To put it simply, it is like in a family where there was discrimination before and the favoured child needs to be toughened up. It is going to be unpleasant to him at first, but necessary, would the parents go through it?
I am speaking from a position of weakness, not of strength, in that I personally do not like competition and prefer the simple life which was why I opted for peace of mind instead of in the rat race. My children have graduated based on 'ma ma' sponsorships, so any fair awarding of scholarships would not benefit us in any way now or in the near future.
Lee Kuan Yew had recently admitted that Singapore made it partly because he opted for English as the main language which helped in its progress. I think it is similar to India where English is still popularly used which helped it to be an important provider of outsourced computer work from Britain and USA. Malaysia lost out because of nationalism which preferred Malay as the national language. It could have retained the missionary schools but instead changed them beyond recognition from their previous forms. Together with religion, the emphasis to be more Malay is now too strong for any political leader to make any changes without affecting his political expediency. It is a case of going along and continue to lead, or do anything drastic and you lose your job!
Imagine Dr. M used his powers to benefit the people first instead of a small number of cronies. To me, it would have included doing away with the Twin Towers, Putrajaya and other icons which are more forms than substance. The North South Expressway could have been built without corruption which meant more cheaply and without the 'pay for the increase in toll rate as provided in the contract or compensate us', which effectively means either road users or taxpayers have to pay more.
KTMB and its double-tracking could have been developed earlier as well instead of now, with the savings from leakages, wastage and so on. Even now, KTMB is losing money yet able to almost give away prime pieces of land to favoured parties! I was at the BG station when a train pulling at least 50 YTL cement tankers passed me by. I remember having counted more than 70 carriages in such a long train carrying sugar before and it really impressed me the advantages of rail transportation of goods as compared with road. If you have travelled in Europe by rail, then you would appreciate the usefulness of an efficient train network.
In the case of education, any funds for the advancement of Bumiputeras would be based on merit. Show me your keenness and capability before we award you the scholarship. Non-Malays are used to be in such situation, and personal sacrifices included having to forgo a comfortable retirement, a luxury car or house, or even to borrow in order to give children a chance overseas. Only those who are expecting easy awards will be disappointed. Any funds unused because of lack of suitable candidates are rolled over for the future.
Similarly, grants and other incentives for business start-ups would only be given when the applicants could show their interest and willingness to take up the challenge, after careful vetting process similar to job interviews. What we have seen were funds provided and connected people just filled up the quotas which resulted in high failure rates. There were too many instances of fertilizers and weedkillers provided being sold instead resulting in the middlemen getting very rich indeed. Again, any funds unused should be rolled over and invested for the future. Remember we need trustees with integrity to keep those funds too.
Basically, to help the people, I think the process should be 'bottom up' instead of 'top down'. Whether it was for scholarship, business grants or infra-structures, a strict vetting process to weed out those who do not genuinely need them would make a lot of difference to control wastage. You need a scholarship? Show me the results or your letter of offer. You need capital to start a business? Show me your working papers or feasibility studies to convince me of its viability. You need funds for roads and drains? Show me the need for them. Again, we need officers with integrity to deal with such matters in order to prevent abuse and overcharging like what we used to read in the Auditor General's Reports. Because of the preference for bigger contracts to get more kickbacks, maintenance of facilities was at the bottom of the priorities so that new replacement contracts could be signed. Gone were the days when 'gotong royong' was a common feature because savings on maintenance meant no more new contracts!
As I go along, I can sense the need for leaders with a new mindset to take over from the current system of political patronage in order to overcome the weaknesses and mistakes of the past. Can we find such leaders? If so, can they have the support of the people? I think it is going to be a long and winding road before we can see any major changes.
Link
No comments:
Post a Comment