A Doctor in The House: A Memoir of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (93 page)

I presented the Vision 2020 paper at the first meeting of the Malaysian Business Council on 8 February 1991. Our development, I said, had to be more than just economic. We had to become a nation that was both politically sophisticated and socially and culturally advanced, but without losing our spiritual and moral values. The quality of life of Malaysians had to reflect and be commensurate with the level of development that we expected to achieve. Our people had to have reason to be proud of being Malaysians, proud of their country and its achievements. They had to stand tall in the eyes of the world, though among themselves they also had to always remain modest about their own social and economic status.

We needed to identify all possible obstacles from the outset and have some idea how we might tackle them. In doing all this, we also had to be conscious of our national affirmative action agenda spelt out in the NEP and its successor, the NDP. Altogether, I named nine challenges that we had to face. None were new but they now required focused attention if we were to progress towards our goal.

We needed to first establish a single, united Malaysian nation. Though born of different races, all Malaysians had to see themselves as nationals of one and the same country. Different though we were in our origins, ours was a common destiny. We might also differ politically but our loyalty and dedication to the nation had to be unshakeable. We were all, without reservation or limitation, part of a 
Bangsa Malaysia
—a single Malaysian people, unified yet diverse.

The nation also had to be psychologically secure. We had to be proud of ourselves and our achievements, which meant that our society had to constantly pursue excellence and be satisfied with nothing less. But the quality that we sought had to be appropriate for us, not borrowed from others whose interests and outlook were not ours. We had to stop deferring to Westerners, especially our former colonial masters. We had achieved 
Merdeka
, our Independence, in political terms and Malaysia had established its sovereignty. As individuals and as a society we had to achieve complete mental and psychological 
merdeka 
too. We had to stand up on our own terms and affirm our character and values. To be respected by others, we first had to respect ourselves.

In the meantime, our politics had to grow into something greater than it already was. Ours had to be a mature and truly community-oriented democracy based on the spirit and practice of consensus. That meant that individual Malaysians had to fully commit themselves to upholding a moral and ethical society that respected religious and spiritual values. We also had to break through the race barriers that had caused so much anguish and division in the past. If ours was to become a mature society, we had to accept that Malaysians of different creeds and colours had to be free to practise their religions, customs and cultures. Malaysians had to accept both those differences and also the common basis for their recognition and affirmation, which was the knowledge that we all belonged to something greater than our specific individual and inherited identities.

Progress in science and technology was also vital as we needed to stop being simply consumers of technology. We had to start innovating and developing on our own and not be just passive recipients or consumers as this would not enable us to make the major social changes we aspired to. We had to stand alongside other creative nations and be leaders in scientific discovery and technological innovation.

As a people and society we had to avoid the welfare-state mentality of the West. True, we needed to nurture a caring culture in our society but this had to be based upon a strong and resilient family system. Encouraging a debilitating dependence upon the state would not create such a cohesive and self-reliant society. Neither would rampant and heedless individualism—the West had succumbed simultaneously to both these maladies at great cost. The strength of Asian society stemmed from its strong family foundation that held together and balanced individualism and collectivism. It provided a context for raising young people who were seriously goal-oriented, yet also ethically-minded and responsible.

We had seen the social damage that both capitalism and communism had done to the world. We wanted none of that. What we did want was a just and equitable society based on partnership in economic progress. Our advancement had to be socially integrative, not unbalanced and divisive, consistent with our national affirmative action agenda. We had to stop identifying particular races with certain jobs and we had to do away with race-based poverty.

Finally, we needed to develop a strong and diversified economy that would be fully competitive and dynamic, capable of withstanding and perhaps even prospering in difficult times. That meant encouraging the growth of a strong middle class, not just economically but in broad social terms. We needed to avoid becoming fixated on growth—especially on narrow economic growth and its key indicators—at the expense of the people, their human development and their capacity by their own efforts to meet their needs.

In the years following the launch of Vision 2020, the country’s economy continued to grow at above seven per cent annually, which exceeded our Vision 2020 target. This did not last however. There was an attack on our currency in 1997 which led to economic recession. But we recovered quickly and growth was restored to between five and six per cent. Since we had exceeded our target in the early years, I was hopeful that we would average seven per cent growth overall and achieve our ambition to become a developed country by 2020.

Information technology was an area we had to focus on to fuel the country’s development. We also needed to create innovative products that we could update regularly so as not to be left behind with dated technology. This required new knowledge, skills and researchers. Quite a few highly-qualified Malaysian scientists and engineers were working in research facilities overseas. We had to make a special effort to bring them back although they had become used to the lifestyles in the developed countries and were not keen to return. We could not offer them great incentives without causing resentment among their local counterparts and sometimes our bureaucrats made these people feel unwelcome. Despite the Government’s stated wish to have these Malaysians come back to work for the country, bureaucratic obstacles tended to put them off and very few returned.

