MANAGEMENT OF EVER CHANGING WORLD
By
Dato’ Ir Dr A. Bakar Jaafar
Could a developing country like Malaysia claim that she, not he, is already one step ahead of USA? Senator Barack Hussein Obama has been calling for a “Change we can believe in” in his current campaign leading to a Democratic Nomination for 2008 Presidential race. In Malaysia, a significant change has already taken place after the 12th General Election on March 8, 2008, where the Alternative Front, to the ruling National Front, has increased its control of State Governments, from only one to five, and has managed to reduce the two-third majority of seats held by the ruling coalition of the latter in Parliament for the first time in the history of the multi-ethnic economy since her independence 50 years ago.
The principal difference between the Alternative Front to the National Front rests with its respective “school of thought”; the former determines its sharing of power after the election, while the latter, prior to setting up of its coalition front. Another major difference is in the organization of its component Parties; the former is quite “parochial”, “personal”, but not yet diverse in multi-ethnic representation, while the former’s is largely organized along ethnic line: Malay, Chinese, Indian, Kadazan, Melanau, Iban, Bidayuh, and other ethnic minorities.
The challenge before the country and thus, the ruling Fronts, is how best to manage the ever changing change in the face of intense global competition and globalization, and to continue the nation’s long standing major socio-economic Agenda: to reduce poverty irrespective of race; and to restructure society as such its economic function is no longer aligned to racial division. At the same time, the country has to continue to fight the biggest sin of all vices, that is, corruption at all levels of government, private sector, and the society at large.
To average Malaysians, what matters most to them are not quite the global affairs nor the national Agenda, but their local concerns and their socio-economic well being and family welfare. There are numerous local concerns that need to be attended to, and that would not require “rocket science” and “space technology” nor “heavy public investment and expenditure” to solve them.
After having spent much of my school holidays with my uncle and aunties in Singapore in the early Sixties, I can still recall well what Singapore Premier Mr Lee Kwan Yew has introduced in the City State once he gained a political power: “Clean up Singapore”; “Organize public transport”, and “Singaporeans, please be courteous, especially to your clients or customers”.
With good intention, closely supervised follow-up action, very focus, and “cakap seperti bikin” (carry through), Singapore has long become clean, well organized, and a fully developed country.
Across the causeway, over the Straits of Johor, the first-world infrastructure is already in place, with highways, freeways, and with all other ways and means, yet the 18th century problems, like sewage, garbage, soil erosion, dirts, silt and river siltation have yet to be solved satisfactorily.
There ought to be a strong co-operation between States and Federal Government, especially in matters relating to quality and quantity of water resources. In the case of the watercourses, streams and rivers, are being polluted by uncontrolled earthworks, soil erosion, and partially treated or untreated human (sewage) and animal waste, the responsibility does not rest solely on the Federal Government, but also with State Governments. It would be the role of the recently established National Commission on Water Managemen (Suruhanjaya Pengurusan Air Negara) to strike a balance between all interests: the consumers, the public, the Federal Government, and the States. Otherwise, “problems” would become federal, “benefits” only State; the consumers and the public at large would become the unnecessary victims.
On the question of garbage, especially littering of public places, is no longer a problem in Singapore, as enforcement is not only very strict in the City State but it has successfully built and operated a total of 5 incinerators since the first one been built in 1976 right in the very urbanized area of Ulu Pandan without any unnecessary public protest. But the solutions for Singapore were unfortunately “problematic” in Malaysia which has been suffering not only from the lack of enforcement but also the lack of political will and bureaucratic independence to push even for one such an incinerator. Thus, it would require a different approach and close co-ordination not only among the relevant federal Ministries and agencies but also between the relevant federal Agencies, Local Authorities, and State Governments. The approach has to be on the need for an innovative Policy based on very sound enviro-economic principle such as the “Indifferent Consumer-pay Principle (ICP)” which has introduced earlier in MILENIA Muslim, March 2008.
