Back to Square One

The equation starts with two problems. First, there are 45,000 vacancies in the civil service. Second, only 1.78% and 2.5% of Chinese and Indian are currently in the civil service, whereas, these two ethnic groups accounted for almost 40% of Malaysian population.

After these problems were reported in the media, representatives from MCA and MIC, two leading political parties representing Chinese and Indians respectively, made an appeal for more Chinese and Indians to join the civil service. Next, it was reported by the Minister in the Prime Minister's Department saying that there were high level meetings among senior civil servants and ministers to determine the best racial composition of their respective agencies.

The discussion surrounding the issue reflect the superficial way of dealing with the problems without understanding the underlying factors. First, one need to ask why Chinese and Indian do not want to join the civil service. I can safely bet that the most frequently reported answer would be "discrimination". Compared to working in the public and private sector, there isn't much different in terms of the benefit and wage. However, the career prospect and development in the civil service is very much associated with discrimination. I could clearly recalled my boss telling me this when I was in the civil service, "Why you join the civil service? You know, as a non-Malay, you will never be the Secretary General of this ministry. The best you could achieved is probably the Deputy Secretary General II". I do not blame my boss for being straight-forward, but in fact, I appreciate his frankness to point out the reality. Four months later, I left with my boss' blessings.

If the perceived discrimination is hindering people from joining the civil service, why is the issue about racial quota continues to be discussed. This simply will reflect that the best people will not be placed in the position or ministries according to their ability, but according to the racial quota.

How do you expect the Chinese and Indian to respond?

Therefore, a safe prediction is more than 95% of the vacancies will again be filled by the Malays and the racial composition in the civil service will continue to be skewed.

It's back to square one again!

As a way forward, I am indifferent of using the racial quota for intake to the civil service. After, all, the ethnic composition in the civil service should reflect the country's ethnic proportion. However, within the civil service, racial quota should never be used as it contradicts the very important principles of meritocracy. For the sake of the country, the best people should be placed in position that best utilised their expertise and rewarded accordingly, regardless of background, ethnicity or political affliation. Even if we can't practice this entirely, at least, the system must begin to re-structure towards the direction meritocracy, in order for the civil service to be considered an interesting career choice for all Malaysians.

Misleading Reporting by The Star

Terribly misleading article by The Star Newspaper

1) Victoria Institution is NOT the oldest secondary school in Malaysia. How can a school founded in 1893 be older than Penang Free School, which was founded in 1816. Penang Free School is officially recognised as the OLDEST school in Southeast Asia.

2) About reverting to the old name, Penang Free School is only known as "Penang Free School". I recalled reading an article in the newspaper in the late-90s that only two schools in Malaysia that do not have a Malay name. If I was right, it was highlighted by a historian. The two schools were Penang Free School and King Edward Institution in Taiping. Could someone clarified this?

3) Is Penang Free School being considered for National Heritage? It had contributed more to national heritage than any other schools. The old school building is the current Penang State Museum. What are the criteria used to award the National Heritage Status, and why Penang Free School not considered?

Economics Today

I'm just sharing some thoughts about economics and the current economic crisis, subsequent to reading Joan Robinson's essay entitled "Economics Today", written in 1969.

Joan Robinson argued that economics is a branch of theology, where differences were not based on logic but rather on political judgment and moral values, arguments are judged by conclusions and not consistency, terms are used without definitions and propositions containing merely incantations. The author, in providing a historical account of the development of economics, noted that the reason economics was able to flourish without any substantive content was that there was no need for economics before the Great Depression of 1930s. It was noted that Keynes' theory were considered a new era in economics because at that point, economic theory began to look at real life problems that requires new solutions. However, there again, that era do not last long. Keynes' General Theory was built upon short-period understanding but was then projected for long period application, hence, driving economics back into the theological fantasy.

Robinson when on to illustrates how economics evolved back to be a branch of theology by using mathematics as the tools, without solving the fundamental weakness surrounding various definitions in the economic theory, particularly emphasising the problem of the meaning of "capital". (just to cut the long story short)

Although the essay was written in 1969, I'm just wondering how much economics had evolved since then, and more crucially in which direction.

Is the incapability of economics to predict this current economic crisis an indication of the discipline being in the present state of affairs as what Robinson defined a "branch of theology"?

Relating to education, is economics education providing the right skills for economists that are useful to the modern era of knowledge-based economy? If yes, then what exact skills are we talking about.

Again, two questions that worth to ponder about economics and education.