By Dr Fong Chan Onn
Many nations blessed with rich resources have enjoyed economic booms, but many have also been cursed by it. So what is Malaysia’s standing among the world matrix of oil-producing nations, and how well are we managing our oil revenue?
In 1973, OPEC unexpectedly imposed a six month embargo on oil supplies, inducing the first global oil shock. Malaysia’s response to that was the incorporation of Petronas as the Malaysian oil corporation. The timing seemed right given that in 1971, the price of oil was just US$ 1.50 but by 1974, it was already averaging US$ 12 per barrel making it viable for Petronas to extract oil from our off-shore reserves.
From 1974 till 2000, oil prices hovered between USD$ 20 to USD$ 30 per barrel. At these price levels, government subsidies for oil then was not an issue; nor was there much of a debate regarding Petronas and the management of Malaysia’s oil reserves until 1997, when Petronas money was used to build the Twin Towers and Putrajaya in-spite of the onset of Asian Financial Crisis.
Petronas came under scrutiny again in the 2007 when oil prices ballooned to USD$ 140 per barrel. In parliamentary debates questions were being asked about the windfall profits that were being made, and how these profits were being managed and spent. At the same time there was also public demand for transparency and accountability of Petronas.
Once again the recent change in the leadership of Petronas has sparked off debates on the company’s operations and reporting; additionally the question of sustainability of its contributions to government revenues was also widely discussed.
True, many nations blessed with rich resources have enjoyed economic booms, but many have also been cursed by it. Perhaps, now is a good time to explore Malaysia’s standing among the world matrix of oil producing nations, as well as the road ahead of us in the management of our oil revenue.
1. Did we suffer Dutch Disease?
Some nations upon the discovery of a rich natural resource such as petroleum have experienced the Dutch Disease that is their economy shrinking instead of expanding. This is because the discovery has led to an automatic boom in the export revenue and consequent appreciation of its exchange rate; which then caused the subsequent non-competitiveness of its non-oil sector, particularly its manufacturing sector. The experience of Netherlands in 1959 after the discovery of large natural gas fields only to see the rest of its economy shrinking has led to the term “Dutch Disease”.
I will argue that Malaysia did not experience Dutch Disease since 1974, for reasons that:
a) A single-minded pursuit of an export-oriented industrialization policy since the 1970s, have seen the manufacturing sector grew from RM36.5 billion in 1987 to RM 491.9 billion by 2008. In fact, it was during this period that Malaysia emerged to be the world largest exporter of Electrical and Electronics (E&E) appliances with its export value growing from RM 11 billion in 1987 to RM 277.3 billion in 2008. Similarly, the service sector was not impinged by the presence of oil reserves, growing from RM36.7 billion in 1987 to RM334.6 billion by 2008.
b) And as a consequences of a deliberate drive to push exports up, the Ringgit was maintained at about RM2.20 to RM 2.70 to the US$ since the1970s, until Malaysia was hit by the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 when the currency was then pegged at RM 3.80 per US$. In fact the Ringgit exchange rate has also declined since 1974 vis-à-vis other currencies; Japanese Yen from RM 0.80 per 100 Yen in 1974 to RM 3.77 per 100 Yen, Singapore Dollar from parity in 1980 to now RM 2.43 per S$.
c) In addition, recognizing the limits of Malaysia’s petroleum reserves, there was the deliberate national policy of curtailing our oil output to about 600,000 barrels per day, in order to extend the lifespan of our oil production. The policy has been strictly adhered to by Petronas even during period of peak oil prices in 2007 and 2008.
2. Petronas’s Report Card
Notwithstanding the absence of Dutch Disease symptoms, have we really made optimum use of our oil revenue? To answer this question let us examines the record of Petronas’s contribution to the nation.
3. Role in National Development
Over the period 1974-1990, Petronas was focused on building up the company. It expanded into downstream activities firstly with a urea plant in Sarawak in 1976. Next it ventured into direct exploration and production in 1978. Then it went on to build the Kerteh and Malacca refineries in 1983 signaling its foray into refining and distribution.
As Malaysia was also keen to be involved in Liquid Natural Gas (LNG), Petronas bought up five tankers through its subsidiary, MISC. And as part of the gasification policy of the Peninsular, the Peninsular Gas Utilization Pipeline (PGU) was built with its first phase completed by 1985 at an estimated cost of RM 720 million. The PGU now runs from Terengganu to Songhkla, Thailand. The PGU was not only crucial to the development of a domestic gas industry but it helped transformed Malaysia to become the 3rd largest LNG producer in the world.
An International Corporation
Given Malaysia’s limited oil reserves, Petronas knew that for its long term survival requires it has to extend beyond the shores of Malaysia. It made crucial discovery in Vietnam in 1994, and later in Cambodia, China, and Algeria. Today, Petronas operates in at least 30 different countries; has more than 100 subsidiaries and owns a fleet of more than 100 tankers and ships through MISC. Its production from its oversea ventures now makes up almost half of it total overall oil and gas production.
Further, because of Petronas’s large financial reserves and sound independent management, it is well respected internationally. In 2008 it ranked as the 8th best profits making company, and the 5th in the Petroleum industry. Its bond issues are always eagerly subscribed at A1 levels; thus acting as a surrogate Malaysia Sovereign Bond. This thus enables the nation to borrow at low interest rates from the financial global market for its development progress. For comparison, Thailand’s sovereign rating is at BBB, Indonesia at BB+ and Singapore AAA.
As a Contributor to Government Expenditure
Petronas started contributing to the government revenue in 1976 with a sum of RM 300 million rising to RM 2 billion by 1981. Due to increasing oil prices, by 2005 it was able to provide RM 32.1 billion (56.5% of net profits) to government revenue, increasing to RM 74 billion (78.9% of net profits) in 2009, which formed about 45% of government revenue for the year. Since its incorporation, Petronas has paid RM 471 billion to government, in addition to bearing a cumulative subsidy of RM 97 billion under the national gas utilization plan.
As the Controversial White Knight
The Petronas as an off-budget agency directly under the Prime Minister is not without controversy. Its large reserves made it a tempting target for bail-outs. It was asked to bail out Bank Bumiputera in 1985 with an injection of RM 2.5 billion, when the Bank collapsed under the weight of loans to the Hong Kong Carrion Property Group. And again it was directed to bail out the same bank at RM 1 billion in 1991. When Bank Bumiputera collapsed for the third time in 1997, was Petronas again asked to rescue? Only the fly at Tan Sri Merican’s (then CEO) office at that time would know. Suffice to say Bank Bumiputera now is part of CIMB. Petronas also bailed out Konsortium Perkapalan Berhad (KPB), through MISC, which suffered RM 2 billion losses during the 1997 Financial Crisis. This, of course, was a subject of much political debate then.
Petronas’s Mega Projects
At the peak of Asian Financial Crisis, Petronas went ahead and completed the Petronas Twin Tower (RM6 billion) and Putrajaya (RM22 billion). At that time it was subjected to much ridicules. There were jokes that “we could sell off one tower to Brunei to get some cash…” etc.
With the benefit of hindsight, however, are these decisions wrong?
The presence of the Twin Tower has transformed Kuala Lumpur into an international city; and KLCC is now the benchmark for property prices in the city. Similarly, although Putrajaya is still a quiet place, but its completion contributed to the rise of prosperous townships stretching from Kajang, Puchong, and Subang to Petaling Jaya.
Nevertheless, one may still ask – is it really Petronas’s core business to undertake mega infrastructure projects on its own? Is it not going beyond its mission (as the agency in charge of the nation’s petroleum reserves) to venture into activities that it is not an expert in? By spending RM544 million in building the six-star Prince Court Medical Centre, is it not really stretching itself way beyond its border?
Absence of a Vibrant Oil and Gas Sub-sector.
With Petronas’s emergence as an international oil company, there seem to be a glaring missing link; and that is its failure to nurture a vibrant oil and gas sub-sector in the country. The oil and gas sub-sector is barely a key driver of the Malaysian economy. In fact, the key leading sector that has primarily driven the Malaysian economy over the last three decades has been the E&E industries, which now contribute to over 30% of our exports in the country.
Malaysia is known for being a premier E&E hub for Asia but, not as an oil and gas hub. There are only about 60 companies listed on Bursa that is related to oil and gas activities, which is equivalent to the number listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange. And Singapore is not even an oil producing nation!
The wealth of our national oil resource has not filtered down to the economy, particularly the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) sub-sector that should be the backbone of any growing economy. No doubt the development of downstream activities such as polypropylene, fertilizers and other chemicals are present and substantial. However, an absence of a significant value chain of oil and gas suppliers, including supporting industries like catering, basic raw materials, tooling and equipment, uniforms, packaging and so forth.
As an oil producing nation, there is no significant Malaysian oil and gas talent pool. There are only a handful of Malaysians involved in technical support in the oil and gas sector such as welders, toolers, and riggers.
The bidding process by Petronas has been structured in a way that stifles local SME growth in this sector. The Bumiputra requirements, depending on the size and nature of the contract, can vary from 30 percent to as high as 70 percent. Oil and gas license are excruciatingly difficult to acquire and the requirements are stringent to a point of exclusion. It has also been long felt that the bidding process is not transparent and favored the foreign players more than the non-Bumiputra players. Petronas contracts signed with the foreign players far outnumber those with local companies.
4. A Comparison with Some Other Oil Producing Nations
How does Petronas’s record and our management of the oil revenue compare with other countries?