The subject of ‘waste” may sound so “low and unattractive” that it would not demand any degree of sophistication in thought-processes at the highest level of government and the industry alike. On the contrary, the fact that it has yet to be solved till this 21st Century proves itself as a complex subject matter that would require an effective coordination between the relevant Ministries and Agencies: the Ministry of Finance is to introduce the said Policy instrument enforced by the introduction of Levy for those consumers who do not recycle their no-longer used products or unwanted goods, and by rewarding those who do to be given some credit points; the Ministry in charge of the Industry has to promote the production of new goods or products containing some “recyclables”; the Ministry in charge of Trade or Finance is to introduce “recyclables” as a commodity in the Malaysia Commodity Exchange; those materials with high calorific values, if no longer recyclable, could be converted to energy and electricity, and the Ministry in charge of Energy has to set a very special tariff that is attractive to the necessary investment in waste-to-energy projects; the Local Authorities with their respective waste collection concessionaires, including Alam Flora Sdn Bhd and Southern Waste Management Sdn Bhd, have to introduce recycling centres with a difference: that is sorting of waste to different types of materials at source; and the Ministry in charge of the environment would reward those who collect or sort toxic and hazardous waste such as batteries and unwanted electrical goods from the normal waste.
In short, if there is no such an expected co-ordination and organization in place, there is not any solution to such a complex problem, even how simple it seems to the majority of the population. One might recall vividly a recollection of a very significant event over 40 years ago, a lunar-marked interview with Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore, by an Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) TV correspondent, immediately after US Astronaut Neil Armstrong, the first man, landed on the moon in 1969. Posed by the correspondent to the Prime Minister: “… the Americans with their great technology have managed to put their man, first on the moon! What do you think?”
“Not really. It takes a great organization, not technology … to achieve such a feat of the century!” quipped the Prime Minister, as usual, with his carefully chosen and concise words, to reflect his astute observation.
The late Walter Cronkite of CBS summarized the most earthly event in the last century with his most unforgettable remark: “… one step forward of such a man is another giant leap toward humankind”.
But certainly, is it not to mankind!
New York
March 30, 2008
By
Dato’ Ir Dr A. Bakar Jaafar
Could a developing country like Malaysia claim that she, not he, is already one step ahead of USA? Senator Barack Hussein Obama has been calling for a “Change we can believe in” in his current campaign leading to a Democratic Nomination for 2008 Presidential race. In Malaysia, a significant change has already taken place after the 12th General Election on March 8, 2008, where the Alternative Front, to the ruling National Front, has increased its control of State Governments, from only one to five, and has managed to reduce the two-third majority of seats held by the ruling coalition of the latter in Parliament for the first time in the history of the multi-ethnic economy since her independence 50 years ago.
The principal difference between the Alternative Front to the National Front rests with its respective “school of thought”; the former determines its sharing of power after the election, while the latter, prior to setting up of its coalition front. Another major difference is in the organization of its component Parties; the former is quite “parochial”, “personal”, but not yet diverse in multi-ethnic representation, while the former’s is largely organized along ethnic line: Malay, Chinese, Indian, Kadazan, Melanau, Iban, Bidayuh, and other ethnic minorities.
The challenge before the country and thus, the ruling Fronts, is how best to manage the ever changing change in the face of intense global competition and globalization, and to continue the nation’s long standing major socio-economic Agenda: to reduce poverty irrespective of race; and to restructure society as such its economic function is no longer aligned to racial division. At the same time, the country has to continue to fight the biggest sin of all vices, that is, corruption at all levels of government, private sector, and the society at large.
To average Malaysians, what matters most to them are not quite the global affairs nor the national Agenda, but their local concerns and their socio-economic well being and family welfare. There are numerous local concerns that need to be attended to, and that would not require “rocket science” and “space technology” nor “heavy public investment and expenditure” to solve them.
After having spent much of my school holidays with my uncle and aunties in Singapore in the early Sixties, I can still recall well what Singapore Premier Mr Lee Kwan Yew has introduced in the City State once he gained a political power: “Clean up Singapore”; “Organize public transport”, and “Singaporeans, please be courteous, especially to your clients or customers”.
