From Siege Mentality to 1Malaysia.

FROM SIEGE MENTALITY TO ONE MALAYSIA.

As paradoxical as it sounds and appear, the concept of 1Malaysia would require the Malays especially, to get out from being trapped in a siege mentality. The use of the term 'siege mentality' has stirred up a hornet's nest. Unjustifiably so.

It was said in the context of a necessity to adopt a positive attitude to cope with the many challenges faced by the Malay. The attitude required is one that minimizes the feeling of being besieged and hemmed all around, bullied and brutalized. Without that countervailing attitude, the instinctive response of the besieged person is to strike out in rage at everyone including people who want to help out.

Such an attitude is counterproductive. As I understand it, it's not the kind of siege mentality when one person or group feels it's encircled all around by threats of which some are real but many more just imagined, such that the only recourse is to be overly defensive and withdraw into their own comfort zones. That comfort zone can be formed on whatever premises- calls for ethnic preservation, hegemonic assertions, etc.

Getting out of the siege mentality simply means adopting a fresh attitude to be a conscious and active actor on life's stage. It's stepping out of the mental rut. It's adopting the attitude that we are responsible for our own fate and weaning off ourselves from excessive dependence on the government. Government assist or the command elements in securing life advances must increasingly be supplemented by intrinsic efforts. That is the core idea of getting out of the siege mentality.

If this is the call that KJ meant when he made his speech about getting out of the siege mentality, it should be supported. It's stirring up a storm because of the person saying it. Because they were made in response to the person saying it and not the idea, the storm raised is not significant especially if it was raised by the usual suspects of anti KJ forces.

Lest face it- the idea and concept is bombed because it's KJ who said it. Tun Dr Mahathir has been reminding of the same idea during his tenure as UMNO president. That was the concept which became the main theme in his speeches during the final years of his presidency. To reinforce his cajoling, Tun Dr Mahathir used all sorts of visual and audio effects- giving stern warning, shedding tears and so forth. He did to encourage the Malays to get out of a mental stupor. He didn't use the term siege mentality but the idea is similar.

Our PM now knows that's the only way Malays can take centre stage i.e. by jettisoning ideas and attitude that are holding the Malays back.

But to my mind, there is a more basic and fundamental reason behind the vocal objections. It is a defense against the dismantling of command elements in our society. What do I mean by the command elements?

1970 was like the US's 1930's for us. Racial animosity arising from economic differences was seen as a product of a failure of the market system. Up to 1969/1970, the market system has produced more evils than good. The chief evil being economic disparity among the Malaysian races. The evils were also the result of a limited government.

How to overcome these evils? People became attracted by the good that an overbearing government could achieve provided the government powers were in the right hands. People were attracted to the idea of an expanded government role.

Along with these changing ideas, came also a view about the relative responsibilities of individuals and government. Emphasis on the responsibility of the individual for his own fate was replaced by the emphasis of the individual being an outcome of government design. The government's role was seen as serving as a parent charged with the duty of designing life for individuals. These views came to dominate the thinking of many people until the present day and perhaps found their latest expression in the condemnation on the author of the phrase 'siege mentality'.

In a very telling passage in their book "Free to Choose' Milton and Rose Friedman wrote:-

They have led to a growth in government at all levels, as well as to a transfer of power from local government and local control to central government and central control. The government has increasingly undertaken the task of taking from some to give to others in the name of security and equality. One government policy after another has been set up to regulate our pursuits of industry and improvement.

These ideas suited the cloistered mentality of the Malays who have lived under centuries of feudal subjugation. Asking for a radical change in outlook requires a longer time. Dr Mahathir discovered this and admitted as failure his inability to shove the Malays out from their captive mentality.

Read more...

MCA: The Hindi Movie Effect

UMNO leaders mustn't watch too many Hindi movies. Watchers of these movies are easily moved by the dramatization by actors and are also agitated one way or another by theatrics. In short, Hindi movies have incredible persuasive powers to overwhelm our rational faculties. We cry and laugh with them. The movies are capable of subverting our rational faculties.

