Still on NEM.

I am sure those people at NEAC when drawing up our NEM read Porter over and over again. It's impossible to talk about competition, being competitive and all that without reading Porter. Unless those bean counters assisting Amir Sham are not conversant with Porter's work.

Many people can talk about Porter's 5 forces analytical tools when assessing competitiveness. They can write elegant treatises about it and present it to the PM. Maybe some of the more able of the PM advisers will read on behalf of the PM and present him a précis or summary. I say the more able bearing in mind, as I said before, the general perception of the public is that many of the PM's advisers are more adroit at their golf games. Plus, many of them are not up to the mark- making it reasonable to assume that Porter's work is heavy on them. But I hope there aren't too many of them near him.

I therefore do not propose to talk about Porter's 5 forces analysis. I want to talk instead of the 6^th force- government and public. We are in the government. We are the public. We must read the work of Adam Brandenburger and Barry Nalebuff who wrote a seminal book in the mid-1990s. They added the concept of  complementors (also called "the 6th force"), helping to explain the reasoning behind being competitive.

Now, surely this must be something even cerebrally deficient advisers must understand. Government and the public means politics. This is the game everyone from the peon who has made good to become Hishamudin Hussein's polsec to the Cambridge trained young cikkus in PM 's office can understand. It's the common language of those wanting and being in power.

Even though Porter indirectly rebutted the assertions of other forces, by referring to innovation, government, and complementary products and services as "factors" that affect the five forces, we know how the quality of government, governance affects economic outcomes. Let's talk about government, governance as important aspects of the NEM.

The common way to approach the subject of economic wellbeing has always been- insist this, demand that, legislate this, decree that going public with combative calls instead of rigorous and reasoned arguments expounding an idea. This is the Perkasa way of doing this which is at once childish and very primitive. It's childish in the sense of duplicating the way of a child who throws tantrums and is normally rewarded with the milk he wants. But if he is an obnoxious adolescent, he can also get whacked!

The best way to push for Malay economic agenda is to stress its importance to Malay survival. That in making Malay survival dependent on their economic mastery galvanizes them to action. There must be a Toynbeean challenge to them, not insurmountable but sufficient for them to spring to positive action. Declaration of a new economic model premising itself on the ideas of competitiveness and creativity as the PM has done, is one of them.

The stupid thing the government has done, or hasn't done actually is to get ready with a respond group sounding out the preferred reactions. Instead by its own inactivism, (that is expected from lethargic and indolent UMNO anyway), its territorial ground has been usurped and overtaken by people like Perkasa, MPM and all that. The speed by which Perkasa has taken leadership on the issue of Malay economics over sleepy UMNO, can only suggest that UMNO people have not been thinking about economics. Instead they are easily sidetracked into nonsensical things such as making police reports about Anwar using the name of Agong and all that. That's not going to save UMNO if Malay economy is kaput. Forget Anwar. Ibrahim Ali is mowing down your legitimacy.

You should be attacking the erroneous ideas of the Ibrahim Alis of the world. You know the effects of the previous NEP, yet you play dumb and appear to accept that the way to progress is to have more of the NEP doses? How stupid can we be? We want to go back supporting an economic blueprint that has achieved more success in inducting selected puteras into the Malaysian Tattler List instead of general progress of Malays.

The ideas of progress by groups like Perkasa are erroneous. This goes against the idea of progressivism- that we move on from something good to something better. That makes the march of humanity forward. Compare that to Perkasa and others asking us to go back to policies started and probably needed and justifiable in the 1970's. We are invited to move backwards!

The other important thing to think about is our proclivity to take things for granted. The danger of holding this thought is it breeds passivity. Asking others to lookout for our wellbeing and upkeep reinforces the habit of taking things for granted. Hence for example, Malays assumed that just because society as a whole has progressed, that same progress should also go to them automatically. As I have said, there is no such thing as a free lunch. It is profitable for Malays to have a sense of pessimism a bit. Just to be aware that if we don't do anything about it, we can have nothing in the midst of aplenty.

Hopefully that realization would demand that Malays not take their economic progress for granted; that if they don't pull themselves by their own bootstraps, they can't put on their shoes. Leave nothing to assumption. It is not safe to assume that Malay progress will be part of the progress of the whole society. Malays can be left behind even though our society as a whole has progressed. So far, the effects of economic policies implemented since 1970 have supported this observation- we can still be behind while society in general has improved. Assuming progress comes automatically is fatal.

Hence from the beginning we must assume nothing and leave nothing to chances. We mustn't assume that because we have a Malay government, economic progress flows naturally. It hasn't and part of our disappointment is attributable to the fact that we have assumed having a Malay government alone is sufficient, without reading into it, RIGOROUS QUALIFICATIONS OF HOW A GOOD GOVERNMENT MUST BE. So we think, when we have Ketuanan Melayu, the future will be bright. It has been bright for some.

We shall discuss good government and good governance next.