With good intention, closely supervised follow-up action, very focus, and “cakap seperti bikin” (carry through), Singapore has long become clean, well organized, and a fully developed country.
Across the causeway, over the Straits of Johor, the first-world infrastructure is already in place, with highways, freeways, and with all other ways and means, yet the 18th century problems, like sewage, garbage, soil erosion, dirts, silt and river siltation have yet to be solved satisfactorily.
There ought to be a strong co-operation between States and Federal Government, especially in matters relating to quality and quantity of water resources. In the case of the watercourses, streams and rivers, are being polluted by uncontrolled earthworks, soil erosion, and partially treated or untreated human (sewage) and animal waste, the responsibility does not rest solely on the Federal Government, but also with State Governments. It would be the role of the recently established National Commission on Water Managemen (Suruhanjaya Pengurusan Air Negara) to strike a balance between all interests: the consumers, the public, the Federal Government, and the States. Otherwise, “problems” would become federal, “benefits” only State; the consumers and the public at large would become the unnecessary victims.
On the question of garbage, especially littering of public places, is no longer a problem in Singapore, as enforcement is not only very strict in the City State but it has successfully built and operated a total of 5 incinerators since the first one been built in 1976 right in the very urbanized area of Ulu Pandan without any unnecessary public protest. But the solutions for Singapore were unfortunately “problematic” in Malaysia which has been suffering not only from the lack of enforcement but also the lack of political will and bureaucratic independence to push even for one such an incinerator. Thus, it would require a different approach and close co-ordination not only among the relevant federal Ministries and agencies but also between the relevant federal Agencies, Local Authorities, and State Governments. The approach has to be on the need for an innovative Policy based on very sound enviro-economic principle such as the “Indifferent Consumer-pay Principle (ICP)” which has introduced earlier in MILENIA Muslim, March 2008.
The subject of ‘waste” may sound so “low and unattractive” that it would not demand any degree of sophistication in thought-processes at the highest level of government and the industry alike. On the contrary, the fact that it has yet to be solved till this 21st Century proves itself as a complex subject matter that would require an effective coordination between the relevant Ministries and Agencies: the Ministry of Finance is to introduce the said Policy instrument enforced by the introduction of Levy for those consumers who do not recycle their no-longer used products or unwanted goods, and by rewarding those who do to be given some credit points; the Ministry in charge of the Industry has to promote the production of new goods or products containing some “recyclables”; the Ministry in charge of Trade or Finance is to introduce “recyclables” as a commodity in the Malaysia Commodity Exchange; those materials with high calorific values, if no longer recyclable, could be converted to energy and electricity, and the Ministry in charge of Energy has to set a very special tariff that is attractive to the necessary investment in waste-to-energy projects; the Local Authorities with their respective waste collection concessionaires, including Alam Flora Sdn Bhd and Southern Waste Management Sdn Bhd, have to introduce recycling centres with a difference: that is sorting of waste to different types of materials at source; and the Ministry in charge of the environment would reward those who collect or sort toxic and hazardous waste such as batteries and unwanted electrical goods from the normal waste.
In short, if there is no such an expected co-ordination and organization in place, there is not any solution to such a complex problem, even how simple it seems to the majority of the population. One might recall vividly a recollection of a very significant event over 40 years ago, a lunar-marked interview with Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore, by an Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) TV correspondent, immediately after US Astronaut Neil Armstrong, the first man, landed on the moon in 1969. Posed by the correspondent to the Prime Minister: “… the Americans with their great technology have managed to put their man, first on the moon! What do you think?”
“Not really. It takes a great organization, not technology … to achieve such a feat of the century!” quipped the Prime Minister, as usual, with his carefully chosen and concise words, to reflect his astute observation.
The late Walter Cronkite of CBS summarized the most earthly event in the last century with his most unforgettable remark: “… one step forward of such a man is another giant leap toward humankind”.
But certainly, is it not to mankind!
New York
March 30, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment