they lose sight of their beginnings, their principles and especially of the end-point of their journeys.
Political crusaders begin life with a set of principles that shape their view of the end-state of the world that they would like to see. Along the way, life and society may alter, in small or significant ways, their principles and maybe even their view of the End.
Most times, the world around them manages to do a bit more. The temptation to focus on the now and on short term glory, for whatever reason, infects and infiltrates even the most hard-core of political puritans. The delusion that single acts in one short, finite space of time will yield spectacular results that will hasten the achievement of the End takes hold in their minds.
The result is that he or she resorts to committing acts of supreme folly that ultimately leads to not even a phyrric victory but a supreme defeat; the loss of one's position and all that has been worked for as well as distancing the achievement of the End.
Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A move that hastened the end of the Second World War but at the same time, was an act of brutal and indiscrimnate murder that ranks with the Holocaust. So did good triumph over evil? Was the End envisioned by Allies of a freer and more just world achieved? Did it bring about the End or some other second-best, twisted end?
Realpolitik. Tactics versus strategy.
I choose to argue that in politics of principle, one must stay true to principles and the End. There is no excuse for not thinking through one's steps and rushing headlong. To use a cliche, there are no gambles only calculated risks.
To achieve the End, one has to always keep to the principles that have shaped one's vision of the End. Anything less serves to diminsh one's position and makes the bringing about of the End that much harder.
Bringing about the End takes time. So be it. Take the time.
Monday, May 21, 2007
A New Dawn
A phrase latterly used by Alex Salmond upon his party's victory at the recent Scottish polls who in turn was borrowing from Tony Blair in 1997.
Hopefully this is the last time this site will be borrowing from these two politicians and their ilk.
For some time now, Malaysian politics has degenerated from the intellectual levels that characterised pre-Independence politics. Gone are the days when we had any politicians of the Left or Right debating on civil liberties and developmental economics; let alone the merits of a Malaysian Republic.
We are left today inheriting a political vacuum bereft of the dynamics of the Left or Right. Conservatism vs Libertarianism, we'll have none of that; we're Malaysian.
As such, there are no true underlying principles underpinning the political parties of Malaysia. Save tribal urges and one-upmanship.
This site aims to speak, albeit with a small voice (no delusions of grandeur here), with a clear voice to articulate a political vision of Malaysia that is tinged with a Centre-Right hue. It seeks to assemble a set of thoughts and possible policy recommendations relevant to the nation and its peoples.
Whether it's ever read by people other than its author, whether the ideas here are kosher and pass muster and whether it will matter more than a jot is a moot point.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. One more for the road then.
Hopefully this is the last time this site will be borrowing from these two politicians and their ilk.
For some time now, Malaysian politics has degenerated from the intellectual levels that characterised pre-Independence politics. Gone are the days when we had any politicians of the Left or Right debating on civil liberties and developmental economics; let alone the merits of a Malaysian Republic.
We are left today inheriting a political vacuum bereft of the dynamics of the Left or Right. Conservatism vs Libertarianism, we'll have none of that; we're Malaysian.
As such, there are no true underlying principles underpinning the political parties of Malaysia. Save tribal urges and one-upmanship.
This site aims to speak, albeit with a small voice (no delusions of grandeur here), with a clear voice to articulate a political vision of Malaysia that is tinged with a Centre-Right hue. It seeks to assemble a set of thoughts and possible policy recommendations relevant to the nation and its peoples.
Whether it's ever read by people other than its author, whether the ideas here are kosher and pass muster and whether it will matter more than a jot is a moot point.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. One more for the road then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)