Melt in your mouth, not in your hands...seriously!!?

Remember National Laureate Prof. Shahnon Ahmad’s SHIT? Probably the same group of people defending the good ol Prof’s work then is now hurling grouses and curses to the UMNO men who sent the shit-like cakes.  In both cases, they are essentially “shitty” so why the double standard? In this holds-no-barred pre election run up, you can expect more of these kinds of political stunts. In a nutshell, it will be fun! It should be.

By now hundreds of blogs, tweets and fb messages are already up there in the cloud, commenting on the parallels of this incident and when Rasullulah SAW was spit at and splashed with filth. Perhaps soon, some people (very much learned but yet wise?) begin to rationalize Syed Ramadhan al-Buti’s Fiqh Sirah and start producing edicts of condemnation! Who am I to contradict such wisdom but I fear that we respond with such hate and anger because perhaps that is the easiest thing to do to be seen as heroic. 

I was reminded of a story - former Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel, then a Clinton’s pol aide sending a dead fish to a certain Republican senator – stuff of legend! Too far fetched? Lest we forget TG Nik Abdul Aziz 1990’s election battle cry; bagi duit ambil, bagi gula kacau, bagi kain pakai…bila mengundi pangkoh Bulan. Such simplicity! Mere words were enough to neutralize the BN goodies juggernaut that was impossible to be matched by PAS.  In fact, coming from a respected spiritual guide, those words (they actually rhymed rather nicely too) provided comfort to people being unsure about actually using the free gifts for fear of corruption sin. They are gifts for God’s sake! Just take it! But then remember; don’t let it buy your choice.

Seriously, in today’s politics, I no longer see such clever responses. Everybody wants to become Umar al Khattab r.a.– tough, ferocious and super confident.  And people forget about the diplomatic Abu Bakr r.a, the enterprising Othman Affan, the intellectual Ali k.w, and the beautiful words of Zaid Tsabit r.a.  Instead of sword, we wield our Blackberrys and iPhones to launch our over-stimulated attacks. And those words can actually become much sharper than swords that the injury it caused is more difficult to heal. We may have been so ingrained into our political ideals and partisanship that it becomes almost impossible to share a good laugh with someone from the other side of the fence. The picture of LGE laughing with Mindef's Dato' Zahid at the LIMA 2011 event despite all the ho hum of political mudslinging and critical opinions is refreshing and perhaps confusing to some. It is refreshing that our pol leaders are actually good natured humans after all and it brought us to some level of realization that political fights should not hinder personal relationship. And if you are confused why they are patting each other's back instead of the expected sour face, you should not. Political differences must never stop us from reaching to the other side. To my Muslim friends, we must not forget the theological schism between Sunni and Syiah which brought hundred of years of fighting and killing actually started due to some political differences. Its a path we can't afford to take once again.        

It's the way we respond that will determine whether our conscience statement and sense of humor indeed have etched a special place in our country’s political stories and folklore that will be told and retold long into the future. Kudos to the Anti-Lynas group for their creative and resourceful approach to civil opposition. I may not entirely agree on their interpretation of the facts but their strategies and activities are refreshing, a far cry from the same old, same old shouting demonstrations that may have become an overused tool. So for the cakes, be certain there will be no M&M treatment. It will not going to melt in LGE’s hands what’s more his mouth! So instead of the so-serious, 'ol school' condemnations and letting the cakes go to waste as they are already subjects of publicity, why not feed it to the cows - a reminder to the public that the whole NFC thing is actually the REAL shit. Call the press and make sure The Malaysian Insider, The Rocket, Harakah, Suara Keadilan etc etc. are there as well to cover the event in case it will not go into the mainstream. More importantly, do it with a jest.

Amacam, ada berani?  

As to Prof. Shahnon, I pray for your good health and abundance of energy. SHIT II perhaps?   

The Malaysian Insider; Time To Write The Great Malaysia Historical Masterpiece

*This is my article published in The Malaysian Insider on Prof. Zainal Kling's "Tanah Melayu Tak Pernah Dijajah" statement

SEPT 20 — It is unfortunate that as we age as a nation and in the midst of celebrating our 54th year of Independence, we have become cynical about our past and less sure about our heritage truth. It all started with PAS Deputy President Mohamad Sabu’s controversial speech about the Bukit Kepong incident which later spilled over into a larger history debate. The latest polemic is, of course, on Prof. Zainal Kling’s statement, representing the History, Legacy and Sociocultural Cluster of National Professor Council, claiming that Tanah Melayu states were actually never colonised. It is a statement that has serious repercussions especially since it comes from the most prestigious academic body of the country. Apart from Deputy PM/Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin agreeing to a review of history textbooks, the rest of the government, including its media, are somewhat hesitant to comment further. The opposition, meanwhile, was quick to pounce. PAS revered spiritual leader Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat slammed Prof. Zainal as someone who had just woken up from a deep slumber. A police report was even made against the professor! And now MP YB Manoharan wants to change the national flag. How funny.

Watching the video clip of Prof. Zainal’s press conference, he made it clear that the Malayan states were indeed colonised. The points he raised ironically contradicted the grand statement he made during the opening of that same press conference; Malaya was occupied by Imperial Japan from 1942 to 1945. Then, the whole of Malaya was placed under British Military Administration from 1945 to 1946 and consequently, by the civilian government of Malayan Union from 1946 to 1948. He argues that Persekutuan Tanah Melayu succeeding the Malayan Union was not a subject of the Crown thus Malaya was no longer colonised after 1948. Whatever the arguments are on events prior to 1941 and after 1948, World War II has indeed turned the Malay states into a colonised nation! So it is rather amusing to see a seasoned academic so used to public speeches making such a sweeping statement only to be contradicted later by his own points. Perhaps a case of the mic being too hot to handle?

The public confusion may have come about for all sorts of different reasons. Apart from Prof. Zainal’s poor choice of words, we have been over-emphasising the early period of British involvement. Prior to 1941, the fact is that only three states – Penang, Malacca and Singapore — were placed under direct Crown rule while the rest were Protectorates (and not Colonies). While some may rightly argue that Protectorates were merely another form of colonisation, the terms used in the treaties signed between the Rulers and the British are there for us to see and the literal meaning of the terms suggests that the Malay states are not colonies. So to a certain extent, there is some truth to the argument that the Malay states were not colonised. (Prof. Khoo Khay Kim in fact brought up the same issue in a piece published in the New Straits Times newspaper a few years ago and he repeated this opinion again in a forum recently). But all these debates became academic when World War II broke out. It was a game-changing event on a global scale that should erase any doubt that the whole of Malaya, including those of unfederated Malay states, were colonised and placed under direct Japanese and British rule until 1948 (if we are to agree with Prof. Zainal’s version).

Even then, his version of events after 1948 is also debatable. Yes, the Malayan Union was indeed dissolved and the Federation was conceived. Besides stricter immigration and nationality rules, the return of selected powers to the Rulers, the controlling structure of the Malayan Union remains intact. The states were administered by chief ministers who hailed from the British elite: the High Commissioner Sir Henry Gurney, was an officer of the Crown and held executive powers on virtually all administrative matters. Of course, this is open to debate and the legitimacy of this (or any) opinion will ultimately depend on the evidence trail, international law interpretation and historical documents. But I do believe that Tunku Abdul Rahman’s declarations of Merdeka on August 31, 1957 had meaning and were not a mere act.

The press is also to blame. Online news portals, obviously the news source of this controversy, used the provocative headline that “Tanah Melayu Tidak Pernah Dijajah”. (But to be fair to the editors, those are the exact words used by Prof. Zainal.) And we mortal beings being too lazy to investigate further were quick to react. The famous Viktor E. Frankl once said that between stimulus and response there is space. And in that space lies our power to choose. In this case, we got over-stimulated and chose to respond incoherently.

Still Prof. Zainal’s main contention that we were never colonised for 400 years was supposed to be both inspiring and provocative. It is inspiring because we were actually a nation of free people for most of our written history. If this is to become our new truth, it is a truth that we should be proud of. The Thais are proud that their nation remained free and independent throughout the ages. Shouldn’t we be equally proud that our country for most of the time was actually free? It is also provocative because it tells that something is terribly wrong with our history curriculum (400 years vs. 10-15 years?). Perhaps less public is Tan Sri Prof Syed Naquib Alattas’s “History Fact and Fiction” book launch recently in UTM KL. While our history books have been telling us that Nusantara received Islam from the merchants and ulamas of Southwest Asia, Prof Syed Naquib offers evidence and explanation that the Nusantara’s dakwah message was in fact communicated directly from the Arabs, possibly from descendants of the noblest family of Prophet Muhammad saw and His Sahabah r.a. His speech that day brought an immediate response from Minister Dato’ Khaled Nordin who amid the blushes, admitted that our history books need to be reviewed. It is a hollow commitment since he is in charged of higher education and not our schools and their curriculum content (how I wish it is Muhyiddin that day who came). So instead of sensationally labelling Prof. Zainal as an Umno stooge or professor kangkung, we should at least thank him for pushing an alternative opinion that surely will not sit well with the politicians and bureaucrats in power. Now there is a valid reason, an opening created by NPC, to push for a total review of our history books and correct the misconceptions that have been taught for generations. And if the NPC’s argument stood true to the test of academic rigour, what the government did over the years is nothing short of a scandal. Heads must roll and they will. But the opposition’s response has been mixed and confusing at best.

As far as my reading is concerned, there is no statement saying that this issue will be raised in the Parliament. In fact, the message the opposition communicated to the public is that the Malay states were colonised as taught in the history books. Their rationale; If we are not, then what is to become to Mat Kilau, Tok Janggut and Haji Abdul Rahman Limbong? Whether we were colonised or not, the fact remains that British interventions were real and these national heroes were up against those interventions. Perhaps without them, we would have been truly colonised!

With all the hoo-hah that it has been created, the NPC cluster now has the moral and academic responsibility to publish and present its findings in an intellectual, open seminar. Better still, get it published in an ISI-ranked journal. If NPC suddenly has cold feet, the challenge should be taken up by either private academic institutions or college-universities under the Pakatan Rakyat states. But don’t let this issue die a natural death in the grind of the media spin cycle. Because if this fades away, it is an academic crime of national proportions. Perhaps the time has come to for us to follow in the great footsteps of Tun Sri Lanang and commit ourselves to the publication of a true, great Malaysian historical masterpiece.

* Eidit Hashim reads The Malaysian Insider.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.

*****************************************


NST today reported that the Education Minister has met with members of committee appointed to review our history text books and curriculum. Below are the full article;

PUTRAJAYA: Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin today met members of the newly-formed special committee to study the History curriculum and textbooks for secondary school.

The committee, whose members were appointed today, is headed Malaysian Historical Society chairman Datuk Omar Mohd Hashim while the Dean of Universiti Teknologi Mara's Administrative Sciences and Policy Studies Faculty Datin Paduka Prof Dr Ramlah Adam is the deputy chairperson.

Other members of the committee are historian Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Dr Khoo Kay Kim of University of Malaya's (UM) Department of History; archaeologist Prof Emeritus Datuk Dr Nik Hassan Suhaimi Nik Abdul Rahman of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia; Prof Dr Danny Wong Tze Ken of UM's Department of History; Prof Dr Ranjit Singh a/l Darshan Singh of Universiti Utara Malaysia's College of Law, Government and International Studies; Head of Universiti Malaysia Sabah's Department of History Associate Prof Dr Ismail Ali; Assistant Prof Dr Shamrahayu Abdul Aziz of International Islamic University Malaysia's Law Faculty; Dr Neilson Ilan Mersat who is the Deputy Dean of Universiti Malaysia Sarawak's Social Sciences Faculty, and Dr Benedict Topin of the Kadazandusun Cultural Association. 

The meeting took place at the Education Ministry, here.

In a statement, the ministry said the committee was set up to help look into the content of secondary school's History curriculum and textbooks to ensure they were able to nurture patriotism and loyalty to the country among students and strengthen their identity as Malaysians.

Copyright © New Straits Times 2010

MAS - AirAsia CCF: A case of more then what Tony can chew?

The story behind MAS - AirAsia tie-up is unravelling fast into the most talked about corporate spectacle of 2011. 


For the detractors, their argument is classical and populist- a creation of monopoly that will not serve the best interest of the consumers. It is a valid concern but at this moment, should become the least of our worries. In fact, there are more urgent issues at stake that require in-depth deliberation. The forces of deregulation and regionalization/globalization for one will surely force airliners to keep price and network coverage in-check. Take the Jakarta-KL flight for instance - besides MAS/Garuda and Air Asia, there is also KLM that uses Boeing 757 for the route. On a comparable schedule, KLM price offers are at an average of only RM 80 premium then what is offered by AirAsia (and that with assigned seating, food and comfort of KLIA as well). Where AirAsia and MAS fail to provide adequate service to the liking of the marketplace, there will always be the likes of Tiger Airways, SIA,Thai etc. to pound at the opportunity. So for the consumerists, we should be on the look-out for at least two signals. On the more immediate front will be the liberalization of the KL-Sydney route currently monopolised by MAS. AirAsia X has loudly complained about the MAS advantage over the route and if they withdraw from this demand, it will prove that the MAS - AirAsia collusion is indeed bad for consumer. Since AirAsia X will be publicly traded soon, investors will be closely looking at its network expansion and they are bound to further encroach into MAS territory. To see them backing down from this demand will be dumbfounding and detrimental to AirAsia X business value. The second, more long-term signal will be the fate of Firefly. It is a counter strategy to AirAsia's low cost model. And the collaboration between MAS and AirAsia has made this counter strategy counter productive. The best way to advance consumer interest will be to spin-off Firefly into an independent entity (using management buy-out?) thus allowing the fledgling airline to unlock its value potential. The government has set up a special advisory panel headed by former PM Tun Abdullah Badawi. Since the panel tackles public interest, it has the moral obligation to make public its findings. Perhaps the idea of spinning-off Firefly should be explored by this panel. 


The greater worry is actually on the Malaysian airline industry itself, specifically on AirAsia being that rare example of successful Malaysian enterprise gone global. This deal has only amplified AirAsia's exposure to unnecessary risk considerably by tying its fate to the money-losing MAS. Now there is a valid concern that MAS losses are threatening to pull AirAsia along as well. Yes, the share swap deal involves no hard cash infusion at the moment but god forbid, at a certain point of time, TuneAir may have to channel AirAsia's profits to prop up MAS. Need we to remember that MAS has a history of undoing the strength of its owners in Tajudin and Naluri/TRI.  The issues facing the airline are more than enough to suck the energy out of its owners and divert focus that in the end not only saw Tan Sri Tajudin Ramli having to relinquish control of MAS, but also finally losing TRI-Celcom. History may again repeating itself, this time on TuneAir and AirAsia. 


Time is of essence. The plan if of course to execute a quick turnaround plan for MAS, something of which Tan Sri Tony Fernandez and Dato' Kamarudin Meranun are experts in doing. But MAS, unlike AirAsia, is a different beast to tame altogether. That speed advantage may have been blunted by several factors.


People-wise, MAS is one of the most unionized organization in Malaysia and the union has been involved in some very public spat with Tan Sri Tony a few years back regarding flight privillege to the AirAsia CEO. Tony himself considers the word union as a dirty five-letter word thus the all out effort to ensure AirAsia free of union intervention. While the response has been diplomatic so far, MASEU will be mindful of Tony and Kamarudin "brash" cost-leadership style and changes will not be as smooth sailing as it is in the more nimbler AirAsia. Of course, this issue will become more relevant if Tony decides to move into management. And he should. If they are concern about protecting TuneAir market value in the long-run, he better be more hands-on with MAS.

The benefit from bulk purchases will also not come as directly and as quickly to make a significant impact on MAS balance sheet. Central to the cost structure is the hardware of both airlines; MAS being largely a Boeing-based operation while AirAsia placing its faith wholeheartedly on Airbus meaning that areas such as parts, engineering, training - items listed in potential cost savings in the CCF are all dissimilar. In this kind of collaboration, to argue that achieving economies of scale is a standard goal but the two airlines will first need to navigate the complicated service level agreements (SLAs) and maintenance bulletins issued by principals before both airlines can actually share and exchange resources. This is a time-consuming process yet MAS business turnaround is urgent and investors patience is thin. Even if there is an extremely quick and huge potential to be reap in this aspect, surely both parties did not need a share swap agreement to realize this? A less complicated operational agreement will do. The expectation is to hard wire the collaboration within 6 months. It begins to look that they will need more.
    

And certainly, Tony & Co must have knew about MAS legacy issues involving Naluri and Tajudin. Bar Council throw in more caution into the wind by reminding the fact that board members would be liable to any arising legal problems. As newly appointed directors of MAS, Tony and Kamarudin are now made accountable to a certain extent. But on the other hand, their inclusion into the Board is a shrewd move by Khazanah/MAS. The F1 Lotus brand ownership and countless other issues have proven that both personalities do not shy away from a fight. Their presence will make MAS Board more combative, not so much about fending-off all the legal claims but perhaps more importantly, to challenge the government bureaucracy that is stifling MAS performance and operational flexibility in the first place. One of the issues plaguing Idris Jala's MAS Transformation Plan is the reluctance of DCA and the relevant ministries to let MAS operates closer to market demand which involves restructuring of unprofitable routes and rescheduling of flights. We can certainly expect more confrontation between the new MAS and the bureaucrats in this near future as MAS seeks deeper cost cuts.   

But the deal is speedy indeed, which brought our attention to the CIMB connection. They have a former executive and current Group chairman sitting in the board of Khazanah. In fact, Tan Sri Md. Nor Yusof is the Khazanah's signatory to the deal. And surely the Tun Abdul Razak clan-ship does play a role. In the high world of finance where connection is everything, non-CIMB bankers are sure green with envy. But let us put aside any claim of favouritism, cronyism or insider trading for a moment and examine CIMB's level of involvement and accountability in this deal. 


To push for a merger between Golden Hope, Guthrie and Sime Darby, CIMB took the unconventional approach by setting-up Synergy Drive to move the deal. It is an arrangement where for the first time a merchant bank, with the full backing of the government, is initiating a merger of government-linked enterprises. Such underlies CIMB aggressiveness in deal-making. So given Tony's comment lamenting the speed of things, it is plausible this deal is initiated by CIMB. And if this arrangement proves to be a bad deal for Malaysia Inc, will CIMB take responsibility? Could they be making a bad advice to TuneAir, taking advantage of Tan Sri Tony's penchant for deal making at the expense of TuneAir-AirAsia long-term corporate health for a quick profit on transaction commission? But then of course, these are big ifs. 


Still, this whole deal is about saving a Malaysian icon. While everybody is entitled to raise their concern, let us also not forget to wish Tan Sri Tony and Datuk Kamarudin, our Malaysian-bred aviators the best of luck as well. If they are successful, we can be proud and relieved that our 'Wau' can continue to fly high.  

...of ikan bilis, tenggiri and subsidies

When the government pulls back the diesel subsidy for our fishermen, I thought it was harsh and inconsiderate. Why took away subsidies for one of our poorest communities when some of our largest industrialists are enjoying them and are treated with many economic privilleges? Where's the love? Kuantan fishermen's move to picket until their diesel super subsidy is reinstated is understandable.

This was my initial thought.

That is until I learned that the subsidy cuts are targeted to C2 class fishermen, essentially the big, deep water boats (beyond the 30 nautica miles from shore) with at least 70 gross registered tonnage (GRT) in capacity. For 2009, Peninsular C2 operators brought in a whopping RM 795 million in wholesale value with each boat averaging RM 920,000 yearly Each C2 boat brought in RM 77,000 monthly and with super subsidy diesel expenses reported to be at RM 35,000, the fishermen monthly gross income would range between RM 30,000 to 40,000 monthly. Of course, this amount is to further pay for workers and maintenance (boat, engine etc) still most probably, we are looking at a clean income of RM10,000 to 15,000 a month. And with some of them operating more than 1 boat, their income could be more. Not bad, huh? Honestly, I don't mind seeing subsidy for these kind of people being cut! The minister even claims that the fishermen have been exploiting the system, landing their fishes in foreign ports instead of ours. In other words, our money might have been used to subsidize other countries' fishing industry! Economic treason? Hmmm.


But these middle-class fishermen are leaving on fragile social safety net. With the super subsidy of RM 1.25 gone, and now having to pay RM1.80 diesel per litre, the operating cost increased by a further RM15,000. That would be an at least 45% cut to their gross income. Do remember that the gross income is to pay for workers, maintenance (boat, engine etc.) and other miscellaneous expenditure. It does sound plausible that some C2 operators can't afford to work without the subsidies. The fact is the bulk of their income is the subsidy itself! As much as we would like to think that deep water fishing with its multi-million dollar in value does not justify to be subsidized, we should have the compassion to acknowledge that there are fishermen out there whose livelihood is indeed threatened by this policy change.      