It was still government policy to favour the Bumiputera for scholarships to study specialised subjects, but there were not many who were qualified or keen to pursue scientific studies. On the other hand, quite a few non-Bumiputera students were more than qualified to study science and engineering. Our policy of favouring Bumiputera meant that these Chinese and Indian students found it difficult to get scholarships. This presented a dilemma: we had to uphold the NEP’s objectives but could not afford to lose our best brains. I decided that we had to pursue the NEP judiciously. I was all for affirmative action but when the Bumiputera were not keen to study and serve the country, I did not consider it fair to deny non-Bumiputera the scholarships they needed. We could attach conditions to their scholarships to ensure that they would return. More concerned about quotas and proportions between the different races, some government officers unfortunately failed to see, or ignored, our national needs for skilled manpower. Time and time again I had to intervene and recommend non-Bumiputera students for scholarships, but in many instances my recommendations were ignored and some flimsy excuse given for not awarding the scholarship. When we achieve developed country status, we would not want to see Malays and other Bumiputera not enjoying their due share of the nation’s wealth and the good life, but that share will not simply fall into their laps—it is something they would have to work very hard for. I have always believed Malays and other Bumiputera are no less capable and intelligent than people of other communities, but intelligence alone does not suffice. Even the most intelligent must make the effort to acquire the needed capacities, no matter what the field.

When I visited Silicon Valley in the US I made a point of inspecting the research facilities there and discovered that many of the laboratories were manned by Asians—primarily Indians, Pakistanis and South Koreans. They had decided to work in America simply because there were no facilities in their own countries for them to apply their special knowledge and skills. They were also better paid and enjoyed a good quality of life. This observation became the basis for our Multimedia Super Corridor initiative, which I describe in Chapter 49.

When you go into an area involving new technologies you must be serious and committed and not expect immediate returns. If you become fixed upon the returns from investments in research, you would never invest as there are no guarantees that research will give a predictable return. Yet without research we would never discover anything new that might contribute to our wealth. You may strike gold from a line of research that can make all the funding seem like peanuts, but you can never know this in advance. It may seem to be a matter of luck, but success in technological innovation and application rarely is. It is built upon risks taken on the basis of informed intelligence, planning and thoughtful commitment. Still, you must be prepared to face that risk—not blindly or recklessly, but intelligently.

We have yet to acquire that mindset. When I introduced people to new ideas, their frequent response was to say that they could prove these ideas were unworkable. So long as that attitude prevails we will never progress. Granted, I got the Government to invest in some projects that failed, but that is the way things are in life. As it turned out, many of our industrial adventures did pay off because we were willing to take calculated risks.

Original research is an important marker of developed status, more important than per capita income. A number of Malaysian companies produced things that they could not sell in the country so they had to find markets abroad. We tend not to be receptive to our own new products. The Malaysian Agricultural Research Development Institute (MARDI), our leading research centre for agricultural and agribusiness-related science, for example, has produced important research results but they have not been taken up by our local companies. MARDI often had to go into product development, including commercial development, to convince investors to apply the results of its research. Because of this attitude, we lost out to Singapore, which is happy to grab our most promising students and scientific talent.

The success of Vision 2020 has always relied on our civil servants, who are the true custodians of the nation’s policies. If they fail to understand our situation and objectives, the Government will be hamstringed. If they frustrate national policies and objectives, we will never transform this country and achieve developed nation status. By and large, the Malaysian Civil Service has delivered and we would not be where we are today had they not implemented most of the Government’s policies. Yet there is always room for improvement, as long as the elected Government understands the problems which beset the country and the Civil Service knows its proper role and responsibilities.

One of the major difficulties in achieving Vision 2020 has always been getting people to understand the idea of 
Bangsa Malaysia
. We are a multiracial country whose component races are mutually incompatible—they differ from one another in ethnicity, culture, language and religion and, most importantly, are divided in their economic and social achievements .

But 
Bangsa Malaysia
 is not a difficult concept to grasp. When I introduced it in 1991, I was confident that by 2020, we would have achieved a common identity. 
Bangsa Malaysia
 basically means that people should regard themselves, first and above all, as Malaysians. As citizens you must identify with your country and to that extent, you cannot be totally Chinese or wholly Indian and still be Malaysian. Even the Malays will have to lose some of their Malayness. In time, there will be one common identity in our country and it will be a Malaysian identity, but for a long time, there will still be a number of different ways of being Malaysian, including the Chinese, the Indian, the Iban, the Kadazan and others, and of course, the Malay way. The Malaysian identity will be inclusive enough to recognise and encompass all these differences. Our Malays, Chinese, Indians, Ibans, Kadazans and others may (and should still be entitled to) express their own historical identities in their own distinct ways, but not in a separatist form. Ideally of course we should all forget the country of origin of our ancestors and be just Malaysian. But what is ideal is not always what is possible.

Achieving 
Bangsa Malaysia
 will require a focus on the education system. Our young Malaysians can get as good an education in Malay as in Chinese but when you insist that your child must be educated in Chinese, you are identifying yourself with another nation, China. The Chinese do not even want to come near a Malay in school. They even rejected the Vision School
concept of a common campus jointly housing schools in all the three language streams. The Vision School idea was an attempt to bring Malaysians together when they were still in school, so that they would be equipped to deal with one another later on in their adult lives. The Chinese rejection of all attempts to bring together Malaysians of different races is very disappointing. In this country, much has always been made of racial issues. When religious matters were added to them, I feared we would have new and more complicated problems. By 2008, when the Bar Council held provocative forums on Malay dominance and the question of conversion to Islam in Malaysia, these fears started to materialise.
[1]
 

People must remember that Malaysia is stable because the Malays have been willing to share what they have. In multiracial countries the indigenous people generally refuse to share their patrimony with people they consider newcomers. They will not give up their claim to primacy. If others want to claim citizenship they must become indistinguishable from the indigenous people. In Malaysia, the indigenous people not only agreed to share their country with others, but also adopted some characteristics of the people who came later.