I have chosen five other models namely Nigeria, Venezuela, Indonesia, Alaska and Norway; looking at how each country has scored in the management of their oil reserves. While it may be arbitrary but it helps give us some indication beyond our own parochial, sometimes prejudiced view of ourselves.
Nigeria
Nigeria is the largest oil producer in Africa and the tenth largest producer of crude oil in the world. In 2005, total Nigerian oil production averaged 2.6 million barrel per day. The Nigerian economy is almost totally dependent on the oil sector; it makes up 95 percent of export revenues, 76 percent of government revenues, and accounts for about 30 percent of GDP. Nigeria was among the richest 50 countries in the early 1970s. But the blatant abuse of petrol power (coupled with its record of ethnic conflicts) has pitifully regressed Nigeria to the rank of the 25 poorest countries by 2000. Although the situation in Nigeria has improved over the last few years, the amount of human suffering that has beseeched the men, women and children due to mismanagement, and greed leading to violence against its own people, is unspeakable.
Venezuela
The oil and gas sector constitutes a third of the nation’s GDP, around 80% of the nation’s export and more than half of government's revenue. It is the ninth largest oil producer in the world. Oil revenue is central to Venezuelan politics, giving rise to a rent-seeking culture and an entrenched patronage system. Due to the volatility of oil prices, the Venezuelan economy goes through boom and bust cycles, along with it a “yo-yo” cycle of government spending. Despite Venezuela’s estimated $600 billion in oil exports since the early 1970s, real per capita income fell by 15 percent between 1973 and 1998. Its GDP has been declining on an average of 2.2% from 1985 to 2000. Due to its huge production value, Venezuelans have no incentive to look elsewhere for diversification. Today, the Venezuelan economy continues to be plagued with structural problems, and is ever more dependent on its oil reserves.
Indonesia
Pertamina was set up in 1968, during a time when foreign companies mostly dominated the oil industry. Its oil output then increased from 500,000 barrels per day to 1.5 million barrels per day in 1974, contributing up to 15% of Indonesia's GDP then. By 1974, it a huge company to be reckoned with, with its own drilling equipment, a chain of gasoline filling stations, and a fleet of about fifty five tankers. It had non–oil assets as well; with ownership of hotels, tourism complex, automobile distributorship, first class hospitals, television studios, insurance companies, and the US$ 2.5 billion Krakatau Steel mill.
Unfortunately Pertamina fell into mismanagement and abuse and collapsed as an oil company in 1975.
In the early 1980s the Indonesian oil and gas industry underwent extensive reforms. One key aspect of the reforms is the revamp of Pertamina through the establishment of independence; with authorities remove from regulators to agencies. The oil and gas industry was also liberalized, which resulted in the ending of oil and gas monopolies, and this improved production efficiency and profits. Through these reforms the Indonesian government managed to revitalize not only the oil sector but also the non-oil sectors, such as manufacturing, and improved the livelihood of its people with aggressive rates of economic growth.
Alaska
Petroleum extraction constitutes more than 80% of the state’s revenue. Alaska is very concerned about government expenditures being overly dependent on oil, as well as the impact of price volatility on the state economy. In 1976, an Act was passed requiring 25% of the government's oil royalty to be deposited into Alaskan Permanent Fund.
As at 2007, the fund stood at US$ 33 billion and about half of the year’s dividend income was distributed to all Alaskans as cash payouts.
The net effect of the Alaska Permanent Fund is that it helps to stabilize the cash flow for the state, and also improve the income of its people, especially those in the rural areas. The argument being that since Alaska is a poor state, the annual cash payments, given out equally to all residents (rich and poor), would be re-circulated into the economy spurring trade and creating job
Norway
In the 1960s, Norway’s gross domestic product per capita was lower than that of Sweden and Denmark. By the year 2000, the situation has reversed with Norway in the lead, due to the discovery of oil off the Norwegian coast and the establishment of the national oil company, Statoil. Currently, oil and gas industry is a very important component of the Norwegian economy, producing 3 million barrels of oil per day. With a population of 4.8 million, this works out to be 0.63 barrels of oil per day per Norwegian!
Norwegians were quick to learn from the Dutch that its resources had to be managed in a sustainable manner. In 1990, A Norwegian Petroleum fund was established with the main aim of acting as a buffer to smoothen oil price fluctuations, and stabilizing the exchange rate to avoid the dreaded Dutch Disease. As Norway has an aging population, the purpose of the Fund is also meant to help address the future needs of the country.
As at the end of 2001, the size of the fund (at US$ 400 billion) was equivalent to 45% of its GDP; and this fund is invested abroad to avoid overheating the Norwegian economy. Its success is due to the strict guidelines for the Fund's operations for which the authority goes back to the Parliament. Any transfer to and from the funds needs Parliamentary approval. The government is also required to report to Parliament on the Fund's status - three times a year.
More...
Monday, June 21, 2010
Time to Safeguard Oil Revenue
By Dr Fong Chan Onn
Malaysia is at a critical crossroads – we could plunge into an economic trench or succeed to enjoy the fruits of our labour. In part two this week, Sunday Star looks at a new model of management of our oil revenue which should be implemented.
How do we compare with the above five oil producing countries, in terms and management of the oil revenue and its spending? I venture to argue while we certainly have not done too badly, we can still do better, in fact much better.
On the macro policy side it is clear that, instead of using our oil revenue to encourage high income generation activities in the last 1990s, we have continued to rely on labor-intensive manufacturing. Instead of restructuring wage policies, price controls, and subsidies (which cause distortions to the economy) we have continued to rely on these traditional policies resulting in oil subsidies constituting 30% of government operating expenses in 2008.
With as much as 45% of the government revenue coming from oil, and knowing that Petronas has cash reserves of RM 121.2 billion in 2009, government policy makers find it difficult to breakout from this easy source of income. We become too comfortable to think of innovative ways of finding new sources of growth compared with countries with no natural resources. We have also refrained from making bullet-biting policies, and stick to implementing the tough decisions that are needed to restructure the economy.
This dependency syndrome on easy oil revenue cannot be allowed to continue.
This is because, due our failure to reform the economy and the growing competitiveness of other Asian countries, our manufacturing sector growth rates have been falling since 2004, from 17% to 8% in 2008 (see Chart 1). The service sector similarly has also experienced falling growth rates, from 14% in 2004 to 11% in 2008 (see Chart 2).
FDI has also fallen 72.9% from US$ 12.9 billion in 2008 to US$ 3.6 billion in 2009. Declining manufacturing and services sector growth rates, coupled with falling FDIs, are strong symptoms of the on-set of delayed Dutch Disease and our depleting global competitiveness.
Our country now lies on a critical crossroads on which we could plunge into an economic trench or, we could succeed to enjoy the fruits of our labor. Clearly, a new model of management of our oil revenue has to be implemented.
To suggest a new model for oil revenue management, I need to estimate the proportion of annual net profits made by Petronas that is retained as cash reserves for its future use (or for the needs of our future generations).
Petronas has publicly stated that its cash reserves at 2009 stood at RM 121.2 billion. But its cash reserves for other years have not been publicly reported. Further net profits figures of Petronas have been publicly reported only since 1992.
But assuming a conservative cash reserves of RM10 billion (accumulated over the 17-year period of 1974-1991) at 1992, and calculating from the net profits of the company reported (publicly) from 1992 to 2009 while assuming a conservative 5% annual rate of return and ignoring foreign exchange losses or gains, Petronas’s cash reserves of RM121.2 billion at 2009 implies a reserves retention rate from net profits of only about 21% (see Chart 3), with 79% of net profits being paid to government for its operating expenditure, or Petronas itself investing on mega projects.
Given our depleting oil reserves (we could become an net importer of oil within a decade) is this low retention rate fair to our future generations?
Chart 3 also shows that had Petronas’s reserves retention rate been set at 33% its cash reserves could be at RM 177.7 billion at 2009; had its retention rate been at 50%, its reserves would have been at RM 256.9 billion in 2009 - more than double of the present RM 121.2 billion.
The Alaskan Model of a Citizen Fund indicates that 25% of oil revenue is set aside every year for the direct needs of its people; profits from the fund are then paid as cash dividends equally to all Alaskans. In a poor egalitarian society like Alaska, this may be fair, but in Malaysia we have always advocated the policy “it is always better to teach a man how to fish, then to give the man the fish”.
A State Fund (Future Malaysian Fund) could be set up; requiring Petronas to deposit say 25% of its annual net profits into this fund, to be managed by Bank Negara for the needs of our future generations. For the remaining 75% of its net profits, the government could decide the proportion that could be allocated as government revenue, and the proportion to be held as retained revenue by Petronas. A suggested formula could be 25% of net profits to be used by government as revenue, with Petronas retaining the remaining 50% for reinvestment purposes. For the year 2009, for example, this formula would imply that out of the RM52.5 billion net profits, the Future Malaysia Fund and the government would receive RM13.1 billion each, and Petronas could set aside RM26.2 for reinvestment purposes. For comparison, Petronas paid a dividend of RM30 billion to federal government in 2009, and retained RM 21.9 billion for reinvestment.
More importantly, this formula would enable Petronas to channel a quarter of its annual net profits to meet the needs of the future generations, when our oil reserves have dried up. Also with a smaller allocation from oil revenue as government revenue, we would be forced to implement bullet-biting reform policies to strengthen our economy with an improved competitiveness and new innovations.
