The overarching theme at the Malaysia in the New Millennium conference in Cambridge University last weekend was the spectre of globalisation. It was a spectre few chose to critically question beyond the received wisdom.

Almost all the speakers touched upon globalisation, several of them were at pains to point out that the Malaysian approach to it was particular and distinct from the "Washington consensus" of a liberalised free market economy. Delegates were reminded that Malaysia was capable of standing on her own two feet. IMF be damned, supposedly.

"Going it alone" - the Sinatra way - is sometimes a misleading bravado which our government adopts in order to mask cracks in its policy. Similarly, the almost exclusive emphasis on the economic aspect of our development by students obscures serious socio-cultural problems we face with increasing globalisation.

Questions, please

Cambridge economist Michael Kitson's presentation on globalisation was greeted with a resounding silence during question time (with only this writer finally choosing to raise his voice and receiving a fairly uninspired answer for his troubles).

There were practically no voices from the delegate body, which included students in economics from the "world-class" institutions MIT and Cambridge, that questioned or challenged the deterministic view of globalisation presented to them: globalisation is inevitable (why?), it is not just simply good or bad (why?), there is a "third way" of reaping the benefits and minimising the disbenefits (for all or for the few?).

One can perhaps put the delegates' silence down to conference fatigue as Kitson's slot came late in the day. But questions fielded to Bank Negara governor Dr Zeti Akhtar Aziz bore out some of the fears that Malaysia's overseas academic elite face difficulties in gaining critical distance from the theories espoused by developed nation institutions.

Undergraduates often lack the crucial contextualisation given by "real-world" experience. No real fault of their own, admittedly. As Dr Zeti herself confided to the students in private later, institutions such as Cambridge can lack "Third world" contextualisation, presenting a challenge for re-training in Malaysia. But Malaysian positions also demand critical questioning, although not necessarily privileging the "first world" perspective.

Undergraduate economists from the two premier institutions mentioned above questioned Dr Zeti as to a) when Malaysia would drop capital controls and b) when it would fully liberalise its financial sector (to be on par with Singapore and Hong Kong). In short, classic "Washington consensus"-style questions.

At this point, Dr Zeti lost her patience; having already explained at length why Malaysia was doing it the Sinatra way in her speech, she was forced to repeat herself more forcefully.

Malaysia would not be dropping capital controls for the foreseeable future despite cries of outrage from neo-liberals (who see such controls as heresy) because of persistent "instability in global markets". Predatory speculative forces would likely return in an unwelcome rehash of 1997.

She said that Malaysia had a substantial real economy (which both Hong Kong and Singapore lack) that would be ill-served by the instabilities of total financial sector liberalisation. Malaysia doesn't need to become a financial centre. The lesson here, interestingly:" Malaysia Boleh! " exists within limits.

There was no mention of whether the bank mergers would grant sufficient economies of scale to insulate Malaysian banks from foreign competitors once the financial services agreement we have signed at the WTO comes into effect in a few years. This would surely disrupt plans for a stable financial sector supporting the real economy.

Speaking at the London School of Economics on Tuesday, Prof KS Jomo of Universiti Malaya contended that capital controls serve little use now. Malaysia's controls are designed to curb undesirable outflows of capital rather than undesirable inflows.

Ironically, in the case of capital presently flowing in, the number of approvals for foreign direct investment (FDI) exceeds investment . Previously rejected applications are now being approved, much of it in the form of acquisitions of failing Malaysian industries. "Greenfield" investment is also down.

Out of the frying pan and into the K-economy

The prospects for Malaysia's medium- and long-term growth thus look rather worrying. The country is failing to attract enough "good" FDI which suggests that things need to change. Lucky for us that the government is planning for the knowledge economy.

The principal architect of the K-economy, Institute for Strategic and International Studies (Isis) CEO and chairman Dr Noordin Sopiee, delivered an energetic presentation on the grand plan livened up with many humorous lines.

Such levity helped dispel the tension of the prime minister's question-and-answer session which preceded it, but it may have escaped the notice of the students that the issues the jokes cushioned were no mere laughing matter [#1](Mahathir faces firing squad at Cambrige[/#], Oct 7).

Malaysia is one of the most open economies in the world (a colonial legacy we have dealt with admirably); it earns its keep through trade. But, India and China are no longer sleeping giants and present serious competition for the scarce (FDI) that has been the key to our growth. Crucially, the value added by our industries is rapidly declining with countries like Mexico offering nearer and less-dearer targets for American investment.

All this means change. Massive education plans to create knowledge workers, lifelong learning programmes, progressive immigration policies to attract and retain the world's best knowledge workers (Malaysian cuisine no doubt playing a key role in this strategy), aggressive pursuit of research and development, a fully modernised K-civil service, and closing the "digital divide".

Dr Noordin ended with a caveat that a "painful process" was ahead and, no mistake, any Malaysian looking at the above list will realise that there's plenty of work cut out.

To be fair, the K-economy suits the trajectory of development we have committed to for the last few decades: providing ever-better service for the largest economies whilst trying to strengthen in our own right. But the challenge for the interim period is daunting. Take another look at the (partial) list - lifelong learning?

Culture shock

That the transition to the K-economy - becoming a developed nation in our own right - mooted by the government entails an enormous programme of social engineering is seldom commented on in any great depth. But such globalisation processes can create, and have created, great cultural shocks.

