I was reading dr hsu good and valid article. But I thought after going thru WEF report though dr hsu is correct we need to also focus on other things other than corruption and administration. There are multidimensional issues that we can focus on but because of politics we somehow myopically focus on changing the government as the only solution. I seriously think there are many things that the government did right to put us in a category before the ultimate category of innovative driven economies. We need to recognize these as well as the negative part. Otherwise we’re out of whack and lost.
I am not reblogging because my comments are long and the commentary column was meant for a short write. Please go here for dr hsu’s write.http://hsudarren.wordpress.com/2012/09/07/9877/#comments
This is my response:
“First I think this is a good write. But after going through the WEF report we again miss the big picture. Thus we get all these misleading ignorant comments like comparing us with Philippines and myanmar. And though doc is correct in pointing out the weaknesses but these will not necessarily move us to an innovative country. There more important sectors that we need to address to improve the ranking.
I know many don’t like this but I tell it to the face. Bn did a commendable job. In order to move forward I will argue we need to further pursue the etps and nkra and not belittling it. The etps should be improved further to look into the concerned sectors.
There are many ways to read the data but for those uninitiated the highest status is innovative driven economies. First weve done a lot and commendably well as doc rightly point out to achieve group 4 whivh is before reaching the ultimate group 5 of innovative driven economies. The assessment criteria puts a lot of weight on Efficiency enhancer like higher education financial market etc. On this rating we’ve done well at 23. To give you an overall picture there are 35 countries in innovative driven economies category. Our innovative category is at 23 and basic requirements (eg infra, institution and health care) at a lower 27. From here you can have a feel of what to improve already.
Let me now produce verbatim what we need to do in the summary write up on Malaysia.
I quote: “Following improvements in last year’s Report, Malaysia maintains its score but drops four places as other economies move ahead. The most notable advantages are found in Malaysia’s efficient and competitive market for goods and services (11th) and its remarkably supportive financial sector (6th), as well as its business-friendly institutional framework. In a region where many economies suffer from the lack of transparency and the presence of red tape, Malaysia stands out as particularly successful at tackling those two issues. Yet, despite the progress achieved, much remains to be done to put the country on a more solid growth path. Its low level of technological readiness (51st) is surprising, especially given its achievements in other areas of innovation and business sophistication and the country’s focus on promoting the use of ICT. Lack of progress in this area will significantly undermine Malaysia’s efforts to become a knowledge-based economy by the end of the decade.”
You can write as much hate against bn practices but these are just typical sloganeering diverting from the real issues. Not grounded. It’s fine to support pr but why cant we focus also on the issues. Why can’t we highlight the major areas as well and improve. We applaud initiatives which improve these areas and it doesnt matter whether from who as it benefits us. The shallow argument that everything be solved by changing government is just astounding. We go no where.”