The implementations of the Future Malaysian Fund Model notwithstanding, Petronas should not be denied of its present independence, given its own track record of par excellence; growing from anonymity in 1974 to being listed on Fortune 500 today. It should not be subjected to the wimps and fancies of the government of the day, nor should it be concerned about the nuts and bolts of running huge non-oil infrastructural projects.
My key concern is related to how the government chooses to utilize the earning streams as the reserves for meeting the needs of our future generations.
It is sufficed to say that the current scenario of wage restraints, price controls and subsidies is untenable. Given the global fluctuations and political volatility, it is only fair to the people of Malaysia that we revisit the Petroleum Development Act to seek more stable and transparent policy in the long term management of our oil reserves, for the sake of our future generations.
More...
Malaysia is at a critical crossroads – we could plunge into an economic trench or succeed to enjoy the fruits of our labour. In part two this week, Sunday Star looks at a new model of management of our oil revenue which should be implemented.
How do we compare with the above five oil producing countries, in terms and management of the oil revenue and its spending? I venture to argue while we certainly have not done too badly, we can still do better, in fact much better.
On the macro policy side it is clear that, instead of using our oil revenue to encourage high income generation activities in the last 1990s, we have continued to rely on labor-intensive manufacturing. Instead of restructuring wage policies, price controls, and subsidies (which cause distortions to the economy) we have continued to rely on these traditional policies resulting in oil subsidies constituting 30% of government operating expenses in 2008.
With as much as 45% of the government revenue coming from oil, and knowing that Petronas has cash reserves of RM 121.2 billion in 2009, government policy makers find it difficult to breakout from this easy source of income. We become too comfortable to think of innovative ways of finding new sources of growth compared with countries with no natural resources. We have also refrained from making bullet-biting policies, and stick to implementing the tough decisions that are needed to restructure the economy.
This dependency syndrome on easy oil revenue cannot be allowed to continue.
This is because, due our failure to reform the economy and the growing competitiveness of other Asian countries, our manufacturing sector growth rates have been falling since 2004, from 17% to 8% in 2008 (see Chart 1). The service sector similarly has also experienced falling growth rates, from 14% in 2004 to 11% in 2008 (see Chart 2).
FDI has also fallen 72.9% from US$ 12.9 billion in 2008 to US$ 3.6 billion in 2009. Declining manufacturing and services sector growth rates, coupled with falling FDIs, are strong symptoms of the on-set of delayed Dutch Disease and our depleting global competitiveness.Our country now lies on a critical crossroads on which we could plunge into an economic trench or, we could succeed to enjoy the fruits of our labor. Clearly, a new model of management of our oil revenue has to be implemented.
To suggest a new model for oil revenue management, I need to estimate the proportion of annual net profits made by Petronas that is retained as cash reserves for its future use (or for the needs of our future generations).
Petronas has publicly stated that its cash reserves at 2009 stood at RM 121.2 billion. But its cash reserves for other years have not been publicly reported. Further net profits figures of Petronas have been publicly reported only since 1992.
But assuming a conservative cash reserves of RM10 billion (accumulated over the 17-year period of 1974-1991) at 1992, and calculating from the net profits of the company reported (publicly) from 1992 to 2009 while assuming a conservative 5% annual rate of return and ignoring foreign exchange losses or gains, Petronas’s cash reserves of RM121.2 billion at 2009 implies a reserves retention rate from net profits of only about 21% (see Chart 3), with 79% of net profits being paid to government for its operating expenditure, or Petronas itself investing on mega projects.
Given our depleting oil reserves (we could become an net importer of oil within a decade) is this low retention rate fair to our future generations?Chart 3 also shows that had Petronas’s reserves retention rate been set at 33% its cash reserves could be at RM 177.7 billion at 2009; had its retention rate been at 50%, its reserves would have been at RM 256.9 billion in 2009 - more than double of the present RM 121.2 billion.
The Alaskan Model of a Citizen Fund indicates that 25% of oil revenue is set aside every year for the direct needs of its people; profits from the fund are then paid as cash dividends equally to all Alaskans. In a poor egalitarian society like Alaska, this may be fair, but in Malaysia we have always advocated the policy “it is always better to teach a man how to fish, then to give the man the fish”.
A State Fund (Future Malaysian Fund) could be set up; requiring Petronas to deposit say 25% of its annual net profits into this fund, to be managed by Bank Negara for the needs of our future generations. For the remaining 75% of its net profits, the government could decide the proportion that could be allocated as government revenue, and the proportion to be held as retained revenue by Petronas. A suggested formula could be 25% of net profits to be used by government as revenue, with Petronas retaining the remaining 50% for reinvestment purposes. For the year 2009, for example, this formula would imply that out of the RM52.5 billion net profits, the Future Malaysia Fund and the government would receive RM13.1 billion each, and Petronas could set aside RM26.2 for reinvestment purposes. For comparison, Petronas paid a dividend of RM30 billion to federal government in 2009, and retained RM 21.9 billion for reinvestment.
More importantly, this formula would enable Petronas to channel a quarter of its annual net profits to meet the needs of the future generations, when our oil reserves have dried up. Also with a smaller allocation from oil revenue as government revenue, we would be forced to implement bullet-biting reform policies to strengthen our economy with an improved competitiveness and new innovations.
The implementations of the Future Malaysian Fund Model notwithstanding, Petronas should not be denied of its present independence, given its own track record of par excellence; growing from anonymity in 1974 to being listed on Fortune 500 today. It should not be subjected to the wimps and fancies of the government of the day, nor should it be concerned about the nuts and bolts of running huge non-oil infrastructural projects.
My key concern is related to how the government chooses to utilize the earning streams as the reserves for meeting the needs of our future generations.
It is sufficed to say that the current scenario of wage restraints, price controls and subsidies is untenable. Given the global fluctuations and political volatility, it is only fair to the people of Malaysia that we revisit the Petroleum Development Act to seek more stable and transparent policy in the long term management of our oil reserves, for the sake of our future generations.
More...
Tracing the Brain Drain Trend
By Fong Chan Onn
Between 1960 and 2005, the world’s registered migration increased to an average of 919,302 per nation, an increase of 2.4 times. However, Malaysia’s emigration numbers rose to 1,489,168, an almost 100-fold increase over the 45-year period.
The recent report by the National Economic Advisory Council (NEAC) on the New Economic Model (NEM) laments “we are not developing talent and what we do have are leaving”. The report says that currently, some 350,000 Malaysians working abroad with over half of them having tertiary education. This leaves us with over 80% of our workforce with SPM-level qualification, and their wages are being continually suppressed by the easy availability of foreign workers and other barriers like subsidies and price controls.
The focus of my article is to trace some of the worrying brain-drain trends which I believe underlie the severity of our setbacks to move up to a high income economy, and the steps we should immediately undertake to overcome these challenges.
1. Beginning of Brain Drain
Out-flow of talents is not a new phenomenon, but globalization and rapid IT global communications have just speeded the process. Malayans (and since 1963 Malaysians) began to seek overseas tertiary education soon after independence in 1957 when it became part of the British Commonwealth. University education at home then was elitist, being confined to University of Malaya at Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. Many bright young Malaysians, aided by their fluency in English, had to seek tertiary education aboard (with or even without their parents’ financial support) in UK, Australia and other English-speaking societies. This trend was further accentuated by the various aid schemes, such as the Colombo Plan and Commonwealth Scholarships and later our own MARA, JPA, TNB and Petronas scholarships, through which tens of thousands of bright Malaysian students have been sponsored for overseas tertiary studies since the early 1960s.
After completion of their education, some choose to remain because of better job opportunities, some also choose to stay because they prefer the new life-style and social environment compared to that at home, while others such as the Malaysian women who married locally had to stay behind because their children, under Malaysian law, are not entitled to become Malaysian citizens or even permanent residents (PR).
2. Brain Drain more Serious than We Think
According to the World Bank, Malaysians residing overseas was only 9,576 in 1960 while the world’s total registered migration was 382,912 per nation. By 2005, the world’s registered migration increased to an average of 919,302 per nation, an increase of 2.4 times. However, Malaysia’s emigration numbers rose to 1,489,168, an almost 100-fold increase over the 45-year period.
In 1981, the number of Malaysians residing in Australia was 31,589 and this increased to 92,337 in 2007 (see Table 1). Those that resided in the U.K. in 1981 numbered 45,430 and this went up to 61,000 in 2007. United States was a laggard with only 11,001 in 1981 but due to the country’s very aggressive move to attract top talents, the number of Malaysians who took up residence in the U.S. shot up to 54,321 by 2007. Similarly our Singapore neighbour has also been absorbing large numbers of Malaysians, from 120,104 in 1981 to 303,828 in year 2000.
While the total figure is concerning, further analysis of the migration numbers is even more worrisome.
The World Bank’s report indicates that in 1990, the number of Malaysians with tertiary education residing in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries totalled about 72,649 with a majority of them in Australia (34,716), followed by the U.S. (12,315) and the U.K. (9,812) (see Table 2). The latest available data shows that in 2000, the number of Malaysians with tertiary education residing in OECD countries went up by 40.84%. The 102,321 Malaysian graduates that stayed in OECD countries in year 2000 make up 77.2% of the total Malaysians (132,468) that decided to domicile in these countries (See table 3).
And who are these graduates that we are losing out?