I think the C2 boat operators can live without the diesel subsidies if they can up their game and increase their productivity. But to increase productivity and competitiveness is more than about increasing incentive. It is about adopting an industrious workmanship and using industrial, environment-friendly tools and practices. And all those things take time and effort. What I think at fault here is the sweeping, sudden cuts that have caught many of them off guard and without preparation to adjust. It is an unfortunate situation because the consumers are already bearing the impact as fish supplies drying and prices at certain places are already at 30% more. So this is my take on the issue;
1. Return the subsidies but make the fishermen agree to participate in a change-management plan. Expand the government "Lab" transformation program to include our fishing industry by instituting case-studies on how our fishing community can further reduce operational cost. Look for best practices and train the fishermen how to replicate. If we can do that to our retail sector with Kedai Rakyat et'al, why not our C2 fishermen?  
2. Redirect our subsidies orientation from OPEX to CAPEX with an eye towards better productivity. The government should consider redirecting the RM 226 million saved from the subsidy cut by giving grants to the fishermen to acquire cost-saving fishing equipment/tools and training. So, instead of getting them hooked to subsidies, we are empowering them to become competitive and productive and preparing them for a life without subsidy.


Again, case studies are important. Instead of introducing sweeping change at the industry-level, focus on communities so that our policy instruments can be more targeted and precise. We must appreciate the fact that what works at Kuala Sedili may not work best at Pulau Ketam. The Grameen system in Bangladesh has proven that a social approach by focusing on communities works wonders in addressing poverty issues as opposed to the standard, macro solution we are so accustomed to. This would mean properly allocating the RM 226 million and sending our foot soldiers - economic experts, activists and bureaucrats to work hand-in-hand with the fishermen themselves to produce market-based solutions, community by community. In all, there are 97 fishing communities around the country. From that 97 communities, only 1800 plus boats are involved in deep water fisheries. Please don't tell me, with the right kind kind of manpower and organization, we can't send experts to assist our fishermen to restructure our sea-fishing industry! What use are then our professors, PhD  and Masters holders with their hundred thousands of research grants waiting to be utilized? Where are our so-called policy experts? Its time that they are send to the ground to do real field work. The problem is we never really attempt to solve the problem. A study few years back reveals that fishermen never knew of a RM 25,000 grant made available to them to buy a new boat. Even if they knew, no one is around to help them with the paperwork and procedures. Its a good policy let to rot.

I am greatly inspired by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation initiative last year. When the Obama Administration announced the  USD 4 billion 'Race to the Top' school grant , the Foundation provided funds and experts to needy schools to help them compete with the more established schools to win those grants. Similarly in our case, our fishermen must not only have access to better yielding equipment and tools, they must also be coached on ways to become more industrial and productive. Yes, its a lot of work but to break the vicious poverty and complacent cycle plaguing our fishermen community, nothing short of concerted, hollistic effort is required. Only then, their dependency on subsidies can be stopped. By focusing on community-by-community, we can strive towards making some quick wins which can then be publicized as a model of change for others to follow.


...................................................
Coincidentally, the picketing boat masters are dominantly Chinese, which brought us to an interesting irony; that the degrading label "bangsa subsidi" is no longer exclusively Malay. Perhaps when the PM said that we Malaysians are "addicted" to subsidy has a bit of hard truth in it. Subsidy mentality really is a Malaysian thing, not just the Malays! 

My PhD journey so far...

Completed my proposal defence presentation last week. I think it was my first proper presentation after 3 years! Considering that and furthermore it was in English, it was a bit nerve-wrecking but I guess from the reception afterward, I manage to "break some leg" (to use my wife's words of encouragement). My professor-supervisor has some other ideas on my research direction which I have no problems to oblige. Still with the presentation done, my proposed research agenda  is now somewhat confirmed (Reinventing Management; A Case Study of Ikhwanul Muslimin Business Enterprises). I am now well into research mode for the next 2 years. Egypt, here I come! (where to find budget huh?)

Looking back, it really took me a long way to arrive at this stage. For those planning to do your PhD, forget about making direct application. Instead, get your idea right, write a nice proposal and send it to your prospective supervisor first. I lost quite a number of months applying straight to the schools only to get rejection letter simply because there is no supervisors willing to take your topic. Once the supervisors are confirmed, the university usually have no qualms admitting you as a student. Even if you are discouraged by your "so-so" academic background, it should not deter you from applying. Trust me, even at 35, with variable income and somewhat average academic result, I am now a PhD student in UM!

Is it worth it? I don't know. For some (including myself, honestly) the title "Dr" does feed into one's ego and is perhaps worth all the trouble. In my case specifically, my initial thought is to become the first family member with the title "Dr" but my lil'sister beat me to it (she's now an MO in HKL). My wife will most probably getting hers much earlier than me (doctorate, Halal science - operating on chickens...quack! quack! quack!). But putting that aside, I have always wanted to do one proper, serious research work. I missed doing that for my MBA. At 35, I realized this PhD looks like a final chance for me to do just that.    

For some reasons, I hoped to avoid doing study on Islamic management. My initial interest is on entrepreneurship or ASEAN. But finding a supervisor on the two subjects at my university of choice was a challenge. A USM professor I approached instead offered me to do neuroscience which I have zero knowledge about! My good wife (again) reminded me that learning is supposed to bring us closer to Allah. And seeing how almost easy for me getting responses from supervisors, perhaps it is fated that I'll be doing my advanced study on the subject.

*******************

UM's PhD study nowadays operate on a different tack. There is a lot more emphasis on speed and graduate-ability. The recently approved graduate-by-journal submission for example allows students to gain their doctorate by publishing 3 or 4 journals. For some, this is an attractive option as they will need to write less, build academic reputation and get incentives as they publish, instead of submitting at least 100 pages of thesis that almost certainly no one would care to read.