That Hindi movie effect on the mind is not suitable when it comes to handling a complicated matter such as the mess in MCA politics at the moment. A different mental skill set is required which demands solid rational approach.

Unfortunately, the minds of UMNO leaders appear to be taken over by the Hindi movie effect. These were reflected in the reactions of UMNO leaders when several MCA leaders, no doubt encouraged on by the MCA Health Minister to put up with some theatrics. One would be forgiven for thinking that Wee Ka Siong and Chew Mei Fun are consummate Hindi movie actors.

That's the effect they seem to have over the UMNO psyche. Tan Sri Muhyidin who is far away in Rome, was moved to say- MCA can't have unity on account of what has happened to the MCA youth and wanita leaders and particularly what has happened to Liow.

UMNO's greater interest is to see the operation and success of MCA's GUP. UMNO's interest does not lie in looking out for Liow or the MCA cry babies.

What the MCA president has done in restructuring the presidential council (as I understand it, his kitchen party cabinet) is odd, but not wrong. It's provided for by the MCA party constitution. Now who are we UMNO to say about whether the MCA constitution is right or otherwise? The MCA people adopted and accepted their constitution and that just doesn't allow UMNO to put its weight on MCA.

I say, let the whole MCA matter runs its natural course. Allow the MCA leadership to sort out their problem their way. If Ong Tee Keat thinks and his fellow top leaders accept that what he's doing furthers the cause of GUP, allow the water to rise up to its own level. We must remember, the original protagonist and antagonist in the current MCA politics, Ong Tee Keat and Chua Soi Lek have adopted the GUP. UMNO's interest is to see the plan agreed to by these two succeeds. Its interest does not lie by being seen as prolonging the mess by coming to the rescue of Liow and his fellow cry babies.

The 2 MCA wing leaders are not out of the CC but out of the Presidential Council. The structure of the Presidential Council is under the absolute discretion of the MCA president. If he is saddled with recalcitrants who continually and habitually show defiance by not cooperating, or even absenting themselves from the P council, it would be stupid for Ong Tee Keat not to replace them with people who are more positive towards the GUP. I say, it's odd, but not wrong for OTK to do what he has done.

MCA's Article 46 of the Party Constitution reads:

"There shall be established from amongst the members of the Central Committee a Presidential Council which shall consist of the President, the Deputy resident, one or more Vice Presidents, the Secretary-General, the Treasurer General, the National organising Secretary, and not more than ten (10) other members appointed by the President in his absolute discretion, who likewise may terminate such appointment if and when he thinks fit."

Read more...

Economic Corridors and our Fatal Conceit.

The luster of the economic corridors is fading as the hard evidence about their success is very sparse. The Singaporeans are not coming in droves into Iskandar region. In the other corridors, the economy hasn't taken off beyond the pyrotechnics and dry ice smokes.

In Pahang for example, there was much spectacle about planting 8000 acres with a new species of pineapples. Also in the show, was the rearing of Boer and Jamnapari goats. These two ventures could easily be handled by the state's own agencies. We don't need ECER to tell us that. The goats too were brought in from goat farms so that the PM, the MBs of Pahang and Kelantan can enjoy stroking the kids.

Other than that, what is the public's perception of ECER? It's just another extraneous institution coming into existence to supersede and duplicate what can be done by the state. They have money all right, which will in due time degenerate into avenues for streaming money into a few selected beneficiaries. The ECER for example is headed by PETRONAS people. They may be ok in oil and gas industry, but that ok is not transferable into general business ventures such as rearing goats and planting pineapples.

There are now doubts as to whether the economic drive assumed to be inherent in the creation of the various corridors is there or not. The problem is, the boys advising on the economy think, everything can be micromanaged. In some ways I blamed our senior civil servants for not arguing the case against setting up these behemoths with more substantive reasoning and even probably pointing out to the unsoundness of such projects. Now almost 70% of the country is enveloped by these corridors thereby making the various economic development agencies in each state, seem superfluous.

