People say Tan Sri Hassan Marican's appointment at Singapore Power is classic Malaysia brain drain problem. I say, "Tan Sri, spread your wings and go make Malaysia proud!"

Many of my friends say that Tan Sri Hassan Merican appointment’s as chairman of Singapore Power is an epitome of Malaysia’s brain drain problem especially in the back of World Bank warning of the increasingly severe brain drain problem in the country. I say, check carefully the World Bank’s definition and compare it with Tan Sri Hassan’s CVs. 


Brain drain is about migration (hints; permanent employment. emigration). In the good Tan Sri’s case, chairmanship is not exactly permanent employment especially that it is not an executive position (SP has a CEO position). I would argue that Tan Sri Hassan 's appointment it’s not an example of brain drain but a rare case of a global, towering Malaysian–Muslim–Malay. It should not be lamented but celebrated. He never actually left Malaysia. The last time I check, he is still involved with Sarawak’s SEB and SCORE, ECER, IMT-GT and god knows how many more local companies, charities and foundations that he’s in. Technically, his knowledge, competencies and know-who never really left the country. In the past, they were solely for Malaysia. Now he is sharing them with the world – with ConocoPhillips, with SembCorp etc. etc. etc. Please don’t bring Tan Sri Hassan’s name into this whole brain drain issue. I feel that when people (especially politicians) comment his SP appointment, it brought Tan Sri’s name into a disrepute. I think it just inappropriate to say that Tan Sri Hassan ply his trade in Singapore because Malaysia can't offer better opportunity or that he is sulking from his Petronas "ouster" that would probably put him in the mould of Mitt Romney or Nicholas Anelka. People who migrate has been/can be labelled as unpatriotic and Tan Sri Hassan is definitely not one! I say it is a crime to humanity to let talent like his remain stuck in this country.  Did you see the list of SP’s BoD and management team?; All are (probably) Chinese and his Muslim-Malay name stuck like a sore thumb! (sorry…playing the racial card a bit here).   

He left Petronas in a much-publicized spat with PM Najib. I am sure there were some truths in it though I feel in 20 years of service with Petronas, surely he had an even more serious spats with the PM institution. I feel that there is a combination of factors him leaving Petronas. And a big one would be the death of Tan Sri Azizan. The duo was perhaps THE best tag team in our corporate world (the honours now fell to Tony-Kamarudin) His untimely death must have made an impact to Tan Sri Hassan. Wallahualam.

Still, I think the World Bank report is another slap on the face to Talent Corp specifically. Stories from overseas describe their arrogance, incompetence and plain apathy to the needs of overseas Malaysian. (Who's advising them anyway? McKinsey, Hewitt?) But most importantly, I think Talent Corp’s business model itself is flawed. Instead of focusing to bringing back our talents, Talent Corp should focus on globalizing them. Instead of asking them to leave Sillicon Valley, the greatest IT hub in the world for MSC(!?), assist them to start projects in India, Singapore, London and Malaysia. In this case, we are bridging them to their roots but at the same time expanding their horizon. The game is no longer about Made in Malaysia. The world is flat….it should be about cloning more Tan Sri Hassans.

Tan Sri Hassan appointment though is interesting. Come to think about it, his board seat in SEB is perhaps part of his learning curve on the utilities sector to tackle the energy industry on the whole. Last year Petronas bought a 30% stake in GMR that hold retail electricity license in Singapore, their first dabbling into utilities. TNB 4^th Quarter loss RM493 million and the impending CEO Che Khalib retirement means that TNB is ripe for a major restructuring. Khazanah (fire)sale of its non-strategic investments and its under weight holdings in energy sector despite the immense potential means it is readying its coffers. Now that Tan Sri Hassan is chairing the corporate board of SP, he is now in the direct position to influence the company’s direction. And YTL is awfully quiet. Don’t forget San Miguel too with its Phillipines, Mahathir-clanship connection. So this is my bet; Khazanah (and Petronas), using its newfound friendship with the all-powerful Temasek will maneuver an ambitious plan to create Asean’s and most probably the world’s biggest utility company (TNB is already connecting power cables between Sumatera and Peninsular Malaysia). I am sure someone would have read the always brilliant Friedman’s piece predicting the coming of an energy crisis. So I am sure green technology will be the focus (a role for Lynas?). A cross merger of TNB-SP will of course create more polemic but the cards are in place. If you play the stock market, you should be closely watching all the utility players.         

The "two-state solution" should not be read as supporting Israel's security; Why Anwar's position is flawed and why a full retraction and an apology are due?

The field of international diplomacy and relations is known for its over-scrutiny of words to check for meaning, gap and intention. In that infamous AWSJ article, Anwar clearly use the word “security for Israel”, which he later argues must be read within the context of the “two-state solution”. In reality, security of Israel is never part of the “two-state solution” agenda. While Palestinian Authority (PA)/Arab League may recognize Israel as a state, Hamas at least, will never guarantee or place responsibility of Israel’s security onto the Palestinians-Arabs. Meaning that, even if Israel got recognized as a country, the state of violence might continue. While trying to defend his AWSJ interview, Anwar’s interpretation of “two-state solution” is still ideologically flawed. Dr. Nur Manuty audaciously claim that Anwar’s AWSJ statement is in line with Hamas’s position despite the press article on Hamas ‘s position contradicting both Anwar/Nur Manuty’s is actually posted on Anwar’s blog for everyone’s reading.  

At best, Anwar’s choice of words was bad. At worst, he is trying to pacify his Jewish friends in the West. He used the word “tricky” to describe the possibility of Malaysia having diplomatic relations with Israel as if formal relations between Malaysia and Israel is a possibility. Both words “security” and “tricky” are pacify agents, no matter how they are explained and rationalized. To pacify whom? Let’s leave that to the political pundits. But I honestly can’t see someone with Islamist background, say TG Haji Abdul Hadi Awang, using such words to explain his positions on Israel and Palestine. Anwar can accept the “two-state solution” if he wishes to but don’t go as far as supporting Israel’s security. Again, security of Israel is not part of Palestinian's "two-state solution". The Palestinians won’t go that far so why the need to say so? Equally important, don't go around the country influencing others to accept your stance on Israel's security!

The “two-state solution” viability is contingent on Zionist regime agreeing to demands that Palestinian refugees are allowed to return to their land and becoming full citizen of the Israel and that East Jurusalem is anointed as the head state of Palestine. Zionist position is to claim full control of East Jurusalem and declare Israel a “Jewish” state (thus making it impossible for Palestinian-Arabs to reclaim their land). In essence, the “two-state solution” is dead.   

Things have become more interesting; while it is publicized that Hamas leadership is open to the “two-state solution” using “1967 UN resolution” borders, PAS rejected the idea. It even hinted that Palestine’s cause is a responsibility of the greater Muslim Ummah thus should not be decided at the Pan-Arabia geo-political stage alone. From my (poor) memory, this is the first time that PAS has ever diverged formally and openly with its Islamist brethren if the Hamas report is to be true and this is indeed refreshing. This is not a matter of who’s right or wrong because even if PAS disagrees, I think their opposition to the “two-state solution” is academic. What really at stake is the future of Malaysia’s foreign policy.  Even if Israel got its prized recognition from PA/Arab League, PAS argues that Malaysia should not ever consider likewise and would just do by keeping the status quo. For PAS, the terrible religious, moral, legal and international wrongs committed by the Zionists are too much to bear that Malaysia should not ever, ever consider give its recognition to Israel, what’s more a formal relation, no matter what happens in Middle East.           

For PAS, there is no “tricky”. Just plain NO. Mabruk!

I seldom hit the newspapers nowadays. But a few days back, an article in The Star openly criticize Malaysia’s foreign policies and administration, even calling Wisma Putra a “black hole” for its ineffectiveness, incompetence and malaise. At a glance, the accusation looks true. Malaysia is no longer punching above its weight, the article said which I think is aptly described. It is a lengthy article, a rare open rebuke which unfortunately, I was too lazy to cut and safekeep. Even in Muslim affairs, despite being an OIC founding member, we have now let Turkey, Indonesia and Iran took leadership. I could only imagine the kind of sh*thole we have fallen into if we would ever consider to actually establish formal relations with Israel.   


***************************
My study supervisor received an interesting explanation from Dr. Azzam with regards to Ismail Haniyeh's statement which have been widely quoted as Hamas's agreement to the "two-state solution". (Note : Prof Md. Nazari was one of Dr Azzam reviewers for his book on Hamas)


Ismail Haniyeh was actually commenting on Hamas's 'Hudna' (long-term truce) proposal based on the UN resolution of 1967 borders which would somehow create a "two-state situation". Ismail Haniyeh rejected a 'solution' because it will tantamount to a finality and a recognition of the Israel state which Hamas can never accept. The press accepted Hamas "two-state situation" explanation as THE "two-state solution" hence the confusion.


This explanation is definitely closer to Hamas general position and actually makes more sense. It also confirms that PAS policy remain in tandem with its Islamist counterpart and Anwar's AWSJ statement is neither aligned with Hamas nor the wishes of the Palestinians.