In an environment where speed is important, usually quality will give in. It is a natural trade-off that requires attention especially as UM seeks to rebuild its reputation. While the focus on students graduate-ability may be good and ensure that students remain steadfast and disciplined in their study, the university's initiative to push everyone to publish in either ISI Tier-1 or Tier-2 journals is perhaps too ambitious and naive. Adding to that, every academic person is now rated by their 'h" index that measure one's academic productivity and impact of their published work. Gone were the days when one's reputation is build on the years of contribution to the academic world. Today, it is all about how high is your 'h' score! My two cents worth - all these talk about "ISI" and"h" score sounded ridiculous and will definitely get more people confused. While the intent is good and that is to push UM into a higher ranked territory, the fact is ISI Tier 1-2 journals are a tough club to break into. The quality of research published in these journals are truly from a different world which the university is still far from achieving with the chronic lack of fund and talent. Not to mention, these journals are thoroughly English publications of which we are not native to. And while we should have put the destiny of the university firmly on our hands, by allowing ISI ranking and "h" index to determine our standards, we inexplicably empower Thomson Reuters to dictate our direction.  Simon Linacre, a Thomson Reuters publisher/coordinator (the company behind ISI ranking) admitted that many universities are already moving beyond ISI ranking as means of rating. What's more, even MOHE does not impose such condition to any of the RU's including UM. So why are we making it difficult for ourselves while they may be a more reasonable initiative?  The fact that university ranking by itself is controversial with many dismissing its relevance, UM should reinvent its ways and strategy as it aims to move from good to great.

********************

I can't stress further on the importance of finding good supervisor(s). There are a lot of horror stories around where years of PhD research work got derailed as student-supervisor relationship deteriorated. A friend of mine has to change university after 2 years of writing. Another never graduated. Another complaint to her department about her supervisor. And that is really a recipe for disaster! My principle is simple...they become professors and doctors (and only god knows how tough it is to become one!) because they are experts in their field. We as students should remain humbled by being students, no matter how knowledgeable we think we are. Yes, you should argue and debate your points but worked extra hard to incorporate your supervisors wisdom into your work. It is a sign that we respect their position as teacher and guide and the amount of time they spent on us to allow us to grow into a respectable person of the academia. Remember, at the end of the day either you pass or fail will largely depend on them.  

I am grateful to be able to work with Prof Nazari and Dr. Ilhaamie. Both have been generous with their ideas and comments. And without their support, I think it would have been difficult for me to get admission to UM! For sure, it is a challenge to have two supervisors especially when both have different styles with one being a bit more liberal while the other is more rigid. But again, that's the beauty of it. With Prof Nazari, I need to become a bit more adventurous yet realistic in my thinking while with Dr. Ilhaamie, I am constantly reminded that the world of academic need to follow certain structure or else risking my study of its intellectual integrity. And because of them both, I hope to become a better researcher as I embark on this academic journey. So, thank you Prof...syukran jazilan Dr. And happy Teacher's Day to both of you.        

To all prospective PhD students out there, I end my note with 3 advices related to me by my dear supervisor, Prof. Nazari Ismail;

* PhD study is a start to a long, ardous journey. 

* There is no way you can make money from a PhD study. 

* Be prepared that at the end of your research, you will find yourself wrong OR that no one cares about your study anyway. And that is okay...really.

:P 

Questions for Premier Wen?

When the Premier Wen Jiabao event was announced, I thought it would be interesting to listen to the questions. A colleague, hailing from China, clearly not impressed with the premier wanted to see if anyone would throw shoes at him!

In his reception speech, UM Vice-Chancellor was quick to note that Premier Wen visit to the university was certainly one of those few great occasions in the University's (100 years) history. Despite the high point, it was rather disappointing to see the VC's speech flat and bland in comparison to booming, energetic and eloquent Mr. Wen despite the former at 68 years of age is 13 years older than the VC and that the premier has just touched down an hour earlier with all the jet lag and travel bothersome. Clearly, the VC like most of us Malaysians is not a native English speaker. And since Premier Wen himself was speaking through an interpreter whom I suspect her Malay is as good as her English, then perhaps it will be better if the reception speech was done in Malay. It becomes even more ironic that English was given preference for the event when the premier himself talked about China opening a Malay study centre in Beijing. And that not a single Malay word was used throughout the event even on the large welcoming backdrop overlooking the stage! Yes, English is clearly the dominant International language but at an event like this, a dose of Malay (the VC even use Mandarin in his speech!) will do no harm and can only show the pride that we have in our national language as language of unity and knowledge.  


Rather unfortunately, my frustration with the event continued beyond speeches and languages, spilling into the Q&A session - the core reason me taking that long 2 and 1/2 hour journey to being there. But before I go deeper, first I wish to reiterate some points. 


Mr. Wen's visit to Malaysia came on the backdrop of several interesting development. IMF has just released a report predicting that China is expected to overtake US as world's biggest economy in 2015 worth 19 trillion dollar. Tibet, long being a stain in China's human rights record has just concluded an election in-exile, selecting a Harvard scholar to replace Dalai Lama as the political head of Tibet perhaps removing one of the most visible faces of opposition to the Chinese regime. And the US dollar hit a new low, potentially sparking a new round of currency wars. The Renmimbi with its artificial exchange rate has become a source of irritation amongst developed countries particularly the US. With such a wealth of issues, I was hoping that my peers would have asked some "killer" questions given the opportunity. But to my dismay (more like horror actually), the questions were shallow and was killing me instead - how would Premier Wen sees the development of education collaboration between China and Malaysia? How would Premier Wen sees the importance of science and technology in the country development? Huh?
Of course science and technology is important to China. They just build a stealth fighter jet, for god sake! I didn't wait for the Premier's answer on the second question. Seriously, questions like these make me feel stupid and perhaps a bit embarrassed being a UM student. With so much things happening in and around China and so little opportunity to ask good questions to the most rightful person, the best questions we can come up to are those two?! 