If what I hear about MOF officers spending time yik-yaking eating potato chips while serious meetings about the economy are in session is true, then no wonder the text-book young guns occupying the 4^th Floor can bulldoze through with their plans.

But I want to talk about the philosophical underpinnings of such esoteric ideas as these economic corridors. To me they are essentially extensions of the mind of central planner. Someone out there think they can micromanage our economic lives.

Last week I wrote several articles about the parallel economy and the lessons we can learn from it. The parallel economy is a live lab for studying the principles behind economic vibrancy to distinguish them from the formal economy so loved by our central economic planners. You have people still wetting their underpants impressed you with some economic models that they think are answers to break beyond the thresholds.

Look at the driving principles behind the parallel economy and our own formal economy. I am not asking you to look at the declaration that the parallel economy is the answer to the BN's NEP or something along those lines. That's a stupid way of engaging in a fruitful discourse. What's more meaningful is to realize that the vibrancy in the parallel economy is the result of relative de-regulation and economic freedom. The less vibrancy in the formal economy is probably the result of excessive government intervention and meddling by officious napoleons.

People are still besotted with the idea of centralization and concentration of power. They think they can substitute the spontaneous order of human economic cooperation with a detailed input output tables and plan every single minutiae of economic urges. The facts are they can't. We don't have to produce those elegant rebuttals against the attractions of centralized economic planning. It is sufficient for our practical purposes to see the principles behind the parallel economy.

The underlying principle driving the parallel economy is this:

The great advances of civilization, in the industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government. Columbus did not set out to seek a new route to China is response to a majority directive of a parliament, though he was [partly financed by an absolute monarch. Newton and Leibnitz, Einstein and Bohr, Shakespeare, Milton and Pasternak….; no one of these opened new frontiers in human knowledge and understanding, in literature, in technical possibilities, or in the relief of human misery in response to governmental directives. Their achievements were the product of individual genius, of strongly held minority views, of a social climate permitting variety and diversity.( Friedman in Capitalism and Freedom]

I doubt whether those people behind Saville, Wisma Shun Li, Pearl Point and Elken Convention centre did what they did in response to directives from government officers. Harun Johari or Ikmal or whoever could have accomplished more if a social climate permitting variety and diversity is provided.

Read more...

The Pahang Budget for 2010

A budget primer for our Pahang ADUNs.

The Pahang state assembly is sitting presently. It is towards the end of the year. This means the sitting is about setting the budget for next year.

Once again, the budget is in deficit. This means our expenditure is more than our revenue. There is a budget gap. It is financed by borrowing. The state government incurs debts. If we add the debts incurred by Government Linked Companies or GLCs, the amount of total debts may be even larger. But this aspect is seldom touched by members of the Assembly. They would be busy trying to outdo each other in praising the MB for his courageous budget. They might as well say- carry on MB, we are BN. (named after the British comedy films 'Carry On)

ADUNs from the ruling government will be praising the MB. They will say, we need to spend on welfare. It is because we are spending on welfare, we have to incur deficit. They will also say, we are spending on agriculture and infrastructure and services and supplies. We spend because we need to look after the welfare of the people.

It's not that randy dandy. We must understand that once we have a budget, it means we have a finite amount. The amount has to be apportioned among competing uses. If we spend more in one area, it means we lessen the amount going to certain other places. So we have to exercise responsibility.

Much has been said about deficit. As I have said, on its own deficit may be bad or it may not. It depends where the deficit is applied to. If it is directed at development expenditure, our deficit is defensible. But if the deficit is directed at consumption expenditure- pay for increase in salaries of civil servants, pay for consumables, pay for supplies at inflated prices, then this type of expenditure is wastage.

Really a budget must be debated on the following points:-

1. 
   
   Accountability- was last year's budget adhered to? Remember we were the ones who agreed to spend X amount and if we spend X plus amount, we must answer why it is so. Is our tax base too narrow? Has our tax collection been efficient? Why has our revenues dropped? How can we improve earnings from our resource?
   
   
   
2. 
   
   Was the money spent effectively?
   