An example is given by the data on foreign-born medical personnel in OECD countries. While our local hospitals are experiencing shortages of nurses and doctors, we have 7,431 Malaysian nurses, 4,129 doctors, 652 dentists and 798 pharmacists working in the OECD countries (see Table 4) in 2000.
Further, the current global high-tech consumer boom has created a huge demand for science and technology (S&T) researchers in US, accentuating the migration of talents from the developing world (including Malaysia) to U.S. Table 5 shows that in 2003 there were 7,955 Malaysian S&T researchers working in US compared to 10,419 such researchers working at home.
3. Not Alone in Losing Talents
However, in this highly competitive global environment, it must be pointed out that Malaysia is not alone in losing the best talents to the OECD countries.
As Table 3 shows, South Korea, a member of OECD, has 885,885 of its citizens residing in other OECD countries, with 652,894 (73.7%) of them being graduates, and this constituted to about 1.39% of total South Korean population! India has 1.5 millions of its citizens domicile in OECD with 69.0% of them being graduates.
Even Singapore, a richer but much smaller country than Malaysia, saw 67,560 Singaporeans taking residence in OECD countries in 2000 with 50,019 of them being university-educated. It is only slightly behind Malaysia with 74% of its emigrants into the OECD countries having tertiary education. On the proportion of graduate migrants to total population, Singapore appears to be losing out more than us, with the number of Singaporean graduates in OECD countries standing at 1.24% compared to our 0.44%. Little wonder the city-state is working its hardest to attract bright Malaysians over the Causeway!
Further Table 3 shows that though Thailand and Indonesia may ‘export’ a much higher number of their workforce to the OECD countries, only about 40% of their own nationalities have tertiary education. This is mainly due to a lower proportion of their tertiary-educated workforce having a good command of English, and hence may have greater difficulty to fit into the high-level jobs there.
Table 4 also shows that we are not alone in losing medical talents. Philippines have 110,577 of its nurses and 15,859 of its doctors residing in the OECD countries! There are also 5,332 doctors from Taiwan, 2,798 doctors from Hong Kong, and even 1,356 Singaporean doctors working in OECD countries.
In terms of S&T researchers, Table 5 shows that in 2003 there were 158,524 Chinese researchers (17.5% compared to such researchers at home), 44,236 Vietnamese researchers (4.5 times the number of S&T researchers at home) and 26,602 Hong Kong researchers (2.1 times of such scientists at home) working in the U.S. The 7 thousand-odd Malaysian scientists amongst these hundreds of thousands foreign scientists is actually a small figure; but that is, of course, no consolation in our losing them in the first place.
What Tables 3, 4 and 5 have highlighted is that in the 21st Century global environment, OECD countries with their advanced infrastructures, robust social institutions, numerous world-famous universities and R & D institutions as well as booming markets, are powerful natural magnets for the developing world’s professionals.
4. What are We Gaining Instead?
We have about 2.5 million unskilled legal (and illegal) foreign workers in the country. Some 650,000 of them work in the manufacturing sector, followed by about 300,000 in construction. Domestic workers make up another 220,000. The balance is in the services, plantation and agriculture sectors. The services sector alone hires about 400,000 foreign workers mostly as waiters, security guards, general workers and cleaners.
Our addiction and dependence on these unskilled foreign workers has deepened to the extent that many of our manufacturing plants and the main-stays of our palm oil exports (plantations such as Sime Darby, IOI and KLK) will have to stop operation in their absence. According to a One Utama executive, as high as 90% of workers in the Food and Beverage sector are now made up of foreigners. Therefore, we should no longer be surprised by not being able to order our meals in Malay, Mandarin, English or any other commonly spoken language known to Malaysians anymore!
And who are we gaining instead?
As Table 6 shows, in year 2000, we have 627,700 Indonesians working in Malaysia, followed by 124,600 Philippines, 55,200 Bangladeshis, 53,500 Chinese, and 48,000 Indians. Though the skill level of these workers is not stated in the database it will be naive to assume that many of them are graduate professionals.
Table 6 also shows that in 2000 there were only 5,750 US citizens, 8,800 Japanese, 3,100 Australians and 1,250 New Zealanders (all members of OECD) residing in Malaysia. Again though not stated in the database it can be assumed most of them would be expatriates or professionals working in the manufacturing or services sectors.
This is consistent with the recent NEAC report on the NEM which says that the numbers of expatriates have fallen from nearly 90,000 in 2000 to nearly half of that by 2008. The net result is a “shortage of dynamic talent to push Malaysia into higher added value activities”.
The trends illustrated in Tables 3 to 5 are indicative that our brain drain is serious, while Table 6 shows that the brains we are trying to attract are not coming in. Of course, Tables 3 to 5 also show that we are not alone in losing out.
But is that a sufficient consolation? I think not. It will be shown later that while other countries have taken steps to remedy the problem, we are still far behind in trying to resolve the challenges we are facing.
5. Why are We Losing Talents?
This issue has been discussed extensively, but let me try to summarize why we have been losing our talents.
Legislative Issues
As I have elaborated at the beginning of this article, under Malaysian law a child born overseas to a Malaysian mother, whose husband is a non-Malaysian, is not entitled to Malaysian citizenship or even permanent resident (PR) status. This large pool of talents is just kept out of our shores.
I vividly remember Dato’ Syed Norulzaman (a retired Malaysian Ambassador) lamenting to me last month over dinner on how his daughter, a JPA medical scholar at Dublin, worked hard over the years to qualify as a medical specialist. She unfortunately could not return to serve Malaysia because she married her Norwegian class-mate, and their children are classified as non-Malaysians. With tears in his eyes, he said he has never felt so helpless as an Ambassador because he could not explain to her daughter why Malaysia does not accept her children….
And of the thousands of talented foreign spouses who have returned to Malaysia with their Malaysian husbands, what is happening to them? Medical experts, top-notch scientists, or experienced teachers they may be, but they are not even accorded PR status and are disallowed to work here, their adopted home.
Educational Opportunities
Up to the late 1990s, a large number of Malaysians migrated for their children’s education. University education opportunities for Malaysians (particularly the non-Malays) were limited by the quota system and financial aids. However, the implementation of the 1996 Private University Act saw rapid expansion of opportunities for tertiary education in the country. And with the establishment of the Government University Loan Scheme (PTPTN) providing financial aids to all students including those from Independent Chinese Schools, as well as the opening up of JPA scholarships to all excellent students, all Malaysians who aspire for tertiary education can now pursue their dreams within our shores.
Although many Malaysians still go overseas for their education, they now go by choice and not out of necessity.
Domestic Social-political Issues
In this global-village world, Malaysians are being continuously exposed to the world environment. We see, feel and hear first-world life-styles, first-world civil society structures, and first-world social institutions over TV and the Media all the time. Many Malaysians felt disillusioned, or even short-changed, by the non-optimal functioning of our social-political institutions which seem always constrained by the many sensitivities of our multi-religious and multi-ethnic background.
Beyonce was approved for performance in KL; then when there was some protests she was disallowed to come in. Of course she then went on to perform to record crowds in Jakarta. Many of us cannot accept examples of these unwarranted constraints on our social lives, and feel that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence (or Causeway?).
Of course, the fact that Malaysia has never taken public relations with the rest of the world seriously and consequently is always reported negatively in the world media, does us even greater damage especially in the eyes of the Malaysian professionals abroad.
Our Prime Minister, Dato’ Sri Najib Razak, fortunately understands these concerns clearly. The radical reforms he is currently pushing through under the NEM (including emphasising needs-based policies over race-based policies), the Key Performance Indices, and the all-inclusive 1Malaysia Program will hopefully bear fruits in the next one year, and will result in a significant raise of the “feel-good” factor with a corresponding reduction in our social-political environment being a push factor for Malaysians to migrate.
First-world Pull Policies
With the current high-tech boom, many first-world nations realize that to capture the global markets with new innovative products and services (iPads, smartphones, nano-products, etc) they have to take aggressive steps to build their talent pool “by instant” rather than through natural organic growth. These advanced nations (I am including Singapore and Hong Kong in this category) have introduced talented-immigrant attraction policies as follows:
US: Employer-sponsored visas (H-1B) given liberally to immigrants who have at least a Bachelor’s degree in arts, science, education, and other disciplines.
UK: Tier-1 Point-based migration under which immigrants have to score at least 75 points based on age, experience and qualification.
Australia: Skilled Migration Program, under which applicants are assessed on a point system again based on age, experience and qualification.
Singapore: Employer-sponsored (Scheme 1) working visas are issued within 3 working days of receipt of application. And under its Scheme 4, top-notch professionals are “purposely” sought out from all over the world to be attracted to reside in Singapore.
Hong Kong: Working visas are readily given out on a points system; the points are again assessed based on age, experience and qualification.
Many Malaysians have gone to these countries on these programs, and in the process contributed to these societies’ development.
6. How to Retain and Recruit Talents?
What can we do to retain the talents we have in the country, as well as to attract the return of our talents from overseas; besides trying to recruit non-Malaysian experts to enrich the pool of our expertise? This is obviously a tall-order question which I will attempt to answer.
Firstly, besides pushing on with the reforms needed under the NEM and the 1Malaysia Program, we need to immediately abolish all the gender-biased legislative impediments preventing the husbands and children of our female talents, who have married non-Malaysians, from becoming citizens or even PRs. Unless this is done, and done retroactively, the thousands of these Malaysian talents will be forever lost from our shores.