I don't blame the questioners, really. The responsibility lies with the UM administration to get the best out of the students and in my opinion we failed miserably. With both questioners seems fully dressed for the occasion with their baju Melayu and all, it only adds to the controversies that the questions were censured. What I see is that the university's administration contradicting themselves with little if no guilt at all especially that Malaysiakini reports that a Student Affairs officer, collaborating with the police stopped a student from asking the Premier about Tiannanmen Square.   

We should have used the opportunity to pose tough questions to Premier Wen. While I may have some reservation asking about the Tiannanmen Square incident (this has happened too long ago and that many questions and answers have been made on the subject. And it is a corny topic anyway), the list of tough questions are endless; update on China's Nobel peace prize winner who remain under detention, China's role in bringing the Korean peninsula conflict to an end, environmental costs on China's economic development, his comments on Arab uprisings (I wanted to ask this) and many others. I am sure there were many students eager to pose that tough question to the premier. Instead of prejudicing, let the questions flow but coach the questioner on the protocols, words and sentences that are formal, intellectual and respectful. Frame it in a manner that would allow Premier Wen to reply in a way that best explained his government's positions that are hard to get from mainstream media controlled by the West.  Even better, bring the process to a greater level of transparency by letting the students pose their intended questions in YouTube and get our best minds to select them. I remember YouTube and CNN did this for the Obama-McCain debate few years back. Be upfront on why certain questions may not be "relevant" for the occasion and I do believe the majority of youths in UM will understand this. In fact, the VC should take time explaining in his reception speech how the questions are selected and I am sure the democratic meanings behind the process will not be lost on Mr Wen and his entourage. So besides Tiannanmen Square, I am sure we will find wealth of creative questions that is far more intellectually stimulating than the two that were asked. In fact, I sense a certain openness on the part of the Premier when he said, in that typical poetic fashion Chinese leaders are fond of, of his love being in the company of young people and that he learned even much more from the youths. The fact that he has made himself vulnerable to an open Q&A session shows his willingness to face the unexpected. Instead of educating our youths on the subtleness of diplomacy and showing what Malaysian youths are truly capable of to Premier Wen, we control and censure them. Perhaps what Tun Dr. Mahathir said of us is true; we ourselves are always guilty of over-extending self-censorship.    

When we are sincere in our questioning with no intention to intimidate, people can feel that sincere energy and will response meaningfully. I learnt this lesson the very next day during Q&A session with Dr. Azzam Tamimi in IIUM. Of course, Dr. Azzam is not a statesman to the level of Premier Wen. But to those learned, Dr. Azzam is one of those political scientists sought for their opinions on the Middle East and is a known Hamas sympathizer. The session was thankfully interactive with many interesting questions and observations especially with regards to the uprising in the Arab world. And of all questions asked, I thought the most testing of all was the one when he was asked why he took a British nationality instead of remaining in Palestine. It may be a naughty question that at a glance was testing his integrity as a champion of Palestinian cause. But for those who have read his work and know his background, it is a question that should be asked. And while some of us in the hall including myself lacks that courage to ask, I am glad someone did stand up and ask it anyway. And listening to the question directly, I am sure everyone could sense the genuine interest of the questioner which was then reciprocated by Dr. Azzam. Not only that his answer was fluid, it was also revealing and in the end, all of us in the hall could better relate to the plight of overseas Palestinians everywhere. How I could only imagine if the question on Tiannanmen Square got asked that day and what great lessons we could have learnt from the premier which now can never come.          

...of MIX and Hacks

I have submitted two hacks (idea) on the concept of Modular Organization to Management Innovation eXchange (www.managementexchange.com) recently for the HCL MBA M-Prize competition. The hacks are for a global management competition touted to be the first in its kind. Yes, winning USD 50,000 and the opportunity to put your idea to work would be great but beyond that, and perhaps more importantly is the opportunity to connect with management innovators everywhere (try to sound all-altruistic here :P). I mean, how cool it is to have Chris Grams, former partner of Red Hat to comment on your article and is now following your tweet!

MIX is part of the effort to direct the energies of management innovators everywhere to reinvent management and from the look of it, Hamel & friends really means business. The Moonshots for Management article by Hamel published in HBR Feb 2008 is already a mind-rattling idea. This time the people behind the Moonshots really puts their reputation on the ground by getting McKinsey, Dell, Red Hat, HCL and score of widely-known firms to back the MIX project. It is still too early to tell but if successful MIX would have become management's original thoughts depository of a global scale thus cementing the legitimacy of this fledgling movement to reinvent management practices.

For me, both the MIX and particularly the Moonshots have great influence to my PhD study. It inspires my research extensively and I am truly excited by the fact that leading management voices are acknowledging management's shortcomings. But the lack of interest amongst Islamic scholars to join the debate, perhaps leading an alternate voice is disturbingly quiet. A case of disinterest or simply because management science unlike Islamic finance with all its riches, is no longer a "sexy" issue to address?

P/s; right now I've become "obsessed" with the rankings. In its early days, my hack even climbed to the top 3. But now with more than 110 entries, my hack has fallen out of the top 15. Hmm...how to get it back to the top?  (vote for me!, vote for me! My hacks - Modular Organization 1.1; Enterprising with the Flow and Modular Organization 2.0; A Market for Competencies). Plan to rise to the level of Hacker and Top Mixer one day....