   
   

So Pahang has a budget deficit of RM 92 million. What proportion of the state's income is this? In the last few years, when the budget was tabled, we were never told how much income has the state produced? Remember, the government revenue is that portion which we have been able to collect in the form of taxes, contributions, interest, dividends etc.

In 2006 for example, Pahang's income or GDP was 22 billion. I will have to make assumptions here. Let's assume there has been growth in the states GDP. Let's assume in 2010, the expected GDP is RM 25 billion. Hence RM 92 million out of RM 25b is only about 0.37% which is manageable.

So the deficit is not a thing to be unduly worried as it is a small fraction of the state's GDP.

But then we must also study the amount of deficit in absolute terms. Is it rising or decreasing? Fortunately this year, it is decreasing compared to last year. For the record, the deficits for Pahang in recent years have been like a yo-yo. Sometimes up, sometimes down.

But we must be careful. If we detect this yo-yoing shows some consistency, then it raises the suspicions that the numbers may be stage-managed. This year, to keep criticisms manageable, the deficit is kept low. Next year it may be kept up. So, we must be careful when evaluating the numbers. See whether there is a pattern. I am not saying that there is, but keep looking.

Next, maybe we can compare the rate of increase/decrease in deficit with the rate of increase/decrease in state GDP. Suppose the deficit increases at a time when the state GDP increases. If that is so, we can ask, why is this so? That is, why is it, during good years when our GDP is up, we still incur deficits? That means, we fail to keep money aside during good years. We carry on spending. That will also mean, we don't exercise financial discipline. That will further mean that the slogans we used such as perbelanjaan berhemah- are just political slogans.

Let us ask another question then. How effective has our collection been? In 2009, we have collected say RM500 million from a state GDP of say 24,000 million. The collected amount represents 2.08%. Surely now, because we have been able only to collect a meager 2.08% is a cause for worry.

This means, our recovery efficiency isn't anything to shout about. It means our government institutions have not been very productive.

In terms of collecting performance, the Pahang government hasn't been able to move beyond collecting beyond 3% of the GDP. Why is this so?

Read more...

Economic Corridors- Our own Fatal Conceit? -1

This piece of news caught my attention.

Harun Johari has resigned as CEO of Iskandar Malaysia. Iskandar is the much heralded corridor for economic explosions in Johor that was meant to showcase what planners can do. To be more specific, what central planners can do.

Harun is the second CEO that has resigned after one Ikmal Hijaz. Harun's departure will certainly raise suspicions as to why the CEO turnover is alarming. This position is not your average run off the mill CEO of the typical loss making GLCs. This is the South Economic Corridor that is supposed to admit heavy duty traffic onto the investment highway of Malaysia. After that, the economy of Johor in particular and the whole country will be on the speed by which cars travel on the Autobahn.

Allow me to tell you about Harun Johari, the manger that we have lost. Before he joined Iskandar he was plucked out from Shell Malaysia to head the Port of Tanjung Pelepas. People are right to regard Harun as an introvert except to those close to him. Those close to him include his schoolmates from MC-gay-gay and those in Shell. He went to study in Australia and obtained a first class honors degree. When he was in Shell he was highly regarded and went up the ranks pretty quickly earning several cross postings. In Shell, cross postings are generally rewarded to those talents whom Shell see as likely to become leadership material. The current MD of Shell, Dato Mokhzani Wahab for example has been on several cross postings.

It is fair to say that Harun Johari was chosen purely on merits. He has the management pedigree (being trained at Shell) and has the mental prowess to stand on his own. He would have managed Iskandar to great heights if mentally-challenged and envy- filled government servants accustomed to doing things the officious civil servant ways don't meddle with the running of Iskandar. Hardnosed management is what we need to run a business entity as huge as Iskandar and a talented team. Charisma is for herding cattle- a much overrated virtue when it comes to managing a business.

Now that the matter of Harun Johari is put aside, let's talk about economic corridors in general.