Further, the thousands of wives of Malaysians who have returned should be immediately given PR or even citizenship so that their expertise can be harnessed by the nation.
By one stroke of the pen we can immediately enlarge significantly our talent pool.
Secondly, we need to negotiate more country-to-country Youth Exchange Programs with OECD nations, like the Malaysia-New Zealand Youth Exchange Program. Our youths have been going over to their shores for decades, now with these exchange programs we can at least begin to attract some of their youths to our shores; first as guests, and later maybe as experts.
Thirdly, we should get away from our cold-war siege mentality mind-set, bite the bullet and immediately reform our working permit, PR and citizenship policies. Working permits for expatriates should be quickly approved for applications from employers for bringing in the expertise that they need to run their businesses or factories. PR status should be accorded to the top experts that we want to recruit. Their coming into our midst will result in new innovations and thousands of new high-paying jobs for our people.
If we can approve the hundreds of thousands of unskilled labour, why can’t we allow the engineers, scientists, and other experts required by the Multi-National Corporations to enter?
Fourthly, we need to relook at our own incentive schemes implemented to attract the return of our professionals. Under the Human Resources Ministry’s “Return of Experts Program”, an approved returnee is entitled to bring back two cars tax-free (as well as the applicant’s accumulated income also tax-free). This is hardly an incentive as in OECD countries there is no such thing as Approved Permits or prohibitive taxes on imported cars.
We need to follow on the successful examples of other countries, such as the Taiwanese Hinshu Science Park established in the 1980s for returning scientists from US, under which returnees are given R&D grants for start-ups and educational assistance for their children. Out of this Taiwan emerged to be a major exporter of IT appliances. Or the Korean Institute for Science and Technology (KIST) set up to provide research grants and managerial autonomy for talented returnees, mimicking the US research environment; and now South Korea has 96% broad-band penetration rate. Even China has established its “Freedom to Come and Go” Policy and Special Development Zones for its talented returnees.
Through our embassies, we need to identify and directly engage our professionals world-wide and make them part of our global ambassory network. With their support and good-will, we can greatly improve the image of our country. Some of them can even be persuaded to set up base at home. If they have good ideas, venture capital and R&D grants should be provided so that they can be assisted to transform these ideas into products and services.
It is already quite late in the day for us to start these policies to attract talents.
My meetings with many of our professionals aboard indicate that they are still very much Malaysians at heart. They miss the Nasi Lemaks, our colourful multi-ethnic life-styles, and the relatively stress-free nature of our work environment. Similarly, many Japanese, US and Korean expatriates will prefer to work in KL compared to other Asian cities.
Though late in the day to attract and recruit them back to Malaysia, at least we know we are starting on a reservoir of good-will. But let us implement these Attract and Recruit Programs with the fullest commitments now, so that our plan to emerge as a high-income economy can become reality in the not too distant tomorrow.
End/
More...
Between 1960 and 2005, the world’s registered migration increased to an average of 919,302 per nation, an increase of 2.4 times. However, Malaysia’s emigration numbers rose to 1,489,168, an almost 100-fold increase over the 45-year period.
The recent report by the National Economic Advisory Council (NEAC) on the New Economic Model (NEM) laments “we are not developing talent and what we do have are leaving”. The report says that currently, some 350,000 Malaysians working abroad with over half of them having tertiary education. This leaves us with over 80% of our workforce with SPM-level qualification, and their wages are being continually suppressed by the easy availability of foreign workers and other barriers like subsidies and price controls.
The focus of my article is to trace some of the worrying brain-drain trends which I believe underlie the severity of our setbacks to move up to a high income economy, and the steps we should immediately undertake to overcome these challenges.
1. Beginning of Brain Drain
Out-flow of talents is not a new phenomenon, but globalization and rapid IT global communications have just speeded the process. Malayans (and since 1963 Malaysians) began to seek overseas tertiary education soon after independence in 1957 when it became part of the British Commonwealth. University education at home then was elitist, being confined to University of Malaya at Singapore and Kuala Lumpur. Many bright young Malaysians, aided by their fluency in English, had to seek tertiary education aboard (with or even without their parents’ financial support) in UK, Australia and other English-speaking societies. This trend was further accentuated by the various aid schemes, such as the Colombo Plan and Commonwealth Scholarships and later our own MARA, JPA, TNB and Petronas scholarships, through which tens of thousands of bright Malaysian students have been sponsored for overseas tertiary studies since the early 1960s.
After completion of their education, some choose to remain because of better job opportunities, some also choose to stay because they prefer the new life-style and social environment compared to that at home, while others such as the Malaysian women who married locally had to stay behind because their children, under Malaysian law, are not entitled to become Malaysian citizens or even permanent residents (PR).
2. Brain Drain more Serious than We Think
According to the World Bank, Malaysians residing overseas was only 9,576 in 1960 while the world’s total registered migration was 382,912 per nation. By 2005, the world’s registered migration increased to an average of 919,302 per nation, an increase of 2.4 times. However, Malaysia’s emigration numbers rose to 1,489,168, an almost 100-fold increase over the 45-year period.
In 1981, the number of Malaysians residing in Australia was 31,589 and this increased to 92,337 in 2007 (see Table 1). Those that resided in the U.K. in 1981 numbered 45,430 and this went up to 61,000 in 2007. United States was a laggard with only 11,001 in 1981 but due to the country’s very aggressive move to attract top talents, the number of Malaysians who took up residence in the U.S. shot up to 54,321 by 2007. Similarly our Singapore neighbour has also been absorbing large numbers of Malaysians, from 120,104 in 1981 to 303,828 in year 2000.
Table 1: Malaysian Residents Abroad
While the total figure is concerning, further analysis of the migration numbers is even more worrisome.
The World Bank’s report indicates that in 1990, the number of Malaysians with tertiary education residing in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries totalled about 72,649 with a majority of them in Australia (34,716), followed by the U.S. (12,315) and the U.K. (9,812) (see Table 2). The latest available data shows that in 2000, the number of Malaysians with tertiary education residing in OECD countries went up by 40.84%. The 102,321 Malaysian graduates that stayed in OECD countries in year 2000 make up 77.2% of the total Malaysians (132,468) that decided to domicile in these countries (See table 3).
Table 2: Number of Malaysian Migrants with Tertiary Education in OECD Countries
Table 3: Migrants with Tertiary Education in OECD Countries in Year 2000
And who are these graduates that we are losing out?
An example is given by the data on foreign-born medical personnel in OECD countries. While our local hospitals are experiencing shortages of nurses and doctors, we have 7,431 Malaysian nurses, 4,129 doctors, 652 dentists and 798 pharmacists working in the OECD countries (see Table 4) in 2000.
Table 4: Foreign-born Medical Personnel in OECD Countries in Year 2000
Further, the current global high-tech consumer boom has created a huge demand for science and technology (S&T) researchers in US, accentuating the migration of talents from the developing world (including Malaysia) to U.S. Table 5 shows that in 2003 there were 7,955 Malaysian S&T researchers working in US compared to 10,419 such researchers working at home.
Table 5: Researchers Employed in S & T in the United States in Year 2003
3. Not Alone in Losing Talents
However, in this highly competitive global environment, it must be pointed out that Malaysia is not alone in losing the best talents to the OECD countries.
As Table 3 shows, South Korea, a member of OECD, has 885,885 of its citizens residing in other OECD countries, with 652,894 (73.7%) of them being graduates, and this constituted to about 1.39% of total South Korean population! India has 1.5 millions of its citizens domicile in OECD with 69.0% of them being graduates.
Even Singapore, a richer but much smaller country than Malaysia, saw 67,560 Singaporeans taking residence in OECD countries in 2000 with 50,019 of them being university-educated. It is only slightly behind Malaysia with 74% of its emigrants into the OECD countries having tertiary education. On the proportion of graduate migrants to total population, Singapore appears to be losing out more than us, with the number of Singaporean graduates in OECD countries standing at 1.24% compared to our 0.44%. Little wonder the city-state is working its hardest to attract bright Malaysians over the Causeway!
Further Table 3 shows that though Thailand and Indonesia may ‘export’ a much higher number of their workforce to the OECD countries, only about 40% of their own nationalities have tertiary education. This is mainly due to a lower proportion of their tertiary-educated workforce having a good command of English, and hence may have greater difficulty to fit into the high-level jobs there.
Table 4 also shows that we are not alone in losing medical talents. Philippines have 110,577 of its nurses and 15,859 of its doctors residing in the OECD countries! There are also 5,332 doctors from Taiwan, 2,798 doctors from Hong Kong, and even 1,356 Singaporean doctors working in OECD countries.
In terms of S&T researchers, Table 5 shows that in 2003 there were 158,524 Chinese researchers (17.5% compared to such researchers at home), 44,236 Vietnamese researchers (4.5 times the number of S&T researchers at home) and 26,602 Hong Kong researchers (2.1 times of such scientists at home) working in the U.S. The 7 thousand-odd Malaysian scientists amongst these hundreds of thousands foreign scientists is actually a small figure; but that is, of course, no consolation in our losing them in the first place.
What Tables 3, 4 and 5 have highlighted is that in the 21st Century global environment, OECD countries with their advanced infrastructures, robust social institutions, numerous world-famous universities and R & D institutions as well as booming markets, are powerful natural magnets for the developing world’s professionals.
4. What are We Gaining Instead?
We have about 2.5 million unskilled legal (and illegal) foreign workers in the country. Some 650,000 of them work in the manufacturing sector, followed by about 300,000 in construction. Domestic workers make up another 220,000. The balance is in the services, plantation and agriculture sectors. The services sector alone hires about 400,000 foreign workers mostly as waiters, security guards, general workers and cleaners.
Our addiction and dependence on these unskilled foreign workers has deepened to the extent that many of our manufacturing plants and the main-stays of our palm oil exports (plantations such as Sime Darby, IOI and KLK) will have to stop operation in their absence. According to a One Utama executive, as high as 90% of workers in the Food and Beverage sector are now made up of foreigners. Therefore, we should no longer be surprised by not being able to order our meals in Malay, Mandarin, English or any other commonly spoken language known to Malaysians anymore!
And who are we gaining instead?
Table 6: Origin of Immigrants in Malaysia
As Table 6 shows, in year 2000, we have 627,700 Indonesians working in Malaysia, followed by 124,600 Philippines, 55,200 Bangladeshis, 53,500 Chinese, and 48,000 Indians. Though the skill level of these workers is not stated in the database it will be naive to assume that many of them are graduate professionals.
Table 6 also shows that in 2000 there were only 5,750 US citizens, 8,800 Japanese, 3,100 Australians and 1,250 New Zealanders (all members of OECD) residing in Malaysia. Again though not stated in the database it can be assumed most of them would be expatriates or professionals working in the manufacturing or services sectors.
This is consistent with the recent NEAC report on the NEM which says that the numbers of expatriates have fallen from nearly 90,000 in 2000 to nearly half of that by 2008. The net result is a “shortage of dynamic talent to push Malaysia into higher added value activities”.
The trends illustrated in Tables 3 to 5 are indicative that our brain drain is serious, while Table 6 shows that the brains we are trying to attract are not coming in. Of course, Tables 3 to 5 also show that we are not alone in losing out.
But is that a sufficient consolation? I think not. It will be shown later that while other countries have taken steps to remedy the problem, we are still far behind in trying to resolve the challenges we are facing.
5. Why are We Losing Talents?
This issue has been discussed extensively, but let me try to summarize why we have been losing our talents.
Legislative Issues
As I have elaborated at the beginning of this article, under Malaysian law a child born overseas to a Malaysian mother, whose husband is a non-Malaysian, is not entitled to Malaysian citizenship or even permanent resident (PR) status. This large pool of talents is just kept out of our shores.
I vividly remember Dato’ Syed Norulzaman (a retired Malaysian Ambassador) lamenting to me last month over dinner on how his daughter, a JPA medical scholar at Dublin, worked hard over the years to qualify as a medical specialist. She unfortunately could not return to serve Malaysia because she married her Norwegian class-mate, and their children are classified as non-Malaysians. With tears in his eyes, he said he has never felt so helpless as an Ambassador because he could not explain to her daughter why Malaysia does not accept her children….
And of the thousands of talented foreign spouses who have returned to Malaysia with their Malaysian husbands, what is happening to them? Medical experts, top-notch scientists, or experienced teachers they may be, but they are not even accorded PR status and are disallowed to work here, their adopted home.
Educational Opportunities
Up to the late 1990s, a large number of Malaysians migrated for their children’s education. University education opportunities for Malaysians (particularly the non-Malays) were limited by the quota system and financial aids. However, the implementation of the 1996 Private University Act saw rapid expansion of opportunities for tertiary education in the country. And with the establishment of the Government University Loan Scheme (PTPTN) providing financial aids to all students including those from Independent Chinese Schools, as well as the opening up of JPA scholarships to all excellent students, all Malaysians who aspire for tertiary education can now pursue their dreams within our shores.
Although many Malaysians still go overseas for their education, they now go by choice and not out of necessity.
Domestic Social-political Issues
In this global-village world, Malaysians are being continuously exposed to the world environment. We see, feel and hear first-world life-styles, first-world civil society structures, and first-world social institutions over TV and the Media all the time. Many Malaysians felt disillusioned, or even short-changed, by the non-optimal functioning of our social-political institutions which seem always constrained by the many sensitivities of our multi-religious and multi-ethnic background.
Beyonce was approved for performance in KL; then when there was some protests she was disallowed to come in. Of course she then went on to perform to record crowds in Jakarta. Many of us cannot accept examples of these unwarranted constraints on our social lives, and feel that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence (or Causeway?).
Of course, the fact that Malaysia has never taken public relations with the rest of the world seriously and consequently is always reported negatively in the world media, does us even greater damage especially in the eyes of the Malaysian professionals abroad.
Our Prime Minister, Dato’ Sri Najib Razak, fortunately understands these concerns clearly. The radical reforms he is currently pushing through under the NEM (including emphasising needs-based policies over race-based policies), the Key Performance Indices, and the all-inclusive 1Malaysia Program will hopefully bear fruits in the next one year, and will result in a significant raise of the “feel-good” factor with a corresponding reduction in our social-political environment being a push factor for Malaysians to migrate.
First-world Pull Policies
With the current high-tech boom, many first-world nations realize that to capture the global markets with new innovative products and services (iPads, smartphones, nano-products, etc) they have to take aggressive steps to build their talent pool “by instant” rather than through natural organic growth. These advanced nations (I am including Singapore and Hong Kong in this category) have introduced talented-immigrant attraction policies as follows:
US: Employer-sponsored visas (H-1B) given liberally to immigrants who have at least a Bachelor’s degree in arts, science, education, and other disciplines.
UK: Tier-1 Point-based migration under which immigrants have to score at least 75 points based on age, experience and qualification.
Australia: Skilled Migration Program, under which applicants are assessed on a point system again based on age, experience and qualification.
Singapore: Employer-sponsored (Scheme 1) working visas are issued within 3 working days of receipt of application. And under its Scheme 4, top-notch professionals are “purposely” sought out from all over the world to be attracted to reside in Singapore.
Hong Kong: Working visas are readily given out on a points system; the points are again assessed based on age, experience and qualification.
Many Malaysians have gone to these countries on these programs, and in the process contributed to these societies’ development.
6. How to Retain and Recruit Talents?
What can we do to retain the talents we have in the country, as well as to attract the return of our talents from overseas; besides trying to recruit non-Malaysian experts to enrich the pool of our expertise? This is obviously a tall-order question which I will attempt to answer.
Firstly, besides pushing on with the reforms needed under the NEM and the 1Malaysia Program, we need to immediately abolish all the gender-biased legislative impediments preventing the husbands and children of our female talents, who have married non-Malaysians, from becoming citizens or even PRs. Unless this is done, and done retroactively, the thousands of these Malaysian talents will be forever lost from our shores.
Further, the thousands of wives of Malaysians who have returned should be immediately given PR or even citizenship so that their expertise can be harnessed by the nation.
By one stroke of the pen we can immediately enlarge significantly our talent pool.
Secondly, we need to negotiate more country-to-country Youth Exchange Programs with OECD nations, like the Malaysia-New Zealand Youth Exchange Program. Our youths have been going over to their shores for decades, now with these exchange programs we can at least begin to attract some of their youths to our shores; first as guests, and later maybe as experts.
Thirdly, we should get away from our cold-war siege mentality mind-set, bite the bullet and immediately reform our working permit, PR and citizenship policies. Working permits for expatriates should be quickly approved for applications from employers for bringing in the expertise that they need to run their businesses or factories. PR status should be accorded to the top experts that we want to recruit. Their coming into our midst will result in new innovations and thousands of new high-paying jobs for our people.
If we can approve the hundreds of thousands of unskilled labour, why can’t we allow the engineers, scientists, and other experts required by the Multi-National Corporations to enter?
Fourthly, we need to relook at our own incentive schemes implemented to attract the return of our professionals. Under the Human Resources Ministry’s “Return of Experts Program”, an approved returnee is entitled to bring back two cars tax-free (as well as the applicant’s accumulated income also tax-free). This is hardly an incentive as in OECD countries there is no such thing as Approved Permits or prohibitive taxes on imported cars.
We need to follow on the successful examples of other countries, such as the Taiwanese Hinshu Science Park established in the 1980s for returning scientists from US, under which returnees are given R&D grants for start-ups and educational assistance for their children. Out of this Taiwan emerged to be a major exporter of IT appliances. Or the Korean Institute for Science and Technology (KIST) set up to provide research grants and managerial autonomy for talented returnees, mimicking the US research environment; and now South Korea has 96% broad-band penetration rate. Even China has established its “Freedom to Come and Go” Policy and Special Development Zones for its talented returnees.
Through our embassies, we need to identify and directly engage our professionals world-wide and make them part of our global ambassory network. With their support and good-will, we can greatly improve the image of our country. Some of them can even be persuaded to set up base at home. If they have good ideas, venture capital and R&D grants should be provided so that they can be assisted to transform these ideas into products and services.
It is already quite late in the day for us to start these policies to attract talents.
My meetings with many of our professionals aboard indicate that they are still very much Malaysians at heart. They miss the Nasi Lemaks, our colourful multi-ethnic life-styles, and the relatively stress-free nature of our work environment. Similarly, many Japanese, US and Korean expatriates will prefer to work in KL compared to other Asian cities.
Though late in the day to attract and recruit them back to Malaysia, at least we know we are starting on a reservoir of good-will. But let us implement these Attract and Recruit Programs with the fullest commitments now, so that our plan to emerge as a high-income economy can become reality in the not too distant tomorrow.