]

Few in Cambridge seemed to appreciate the broader significance of this programme, especially since "low-skilled" workers presently filling the labour and construction sector in Malaysia are to be replaced with K-workers. Although they have built our roads and homes, served in the houses of our rich and risked (and lost) their lives in the great projects, "low-skilled" workers will find themselves escorted out of our borders with what seems to be a "zero-entry" policy in the making.

This presents an enormous practical challenge. Malaysia's borders are highly porous and it is surrounded with much less affluent and highly populated neighbours, devastated Indonesia being just one. With security problems already in Jolo, our border guards are certainly in for sleepless nights.

If conditions remain desperate in their home countries, economic migrants will surely be equally desperate to chance our borders. Malaysians could well end up with much blood on their hands as well as swelling detention centres (re-read the [#2]"false news"[/#] trial reports for a reminder of what this entails).

Enemy within and threat without?

Musa Hitam, chairman of the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) commented in the wake of the Sauk incident that the alleged Al-Ma'unah attempt at armed force was a response to a globalisation process that is leaving some members of our society bereft of an understanding of a role or sense of place.

He contended that the reaction to seemingly pervasive and uncontrollable change is violence and a reversion to pre-modern themes. Here, one can perhaps draw parallels with the Boxer rebellion in China which sought to drive out "corrupting" Western influence.

The construction of Islam in a "fundamentalist" form as a distinct Other to the Western-dominated Global Project in Iran and Afghanistan (by both themselves and the West) seems to offer a convenient rallying point against globalisation since proponents tend to, in the words of sociologist Fredic Jameson, "position themselves in programmatic opposition to Western culture, or certainly to Western 'cultural imperialism'".

This strategy does a disservice both to the universalistic potential of Islam and the citizens of said countries. It also offers a convenient opportunity for proponents (beneficiaries) of globalisation to engage in demonisation. In effect, claiming that more of the same globalisation is needed whilst ignoring their own role in this fragmentation.

But how can this tension be negotiated as demands and pressures (economic, political and otherwise) speed up?

Reclaiming everyday life

The "anti-capitalist/globalisation" protestors in Seattle and Prague (whose mention was greeted with chuckles in Cambridge) are also a product (a symptom?) of the transformation of Western economies into the model Malaysia aspires to. Their opposition to the Global Project is both moral and cultural.

Moral in the sense that they oppose the impoverishment and dispossession engendered by the World Bank and IMF's failed policies for eradicating poverty and assisting developing economies. Many economies, especially in Africa, have been held in stasis for decades under such "expertise".

Cultural in that they oppose the intensive commodification of daily life. An alienation long ago identified by Karl Marx and Guy Debord as intrinsic to capitalist societies.

Objections arise to, among other things, the use of saturation tactics by brands such as Starbucks who effectively flood an area with their stores, driving independent businesses to extinction through vast economies of scale, before finally closing the "surplus" stores which dealt the killing blow to local business with little thought for workers on both sides. Workers themselves are kept on ever-changing shifts, permanently on-call to their employer.

Objections also to that king of brands McDonald's who, behind the veneer of cheerful clown Ronald and other hard-sells to kids, offer low-pay drudgery, questionable nutrition, immense resource waste and consumption (while others starve ...) and embarrassing Big Brother legal tactics to curb criticism in the much publicised "McLibel" case against two vocal unemployed activists (who, for the record, fared remarkably well acting as their own legal representatives).

Which goes some way towards explaining why a trail of shattered McDonald's has become a staple of protests in Davos, Seattle, London, Washington and now Prague. It is a question of dignity, cultural values and a resistance to the erosion of the familial and human (inadequately simulated by the faux community of McDonald's outreach programmes).

All this has been detailed in an increasingly successful book by Canadian journalist Naomi Klein. No Logo has been hailed in the West somewhat presumptuously as a Das Kapital for the protest movement. It is nonetheless an insightful and timely guide (albeit somewhat puritan) to contemporary forms of resistance to the permeation of brands in advanced capitalist societies.

It could also be instructive for Malaysians as we aspire to join the ranks of these "developed" nations in 2020. Increased advertising, marketing and brand presence are on the cards for the K-economy. Hyper-reality is set to increase creating a cultural gulf of lived experiences between those in the centre of the consumer society and those at the periphery.

A portion of our society will be living in the world of images and surfaces whilst others inhabit the "old" world of depth and industrial time. This will throw up barriers to greater understanding between our various communities. Will an elite immersed in hyper-reality be able to get to grips with the issues of those who aren't?

We, as a society, are at present understandably less than concerned with the culture shocks of globalisation or the corporatisation of everyday life. We look forward and seldom inward.

'Regrets? I've had a few ...'

But our development programme is undeniably a programme for cultural change, and not necessarily one that is self-conscious of our society's cultural fault lines: racial, economic, class, gender, political and religious.

Prime Minister Dr Mahathir emphasises that he is "interested only in results", but shouldn't we also pay attention to the effects of change? If accounts were accurate, Al Ma'unah was perhaps the most sensational "cultural casualty" to date - certainly not the first in that mould - what others are next?

Let's hope our ability to deal with culture shocks is more agile than our economic policy. Somehow, I am not convinced. More questions need to be asked, within academic institutions and within Malaysia, especially by the generation that is to lead the knowledge economy in 2020.

Some critical introspection needs to be added into the politics of the Sinatra principle or else there will be regrets aplenty when we face the final curtain with the spectre of globalisation.

YIN SHAO LOONG is pursuing an MA in Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths College, London. He can be contacted via [#3]shaoloongyin@yahoo.co.uk.[/#]