The origins of these economic corridors were humbler. It was said that a retired SS in Johor offered some ideas to Johor MB on how to soak up the overhang of properties in Johor. The SS said why not open up the southern region by allowing investors from Singapore to take up excess capacity. In the first meeting attended by among others Dr Vincent Lim who was later wrongly credited with coming up with the corridor idea, the idea of creating an investment hub in Johor was mooted. The former Prime Minister, who was looking out for one great idea to claim as legacy, quickly adopted the idea and extended it generally. If we have a southern corridor why not have it also in the north, east, west and East Malaysia. That's how the idea of economic corridors came into being. It wasn't any idea conceived by Dr Vincent Lim.

Why on earth do we need them in the first place? Is the concept of economic corridor somebody's idea of dividing the economic turf n Malaysia among several economic mafias? What do they do actually? The corridors will in the end become vehicles through which to secure large amounts of money and then get them distributed to your own network.

What can economic corridors do that cannot also be done through the state? Take ECER for example of which I am a bit familiar. We in Pahang certainly don't need PETRONAS to tell us to plant pineapples or to rear Boer and Jamnapari goats. These ideas could have been more effectively carried out an empowered MB incorporated staffed by talented people.

You have a bunch of fresh faced graduates entrusted with sudden powers and they suddenly felt that they could centrally plan prosperity. This bunch of paper tigers are enamored with the great attraction of centralization. This is the fatal conceit spoken about by Friedrich Hayek. People think centralized planning will enable them more effectively legislate programs which they think are in the interest of the people at large. These include ideas such as transfer of income from the rich to the poor and from private to governmental hands. They are yet to realize what has long been appreciated by economic thinkers such as Milton Friedman that the great tragedy of the drive to centralization , as in the drive to extend the scope of government in general, is that it is mostly led by men of goodwill who will be the first to rue its consequences.

Read more...

Managing IJN

Prime Minister Dato Sri Najib risks becoming unpopular if he succumbs to the idea of IJN reverting to a single structure like pre 2005. Suddenly the 13 head of departments and the 33 senior doctors found out they can't have absolute control over many matters most notably finances. We don't have problems with doctors wanting to go up the ladder in life provided they do it with a creature they owned. They can't do this with an institution owned by the government and the people. The management model which they are proposing will in effect take IJN private into their hands. Our main objection is that such a management model cannot sustain IJN as a center of excellence.

THE MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE MODEL WHICH THE 33 ARE SUPPORTING IS NEITHER COMPATIBLE NOR ADEQUATE WITH THE AGENDA OF MAKING A MAYO OUT OF IJN. It's more suitable for a small GP's clinic with some locums. Accordingly the PM assumes the risks of IJN deteriorating in many aspects just because he has agreed to the doctor's presentation recently. Like many others, I am asking the PM to exercise prudence over this delicate matter.

I was ready to lay off the discussion on IJN. Then I read Rocky Bru mentioning something about it. I regard Rocky as the Godfather of Blogging who is responsible for making blogging an avenue for the voice of common people. His mention, suggests that this issue is still alive.

Let's be clear in this issue. The people involved in this issue, doctors and non doctors in IJN are proposing constructing models of management and governance. Doctors are proposing a single structure similar to that of pre 2005. In 2005, the doctors together with administrative officers, not happy with the single structure submitted a management structure and governance to EPU. The government through EPU agreed with the submission. We must inquire and probe why the management and governance model agreed upon by staffers at IJN is now disowned and in its place, the very one they sought to replace is revived?

The issue here is which is the contending model more suitable/amenable to the vision of making IJN a first class hospital or whatever grander name we care to give it. My principal contention is, a single structure isn't adequate for this purpose. If we want to become like Mayo, we must replicate as many of the substantive elements that made Mayo or Cleveland into such venerable institutions.

Many people I think are concern about this issue of how to keep IJN as an institution. In order to do that it must be supported by a management and governance model that allows it to be so. Such a model is the one accepted after the pre 2005 model was replaced. The current one isn't by all means perfect. Indeed the management at IJN took the very rational step of inviting a business consulting group to evaluate a suitable governance and management model. The consulting group brought in by the IJN people is not a lightweight in this very cerebral industry. IJN brought in the Boston Consulting Group which re affirmed that in order to become an institution like Mayo and Cleveland, IJN Must have a governance model as the present one.

Of course the findings of the BCG destroy the management and governance model promoted by the doctors. But instead of building a better mousetrap, they took the unprecedented and unscientific step of rejecting the findings of the BSG but not before IJN paying them RM3 million.

In my previous article, there were some responses from Dr Azlan who we found out, is a cardiologist at IJN. He has countered many of my points in my previous 4 essays. In doing so, I assume that Dr Azlan serves as spokesperson for IJN.

It will take some effort on my part to response to his rebuttals. The one I am interested is his mention about management lessons from Mayo Clinic. He stresses that an institution like IJN has to be led by a physician. He quotes an act of parliament to support his assertion. I have no quarrel over this position he is taking. I am prepared to give it a qualified consent.

In my mind, that act is relevant to private hospitals and clinics and is of relevance only when IJN is taken private. But everyone says, IJN isn't going to be privatized, meaning, Dr Azlan's quote of the act is superfluous, no? Doesn't matter- at first impression, a hospital is about doctors and so doctors must lead them.

For the moment though, I would like to explain something about how Mayo is managed since Dr Azlan has made reference to that matter. We can Google about this or read a book on this.

Very early on, the founders of Mayo Clinic, the two Mayo brothers who were doctors did something which is opposite to what the doctors at IJN are doing. They created the Mayo Properties Association which later evolved into Mayo Foundation. They later surrendered all future earnings and assets to MPA. They became in effect, salaried workers to the Mayo Properties Association. What was the intention? The intention was to create an institution that could survive beyond the lifetimes of the Mayos themselves and place the whole institution upon trust.

This is vastly different from what our doctors are proposing that is to create a sendirian berhad business structure. The way Mayo was structured since 1919 was that no one has control over the earnings and assets of Mayo. The Association was to be directed by a self perpetuating Board of members serving without compensation. Documents relating to the creation of the Association revealed that no part of the net income of this corporation or of its property or assets upon dissolution shall ever inure to the benefit of any of its members, or any private individual. (Management Lessons from Mayo Clinic pp 98). This simply meant that net revenues from clinical operations must benefit patients and the community rather than fat salaries or bonuses of physicians.

The basic idea is to create a sustainable model for management and governance compatible with an IJN envisaged to become a Mayo duplicate. The question before us then is: which model, the one proposed by Dr Azlan or the 2005 model that qualifies as sustainable?

In the early 1920's the Dr Mayos created a board of governors consisting of 7 physicians and a non doctor. The board was responsible for the administration and operations of the hospital. Later it also formulated policies. They then created a number of committees. These include committees dealing with clinical practice, education, research, personnel, finance and others. These committees look after the different aspects of management. The committees served as training ground for future leaders as well as functioned as a means of schooling people on the management and business dimension of the health care industry.

Under IJN's scheme, the control will be exercised by the physician CEO and his BOD. They can determine how to apply the assets and earnings and how much their remunerations are. For example, last year, doctors at IJN earned more income and bonuses than did their counterparts outside who were hit by the economic recession. IJN has proven to be a shelter from the financial storm.

Who knows what the doctors at IJN think inside? Whether they are greedy or not will not be evidenced by what they say. Dr Azlan can quote Koranic verses or even allude to higher morals, but greed or some other baser instincts are always evidenced by your deeds and actions. If Doctor Azlan and his supporters claim they are not greedy, we have to see it for ourselves. The comments from a reader asking us to come see what cars the doctors are driving suggests that they don't lead ascetic lives.

I am not going to begrudge doctors on account of them using and owning prestige marquees but it would open them up to suspicions of also being motivated by wealth seeking actions. Sama sahaja dia orang macam kita. I find it distasteful and sanctimonious on the part of Dr Azlan's supporters to suggest that doctors are not concern about wealth and in doing so, they don't behave like other wealth seeking mortals.

That these things happen and even more so when we also hear of IJN doctors enjoying all expenses paid trips and what not by Pfizer, the drug company, strongly suggests that IJN doctors are not molded in the cast of Mayo doctors or that they are motivated predominantly by altruistic motives. Translation: Doctors, like mortals like us, can also be greedy.

How can you perpetuate this kind of behavior and interests? By having an organization that's amenable to them such as creating an organization that existed before 2005. That would allow people not like Dr Azlan to pursue the baser and less than altruistic interests.

Let me quote an example. On average, non medical staffers at IJN such as nurses earn RM5000 a month. Doctors? The grunt working doctors earn RM 8000 and the specialists take away as much as RM80,000 a month. Bonus time. It was decided that non medics get 3 months bonus and doctors 2.8. The idea was vehemently opposed by the senior doctors. You do the math- doctor earning RM80k a month gets 3 months bonus and nurse with RM5k a month gets 3 months bonus.

Take another example of irrational behavior on the powers that be in IJN to limit the number of anesthetists. IJN suffers from a shortage of anesthetists. The 6 of them have to work on say 3000 patients for a specific duration. If each sleep inducer expert gets 500 patients and charges a RM1000 per patient, he gets RM500, 000. Because of the severe shortage, it was decided to get in another 5 experts in this field so that the work burden can be lightened. The proposal was rejected citing various reasons among them; the prospective candidates are not good enough despite many of them having donkey years applying anesthetics on patients.

Just consider this. Isn't it likely that by having more experts, you would have to distribute the number over more doctors and hence potentially forced to accept lower earnings?

Sure, you can say IJN is what it is now because of doctors. Good ones too. But it's also true they became prominent because IJN exists as an institution. With government money, captive market and all that.

Going back to the management structure before 2005 can lead to:-

• 
  
  Abuses of position that can lead to misallocation of resources
  
  
  
• 
  
  The pre- 2005 structure is not suitable to become a sustainable model of management in line with IJN's target of becoming a centre of excellence.
  
  
  

I am sticking to the principle that if power is to be exercised, better in the county than the district, better in the district than the state, better in the state than at the centre.

Read more...

Pahang and her 900,000ha forest.

Even those who do not find the Pahang MB appealing for a variety of reasons, appear to applaud his decision to gazette 900,000 hectares of forest as inviolable heritage. That's an extraordinary move as it is radical. Necessary it seems, to provide Pahang with water catchment area.

In doing so, Pahang has created extensive neighborhood effects, which if left to market forces will be under-produced. That means if it is entirely up to market pressures, Pahang will want to exploit the forests and cut them down. That would be against public good not only in Pahang but for those who enjoy the spillover effects without having to pay. They become free-riders. So, Pahang wants to monetize these neighborhood effects so that they continue to be produced i.e. retained as forested regions.

I have written to support his idea of getting compensation from the federal government because of that. As there are many ways to bell the cat, I am hoping the federal government will accommodate this request for some form of compensation in some ways suitable.

Allow me to alter the MB to a very genuine concern- whether what he said becomes a guarantee that no future administration will dishonor. The Pahang people have been accustomed to seeing solemn declarations being broken. It isn't at all implausible for Pahang people to imagine his declaration now, will be violated in future. Circumstances, political expediencies may overturn the MB's pledge. It's one thing to proclaim something, but enforcing it is another matter altogether.

On that point, I find the comments given by a reader who calls himself Cikgu Ngah to be very pertinent and deserving of appreciation. Accordingly, I reproduce his comments below:-

Cikgu Ngah said...

Assalamualaikum Dato',

Pertamanya terima kasih kerana sudi menyiarkan pandangan saya. Dato' memanglah seorang yang demokratis dan memberi peluang kepada semua orang utk bersuara.