End/
More...
留住人才，加强马来西亚的竞争力
冯镇安博士
国家经济咨询理事会最近发表有关新经济模式的报告指出，“我国并没有培养人才，反而正让人才外流”。报告又说，目前，有大约35万名马来西亚人在海外工作，其中半数以上拥有高等教育学历。反观马来西亚，百分之80以上的劳动力，只拥有马来西亚教育中学文凭水平的学历，而他们的薪金继续受到压制，因为我国很容易雇用到外劳，此外，他们也面对好比补贴和价格管制等的其他障碍。
这篇文章是要专注探讨令人担心的人才外流的一些现象。我认为，这种趋势将会严重挫败我国要攀上高收入经济体的目标。因此，我国应该立刻采取一些步骤，克服这些挑战。
1. 人才外流的开始
人才外流并不是新的现象，但是，全球化，以及信息科技的迅速成长，加速了人才外流的情况。马来亚人（１９６３年后称为马来西亚人）在１９５７年国家独立， 并且成为共和联邦成员国后，开始离乡背井前往海外深造和升学。当年，我国的大学教育是很有限，只有设在吉隆坡和新加坡的马来亚大学。许多有抱负和优秀的年 轻人由于能够掌握英语，而纷纷选择前往英国、澳洲以及其他英语系社会的国家升学（无论有没有获得父母的财务援助）。后来，各项援助计划，例如科伦坡计划和 共和联邦奖学金推出后，进一步强化出国深造的现象。自上个世纪６０年代初以来，在我国一些机构，好比玛拉、公共服务局、国家能源公司以及国家石油公司提供 奖学金下，我国成千上万优秀的学生被保送出国接受高等教育。
这些学生在完成学业后，有的选择留下来工作，因为那里有更好的就业机会；有些选择留在外国，原因是他们比较喜欢异乡的新生活方式和社会环境；而有的马来西 亚学生，好比女性则嫁给当地人而不得不留下来，因为在马来西亚的法例下，她们的子女不能成为马来西亚公民或永久居民。
2. 人才外流比预计中更加严重
根据世界银行的统计，1960年，旅居海外的马来西亚人只有9,576名 ，而当年世界登记的移民总数是平均每个国家 38万2千912 名。到了 2005年，世界登记的移民总数增加到平均每个国家 91万9千302名，提高了 2.4 倍。然而，过去 45年来，马来西亚的移民人数则激升到 148万9千168名，增加了将近一百倍。
在1981年，在澳洲定居的马来西亚人是 3万1千589名，到了2007年，人数则增加到 9万2千337 名 (参阅表一) 。1981年定居英国的马来西亚人是 4万5千430名，而到2007年则增加到 6万1千人。移居美国的我国人数变化最大，在1981年只有1万1千零1名，但是，由于美国积极引进杰出的专 才，到了2007年，移居美国的马来西亚人数激增到5万4千321名。同样的，邻国新加坡也大量招揽马来西亚专才，移居到该国的马来西亚人数，从1981 年的12万零104名，增加到2000年的30万3千828名。
从整个数据看来已是严重的现象，但对移民数据的进一步分析，更加令人担忧。
世界银行发布的报告显示，在1990年，接受高深教育的马来西亚人定居于经济合作及发展组织国家的人数达到大约7万2千649名，其中移居澳洲的人数最多，共有 3万4千716名， 接下来是美国，1万2千315名，以及英国9千812名 (参阅表二)。最新的数据显示，在 2000年，接受高深教育的马来西亚人定居于经济合作及发展组织国家的人数，增加了40.84%。2000年，留在经济合作及发展组织国家的马来西亚大学毕业生人数共有10万2千321名，占了移居这些国家的马来西亚人总数(13万2千468)的77.2% 。 (参阅表三).
而我国失去的是哪些大学毕业生？
以经济合作及发展组织国家的外国出生医务人员的数据为例子：在2000年我国的医院严重缺乏护士和医生的时候，却有7,431 名马来西亚护士、 4,129 名医生、 652 名牙医以及 798 名药剂师在经济合作及发展组织国家工作 (参阅表四)
另一方面，由于全球目前对高科技的殷切需求与日俱增，导致美国需要大量的科技研究员，进而加剧了从发展中世界(包括马来西亚)的专才移居美国的趋势。表五显示，在 2003年，共有 7,955 马来西亚的科技研究员在美国工作，而留在我国服务的科技研究员人数只剩下 1万零419 名。
3. 不光是我国损失人才
然而，在全球高度竞争的环境中，必须指出的是，不光是马来西亚的顶尖人才流向经济合作及发展组织国家。
表三显示，也是经济合作及发展组织成员国的韩国，有88万5千885名公民移居该组织的其他成员国，其中65万2千894人 (73.7%)是大学毕业生，占了韩国总人口的大约 1.39%。印度则有１５０万人移居“经济合作及发展组织”国家，其中 69.0%是大学毕业生。
即使比马来西亚富裕，但面积小很多的邻国新加坡，在2000 年也有6万7千560 名公民移居经济合作及发展组织国家，其中 5万零１９名是大学毕业生，占移民总数的74%，比马来西亚稍微低。从大学生移民对总人口的比例看来，新加坡流失的人才，显然比马来西亚还要多，因为在经济合作及发展组织国家的大学生总数，新加坡人占1.24%，马来西亚人只占0.44%。难怪新加坡目前还在想方设法，招揽长堤彼岸的优秀马来西亚专才。
此外，表三显示，也许，印尼和泰国“出口”到经济合作及发展组织国家人口和劳动力中占比较高的比例，但是只有大约 40% 的移民曾接受高等教育。主要原因是，接受高等教育的劳动力，只有少部分能够掌握英文，因此，他们要加入经济合作及发展组织国家的高科技工作行列，面对很大的困难。
表四也显示，不光是我国流失医药人才。菲律宾目前有 11万零577名护士以及1万5千859 名医生在经济合作及发展组织国家定居。此外，来自台湾的5千332 名医生， 香港的 2千798 名医生，甚至来自新加坡的 1千356 名医生也在这些国家落户。至于科技研究员，表五显示，在 2003 年，移居美国的中国科技研究员共有15万8 千524名 (占国内科技研究员总数的17.5%)，越南研究员有 4万4千236 名 (等于国内科技研究员总数的4.5 倍)，香港研究员有2万6千602 名 (等于国内科技研究员总数的2.1 倍)。与这些国家和地区的成千上万移民相比，在美国工作的7千多名我国科学工作者人数，实际上只是小数目。当然，我们不应该因此而感到安慰。
表三、表四和表五的数据，说明了21世纪的全球环境、经济合作及发展组织国家拥有的先进设施、蓬勃的社会机制、世界一些知名的大学和研究所，以及欣欣向荣的市场，都是吸取发展中世界专业人士的强大天然磁场。
4. 然而我国获得了什么？
我国目前拥有大约 250万名非熟练的合法和非法外劳。其中有大约65万名在制造业工作，其次是在建筑业工作，有大约30万名。另外有22万名当家庭女佣，其余的则分别在服务业、园丘业和农业领域工作。光是服务业就雇佣了大约40万名外劳，他们主要做侍应生、保安员、普通工人和清洁工人的工作。
我国对非熟练外劳习以为常的依赖，已经深化，并达到许多制造业工厂以及棕油的出口(例如森那美、 IOI集团和KLK等园丘)，因为没有他们工作而必须停止运作的程度。根据万达镇商业大楼的一名执行人员说，餐饮业目前有高达90% 的工人是外劳。因此，我们现在向他们点菜和点饮料时，无法以马来文、华语、英语或任何我们所通晓的语言和他们沟通，已经不再令人感到出奇！
结果，我国获得到底是谁呢?
表六显示，在2000年，共有62万7千700名印尼人在马来西亚工作，菲律宾工人共有12万4千600名，孟加拉国人 5万5千200 名，中国人 5万3千500 名，而来自印度的工人有 4万8千名。虽然资料没有说明这些工人的技术水平，但是，假定他们当中有许多的专业人士，那可是天真的想法。
表六也显示，在2000年，只有 5,750 名美国公民； 8,800 名日本人； 3,100 名澳洲人以及 1,250 名纽西兰人 (都是经济合作及发展组织成员国的公民)在马来西亚定居。同样的，资料没有说明他们的技术水平，但是，我们可以说，他们大多数是在制造业和服务领域工作的专才或专业人士。
这符合国家经济咨询理事会最近发表有关新经济模式的报告内容。这份报告说，我国的专才人数，在2000年有将近 9万名，而到了2008年，专才人数减少了将近半数。结果是，“我国缺乏具有活力的专才，去推动马来西亚开展更高的加值活动”。
表三到表五显现的趋势，说明我国的人才外流现象是严重的。表六显示，我国正在设法招揽回国服务的专才，却没有回来。当然，表三到表五也说明，不光是我国流失人才。
我们是否能够因而有充足的理由感到安慰？我认为不能。因为其他国家已经采取步骤，想方设法纠正问题，然而，我国还是无动于衷，完全没有试图去解决所面对的挑战。
5. 为什么马来西亚会流失人才？
这个问题已经受到广泛的讨论，不过，让我概述我国流失人才的原因。
法例问题
正如我在文章开头所叙述一样，在马来西亚的法例下，一名马来西亚女性在海外嫁给了非马来西亚人，她所生下的孩子不能获得马来西亚公民权，甚至不能享有永久居民的地位。这造成大批的专才，不得不选择定居海外，而不愿回国服务。
我记得，拿督赛诺鲁查曼 (一名退休的马来西亚大使) 上个月在一项晚宴上告诉我，他的女儿是在公共服务局保送下前往都柏林攻读医科，她经过多年的努力后，考获了医药专科学位而成为专科医生。然而，令人遗憾的是，由于她嫁给了一名挪威同学，她所生下的孩子被列为马来西亚非公民，而不能回国服务。拿督赛诺鲁查曼眼眶充满着泪水说，虽然曾经出任大使，他从来没有感到这么的无助，因为他无法向女儿解释为什么马来西亚不能接受他的子女….
