opinion

So, the Malaysian government is eager to build a k-economy. Certain state governments are beginning to talk about strategies to develop it. But then, can a government that sees controversial ideas as seditious and treachery, where the media churn out propaganda rather than information or knowledge, where academicians are told to not talk to the media lest they give comments that may make the ruling elite squirm, and where almost everybody (except the sycophantic members of the ruling party, mainstream media and the police) is considered ungrateful, build a k-economy?

Let's begin with defining k-economy. It is an economy where wealth creation depends on the use and exploitation of knowledge. This would involve expanding the frontiers of knowledge to enable more value creation. A significant portion of the output of the k-economy is supported by activities of k-organisations.

Typically, the market value of k-organisations depends on intangibles. Studies have shown that in these organisations, which includes companies such as Oracles, SAP and Microsoft, only 10 to 20 percent of their market value comes from tangible assets. This distinguishes k-economy from the industrial economy where land, labour and capital are considered the traditional factors of production and where tangible assets make up a large portion of a company's value.

In a k-economy, the critical issue is resourcefulness rather than resources. It is built by exploiting the intellectual effort of the workforce. K-economy can only grow in a society where creativity is allowed to flourish. This is what many politicians, especially in Malaysia, fail to recognise. They seem to think that the k-economy is about building a glitzy cyber township and buying a lot of fancy hardware. Of course, some cronies will get rich building the township and selling the hardware but it is nowhere near what a k-economy is. Likewise, the k-economy is more than just introducing e-systems.

Flagship applications in trouble

To illustrate the point, most of the flagship applications in the e-government initiatives are in trouble. Some of the organisations involved find it more effective to revert to the old paper-based system. If a report card is to be made of these initiatives, it is quite clear that most of these projects would have obtained F.

The e-village project shows no semblance of being a village and seems to also earn a grade worse that E. The so-called smart passport is having silly problems. It has been revealed that there is no one to ascertain whether the person using a particular passport is its rightful owner since the passport scanner cannot verify the face and there is no inspector around to do so. For all we know, Osama bin Laden can walk through the scanner using Rafidah Aziz's passport and the authorities won't notice it.

Even simple systems such as electronic payment of the highway toll seem to be in trouble. First, the Smart Tag was introduced. It was subsequently replaced by Touch and Go that, among other things, enables the user to auto-reload his card. Now the auto-reload facility has been suspended. And there were those Internet kiosks introduced a few years ago that had gone kiok (dead).

Developing a k-economy is less about 'the use' of technology and more about 'discovering' and 'developing' technology. Achieving the latter needs more than just the hardware. It is more about creativity and the use and advancement of knowledge. A country that only uses the technology developed by others, such as the case of Malaysia, cannot claim to have developed the k-economy.

Fear of debates and discourse

The openness to debates and discourse and the willingness of society and its ruling elite to have their views questioned is a necessary part of creating an environment supporting the advancement of knowledge.

Advancement of knowledge would occasionally involve controversy. The history of science is punctuated with controversial discoveries. The work of Copernicus, Darwin, Kepler and Galileo were all controversial because they challenged established orthodoxy. More recent controversies include cloning and stem cell research. In the social sciences, controversies are a normal part of the debate between theoretical perspectives and paradigms. Even something as 'innocent' as the IQ test stirred some controversy when it was first introduced.

But what we see in Malaysia is an attitude fearing debates and discourse among the ruling elite.

In 1998, the government prohibited academicians from talking to the press after CNN interviewed a UPM lecturer. The lecturer had described to CNN the implication of the different readings on the air pollution index. This was considered unacceptable by the ruling elite and a gag was issued. The Education Ministry also sent an instruction soon after that requiring that faculties planning to organise international conferences must get the approval of the cabinet.

And now there is this much-talked about agreement that academicians are supposed to sign to ensure their 'good behaviour'. If Copernicus, Darwin, Kepler and Galileo made their discovery in today's Malaysia, they would probably be labelled as either foreign agents or militants and given an address in Kamunting.