Keduanya, apa yg saya nak tanya betulkah 900 000 hektar hutan itu dijaga dengan baik dan tidak ada langsung aktiviti pembalakan dijalankan? Betulkah kerajaan negeri Pahang kawal aktiviti pembalakan supaya tidak menjejaskan alam sekitar? Apakah kawalan ketat benar-benar diadakan supaya kes curi balak tidak berlaku? Itu yang saya nak tanya. Saya tak hendak orang kata perishtiharan Dato' Nan itu hanya suatu 'lip service' saja, macam yg Tun Pak Lah selalu buat. Cakap banyak, apa hasil pun tak nampak. Itu yg saya maksudkan. Kalau benar-benarlah 900 000 hektar hutan itu terpelihara dan langsung tiada aktiviti pembalakan dijalankan, yg haram mahupun yg halal, maka saya ucap setinggi tahniah dan berbanyak-banyak terima kasih kepada Yang Amat Berhormat Dato' Sri Pak Long Nan kita. Moga Allah SWT merahmati Dato' Sri dan melanjutkan usia Dato' Sri. Kalau betul-betul hutan yg 900 000 hektar itu terpelihara dengan rapi, saya rela pi buat demonstrasi aman di Putrajaya menuntut supaya kerajaan pusat bagi wang ehsan pada negeri Pahang.

Soalnya betul ka tidak? Dari pengamatan saya sbg seorang rakyat biasa macam tidak. Tengok saja Cameron Highlands, makin gondol dan botak serta makin panas dan tidak lagi sesejuk dulu. Air sungai Jelai dan Sungai Lipis di kampung halaman saya makin berlumpur, berkelodak dan tohor. Saya rasa mestilah ini kesan daripada aktiviti pembalakan.

Tindakan Dato' Nan minta wang ehsan dari kerajaan pusat itu hanya akan jadi beretika dan bermoral jika beliau dan kerajaan negeri dapat membuktikan bahawa benar-benar hutan yang telah digazet itu dijaga dengan rapi dan sempurna sebagai kawasan tadahan air.

Satu lagi saya juga tak nak menyalahkan Dato' Nan 100%. Tentulah soal menjaga hutan di Pahang ini kerja Jabatan Hutan serta Pejabat Daerah dan Pejabat Tanah dan Galian. Kakitangan di pejabat-pejabat ini sentiasa hidup mewah dan kaya walau siapa juga memerintah dan mereka ini tak semuanya sokong kerajaan BN. Kalau Dato' Nan melakukan sesuatu untuk membersihkan jabatan2 ini daripada elemen2 yg korup, tidak efektif dan lembab dalam bekerja dan membuat keputusan, saya tidak ragu-ragu untuk mengatakan bahawa Dato' Nan patut menerajui Pahang untuk 10-20 tahun lagi. Tapi ada kah beliau buat begitu Dato'?

Maaf sekali lagi kerana tulis panjang sangat. Terima kasih

15 November 2009 23:06

So how do you guarantee what you have said? Some ideas:

Since what the MB has said is a radical idea, it needs a radical format to sustain it. Why not write this provision into the constitution. After all, people are wary of the fact that gazette can be de gazetted. Once you have it written into the constitution, it takes a more elaborate process to undo it. It will take 2/3 majority to change it. That's easily done you counter- because BN controls the House. They do, but doing so can also attract adverse publicity, condemnation and public opinion does matter nowadays.

So, I would say, have it written into the constitution.

The problem is- do the Pahang ADUNs have the testicular tenacity and hardened resolve? (no pun intended, haha).

While on the subject of timber extraction and its exploitation also think of this suggestion. 2 years ago I suggested that felling of timbers by private companies be banned completely. Once its banned, any private timber felling will be unlawful and the transgressors immediately known to have broken the law. Apply the toughest legal sanctions against them- seize all property, freeze bank accounts. In Thailand, those caught cutting down timers are shot by rangers.

How do you cut down trees then? Only authorized cutters are allowed to cut down trees. These are appointed directly by the state government. All felled trees are brought to bonded stock yards- properly documented and accounted and counted. Whoever wants to buy timber for further processing will go to the bonded timber yard to buy whatever type of timber they want. They pay whatever duties and royalties for the timber they purchase.

By doing so, you prevent theft by unauthorized parties. Having to pay through bonded stock yard ensures that revenue losses are minimized.

Maybe the Pahang MB may want to consider some radical measures in support of his radical announcement.

Read more...