Management...Facebook-style

It seems odd to talk about movies at this time when our brethren In Egypt is trying to topple a dictatorial modern pharaoh of Mubarak regime. With real drama of change streaming 24x7 into our living room, why bother watching something fictional from la-la land?  

Still movie is the topic. Cheers!

Well, the Social Network is not entirely fictional. It details the travails of Facebook, presently valued by Morgan Stanley at USD 25 billion.  Reading Mezner's The Accidental Billionaire and Time's piece on Zuckerberg for 2010 Person of the Year, one would have agreed that the movie seems to gravitate towards Zuckerberg's dark side. But if he doesn't seem to care, why should we, right? The movie did an excellent job capturing the events leading to the breaking of the partnership between Zuckerberg and co-founder Andrew Savarin. It is a telling tale for entrepreneurs everywhere that success, just like failure, can be equally testing.  

So what does Facebook got to do with management?

A lot really.

Management sciences have been designed to deal with bureaucracy, hierarchy and efficiency. Remember Fayol's theory on management work - planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling? But Web 2.0 technologies, Facebook included, are based on interactivity straight from the individual level aggregating into a "difficult-to-structure but very powerful" social norm, an anti-thesis to management's philosophy of order and structure. In Egypt's case, if one is to chronicle Wael Ghoneim's Facebook page for Khalid Said, the growing dissatisfaction and apathy that outgrows the cyber realm and into the streets are largely organic, a movement with no clear leadership, structure or hierarchy. The Egypt regime being so expert in managing organized oppositions suddenly found itself off-footed by protest of a new kind. 

What happen in Egypt is part of a growing evidence that Web 2.0 technologies are stretching the dimension of our management practices. Today, people can get hired or fired because of comments they made in their Facebook as their previously private social interactions become public, affecting standard that management sets. In Web 2.0, outsourcing is so yesterday. Now the rage is all about crowdsourcing, tapping into the wisdom of the crowd enabled by Web 2.0 sites such as Foursquare and trendwatching. Even UK's intel agency, MI6 who prided itself on being paranoid-ly secretive was forced to review the security for its chief after the wife innocently posted the family picnic picture on her Facebook account. And when we thought that lessons have been duly learnt, the same spy chief became embroiled with another embarrassment when her daughter's picture posing with Saddam's AK-47 was found in the Internet, also due to callous use of Facebook.   


Technology has always been ahead of management on the innovation curve, or so does Hamel claims which explains why man and organization are always playing catch-up. Perhaps we have given too much power to technology to influence our practices. And perhaps this is the core of the problem besetting management science since technology is devoid of moral and spiritual compass. For as long as technology evolves, current management practices will find itself consistently outdated thus giving new impetus to why management, like Web technologies, must be reinvented and move to version 2.0.     

***********************************************************************
Fed-up with my constant mumbling about Zuckerberg, being only 26 years of age yet is so rich, my clever not-so-little sister asked a clever, cynical question the other day; why didn't I invent Facebook in the first place? 

Well I can't. (I am not a programmer! Ohh how I wish I was!) But I recall in 2001 taking a "Savarin" role helping a fellow colleague developed a business plan to create an online "dating" site ala Facebook. We got an audience with Skali but nothing really took-off after that.  And in my line of business having met with many skillful programmers, I'm sure "Facebook" can be invented somewhere in Malaysia especially since it is basically HTML-based with dead-simple layout.  In other words, I cannot invent Facebook but I am sure "We" can. But for our Facebook to become The Facebook, that is a different story altogether.

"Pop-economy" expert Malcolm Gladwell was interested to know how Bill Gates get to become Bill Gates. Gates comes from a well-off family and is certainly brilliant but there were other kids in the same neighborhood that were at least equally, if not more brilliant and well-to-do than Gates. So then how did Bill Gates become such a stand-out in the IT industry accumulating wealth to the amount of USD 50 billion? For his book Outliers, he interviewed Bill Gates himself and discovers Gates unique access to a school's computer which was not commonplace in his time, literally spending hours on it. It brought Gladwell to establish the 10,000-hour rule; the amount of time needed for a person to be an expert on a particular trade. And also proves that behind every heroic personalities, there are significant societal factors at play. 

Gladwell's outliers research in many ways explain Facebook's story of success beyond the programmer's (Zuckerberg) genius. It is borne out of Harvard, a proven fertile ground for new ideas and trends and grows out of Silicon Valley, base to world's greatest technology companies, tech talents and abundant venture capital money. Facebook's Harvard background gave it the X factor that attract students from other major campuses. Its move to Sillicon Valley was significant because it was able to tap mezzanine financing and connect with the right people that would propel it beyond campuses and into mass market.    

There is little doubt that an exacting Facebook can be borne out of a UM dormitory but it would be highly challenging for it to be able to make significant outreach as effective as it is from Harvard. And even if our local Facebook achieve some sort of critical mass, we lack the Silicon Valley ecosystem that can propel it to the global stage. Not to say it is impossible but it is definitely more challenging to launch a global brand from Kuala Lumpur as oppose from California, San Francisco, Boston or New York. And it will be even much harder for our fragile business ecosystem to support a global ambition when it is stifled by unnecessary regulation such as the Printing Press and Publication Act 1984 that will soon be extended to Internet publications. We have made a promise to keep the Internet free from censorship (remember MSC Bill of Guarantee...no. 7?). Let's strive to honour it and not becoming an Eygpt.