All the above restrictions are imposed despite the existing Universities and University Colleges Act and the Statutory Bodies Act 2000. The latter specifically prohibits employees of statutory bodies, and this includes public universities, from making comments in any form on government policies. In fact, the Act specifically states that statutory body employees can 'only state' what a government policy is but should not give an opinion on it.

Such is the level of nervousness and insecurity of the ruling elite. Those who dare cross this line risk being accused of inciting students or spreading lies. Academicians who dare speak do so knowing fully well a Damocles sword is hanging over their heads. Can knowledge flourish in this Orwellian climate?

Bureaucratic stonewalls

In the business world, the development of the k-economy is undermined by corruption, psychotic bureaucracy and crony capitalism. A number of young high-tech entrepreneurs have quietly complained about how difficult it is to get support and capital for their invention and ideas. Some find themselves facing bureaucratic stonewalls. Complains about their ideas being hijacked by politically-connected Ali Babas and offspring of politicians is not uncommon. In the end it is not technical-know-how that is important but it is political-know-who that matters. And the latter comes with a high price tag.

And of course there is the problem of plagiarism and piracy, which relates to the ability of a society to support a k-economy. Plagiarism and piracy undermine intellectual effort by reducing the economic worth of an idea or knowledge for the inventor.

It is interesting to note that Microsoft recently complained that Malaysia has become a regional hub for software piracy. So it seems that all the raids against pirated CDs have more to do with an attempt to suppress anti-establishment material rather than combating piracy.

And there is the need to note that fighting piracy is only part of the story on protecting intellectual property. There is also the daylight robbery of ideas and inventions by politically-connected businessman and offspring of politicians that go unhindered.

Contradict if you dare

What is allowed and encouraged instead is bigotry and dogma preaching. Thus, parroting official propaganda becomes fashionable, in fact desirable, even among academicians who aspire to reach high office. One such bigoted academician, and a PhD dropout, finds his parroting of the elite' dogma handsomely rewarded with an appointment to a high office.

The mainstream media will faithfully print any dogma, for that matter even lies, that are spewed out by the ruling elite. Thus, the success of the elusive "Malaysian Formula" is idolised. Never mind the fact that the so-called "Malaysian Formula" was a series of contradicting formulae and policies. Likewise, when the prime minister claimed that he is a founder of Umno, to the muted astonishment of historians, the mainstream media will faithfully print it.

Issues such as ketuanan Melayu are not to be discussed. Never mind the fact that there is some doubt whether the present tuan is indeed a Malay. As a result, we see false and superstitious ideas elevated to the status of a national dogma.

On other hand, anyone daring to offer a different opinion from that of the ruling elite is bound to find himself or herself ignored by the mainstream media. If he holds an important public position he will fall out of favour, and if she is a businessman she will find her fortunes affected adversely. Shahnon Ahmad almost had his National Laureate title withdrawn after publishing the satire Shit . Mufti and imam become traitors and get booted out for saying 'unacceptable' things, student leaders were arrested under the ISA for asking too many questions.

Likewise, projects deemed dear to certain politicians are hastily implemented. Criticisms or questions are not welcomed. Those courageous enough to offer a critical opinion are accused of either being foreign agents or ungrateful. As usual, political loyalists and cronies are appointed to oversee the implementation of these projects. And of course, these loyalists and cronies will make their money by awarding contracts and subcontracts to each other for the hardware, project management and work needed for these projects.

Contrary to public pronouncements about the k-economy, what we see developing in Malaysia is the d-economy, i.e., dogma-economy. This d-economy will be shaped by the obsessions and fancies of the ruling bigots. And for as long as these bigots are in power Malaysia will be stuck in this quagmire. Their decisions, edicts and pet projects will be treated as holier than revelation. The development and advancement of knowledge will be stunted. Knowledge and creativity will not flourish. The k-economy will be an unrealised dream.

DR ABU MUNZIR is an academician at a local university. His doctorate is in business management.