对于数以千计返回马来西亚服务的专才的外国籍配偶，她们的命运如何呢？她们本身可能是医药界专家、出众的科学工作者或很有经验的教师，但是，她们甚至不能享有永久居民的地位，而且也不获准在我国 – 丈夫的国家工作。
教育机会
在上个世纪90年代末之前，大量的马来西亚人为了子女的教育而移居外国。由于实行固打制和财务援助的问题，马来西亚人(尤其是非马来人)接受大学教育的机会很有限。不过，自从实行1996 年私立大学法令后，我国的高等教育机会迅速扩大。政府设立了高等教育贷学金计划，为所有学生，包括来自独立中学的学生提供财务援助，以及为所有卓越的学生开放公共服务局的奖学金后，所有有意继续升学的马来西亚学生，现在已经可以在国内实现他们深造的梦想。
虽然仍然有许多马来西亚人出国深造，但是，他们现在是因选择而出，而不再是非出国不可。
国内的社会政治问题
在这个地球村的世界，马来西亚人不断的接触世界环境。我们经常通过电视和媒体，看到、感受到和听到有关第一世界的生活方式、第一世界的民事社会结构以及第一世界的社会机制。许多马来西亚人对我国的社会政治机制运作不理想而感到失望，他们经常受到我国多元宗教和多元种族的背景存有的许多敏感问题所限制。
美国歌手碧昂斯曾经获准在吉隆坡演出，但是，由于一些人提出抗议而导致她不被允许进入我国。当然，她还是继续前往印尼演出，而且在雅加达吸引的广大群众创下了纪录。很多马来西亚人不能接受这种社会生活受到限制的例子，必然产生了外国（或许长提彼岸）的月亮比较圆的心理。
当然，马来西亚从来没有和世界其他国家认真建立公共关系，结果，经常受到世界媒体给以负面的报道。在海外的我国专业人士眼里，我国形象受到的破坏的程度更大。
令人欣慰的是，我国首相纳吉明确地了解这些问题。他目前通过落实新经济模式（包括强调实行以需求为基础的政策，而不是以种族为基础的政策），关键表现指数以及全民的一个马来西亚计划，做出了重大的改革。希望这些改革在今后一年内能够有结果，大大提升人民的“满意”因素，同时减少促成马来西亚人移居的社会政治环境因素。
第一世界的招揽政策
由于目前高科技的蓬勃成长，许多第一世界国家了解到，要攫取新的革兴产品和服务(iPads、 精明电话、纳米产品等)的市场，它们必须采取积极的步骤，立刻汇集专才，而不是通过自然的成长。这些先进国 (我也把新加坡和香港列入这个级别内) 实施了有关专才移居的吸引人的政策:
美国: 自由发出雇主赞助签证(H-1B)给拥有至少文科、理科、教育系以及其他学科学位的移民。
英国: 实行以一层极分数为主的移民计划。在这项计划下，移民必须根据年龄、经验和学历获取至少75分。
澳洲: 落实熟练移民计划。在这项计划下，申请者也是根据年龄、经验和学历，而受到评估和打分数。
新加坡: 在接到申请的3个工作日内，就发出雇主赞助工作签证 (计划 1)。在 计划 4之下， 新加坡蓄意招揽全世界的出众专业人士到该国定居。
香港: 欣然的根据分数制度发出工作准证；分数也是根据年龄、经验和学历进行评估。
在这些计划下，许多马来西亚人已经移居到这些国家，并且正在对它们的社会发展做出贡献。
6. 如何留住和聘用人才？
我国除了聘请非马来西亚籍的专才，传授和丰富我国的专门知识之外，还应该采取哪些措施，去留住国内现有的人才，以及吸引在海外的专才回国服务呢？显然的，这是我所要探讨和设法回答的问题。
首先，除了推动新经济模式和一个马来西亚计划所需要的改革之外，我国亦须立刻废除所有性别偏袒法例的障碍，因为它们阻止嫁给非马来西亚人的我国女性专才的丈夫和子女成为公民或获取永久居留权。除非这么做，否则，数以千计的马来西亚专才将永远不会再回国服务。
与此同时，数以千计已经回国服务的马来西亚人的妻子，应该立刻为她们发出永久居留权，甚至公民权，以便她们的专门知识，能够被国家充分使用。
只要取消这些法令，我国就能够立刻扩大人才的汇集。
第二， 我们必须和经济合作及发展组织国家磋商进行更多的国与国青年交换计划，例如马来西亚-纽西兰青年交换计划。过去几十年来，我国青年不断前往这些国家，现在，通过青年交换计划，我们至少可以开始吸引这些国家的一些青年前来我国。他们开始是作客，过后可能成为我国的专家。
第三， 我们应该摒弃冷战时期的思维而迎接挑战，立刻对工作准证、永久居留和公民权的政策作出改革。政府应该迅速批准雇主为专才申请的工作准证，以便他们能够引进在管理生意或工厂方面所需要的专门知识。此外，当局也应该为我国所聘请的高级专家提供永久居留的地位，因为它们为我国提供的服务，将带来革新，进而为我国人民提供成千上万的高收入工作。
既然我国能够批准成千上万的非熟练劳工，为什么就不能允许跨国公司所需要的工程师、科学工作者以及其他专才进入我国呢？
第四，我国需要重新检讨为吸引专业人士回国服务而落实的奖掖计划 。在人力资源部实行的“专家回归计划”下，每名被批准回归的专才，可以带回两辆免税的汽车 (申请者的累计收入也豁免抽税)。经济合作及发展组织国家根本没有提供这些优惠。
我国必须向其他国家的成功例子看齐，例如台湾在上个世纪80年代，为从美国回归的科学家成立了‘新竹科技园’。这些回归的科学家获得科研的地位，以创立事业，而他们的子女获得了教育援助金。台湾因而崛起为信息科技用品的主要出口经济体。韩国模仿美国的研究环境，成立了科技研究所，为回归的专才提供研究拨款以及管理自主的地位。如今，韩国的宽频渗透率达到了96%。即使是中国，也为回归的专才实行了“自由来往”的政策，以及设立特别发展区。
我国应该通过在各国的大使馆，进行鉴定和直接聘请分布在全世界的我国专才，使他们充当我国全球大使网络的部分成员。在他们的支持和进行亲善联系下，肯定有助于大大提升和改善我国的形象。他们当中甚至可以受促请在我国设立基地。如果他们有很好的计划，当局应该为他们提供创业资金以及科研基金，以便协助他们把这些计划转型为产品和服务。
我国现在开始落实这些政策来吸引专才，已经算是相当迟了。
我曾经和在海外的许多我国专才见面，他们向我表示，他们仍然想念马来西亚，而且怀念椰浆饭，我国多姿多彩的多元种族生活方式，以及相当没有压力性质的工作环境。同样的，在亚洲各城市当中，很多日本、美国和韩国专才比较喜欢选择在吉隆坡工作。
虽然目前吸引和聘请专才回国服务，可以说迟了一点，但是，至少我们知道，我们正在开始推动亲善活动。我国现在应该作出最全面的承诺，落实这些吸引及聘请计划，这样，我国要实现高收入经济体的计划，才得以在不久的将来实现。
完/
More...
国家经济咨询理事会最近发表有关新经济模式的报告指出，“我国并没有培养人才，反而正让人才外流”。报告又说，目前，有大约35万名马来西亚人在海外工作，其中半数以上拥有高等教育学历。反观马来西亚，百分之80以上的劳动力，只拥有马来西亚教育中学文凭水平的学历，而他们的薪金继续受到压制，因为我国很容易雇用到外劳，此外，他们也面对好比补贴和价格管制等的其他障碍。
这篇文章是要专注探讨令人担心的人才外流的一些现象。我认为，这种趋势将会严重挫败我国要攀上高收入经济体的目标。因此，我国应该立刻采取一些步骤，克服这些挑战。
1. 人才外流的开始
人才外流并不是新的现象，但是，全球化，以及信息科技的迅速成长，加速了人才外流的情况。马来亚人（１９６３年后称为马来西亚人）在１９５７年国家独立， 并且成为共和联邦成员国后，开始离乡背井前往海外深造和升学。当年，我国的大学教育是很有限，只有设在吉隆坡和新加坡的马来亚大学。许多有抱负和优秀的年 轻人由于能够掌握英语，而纷纷选择前往英国、澳洲以及其他英语系社会的国家升学（无论有没有获得父母的财务援助）。后来，各项援助计划，例如科伦坡计划和 共和联邦奖学金推出后，进一步强化出国深造的现象。自上个世纪６０年代初以来，在我国一些机构，好比玛拉、公共服务局、国家能源公司以及国家石油公司提供 奖学金下，我国成千上万优秀的学生被保送出国接受高等教育。
这些学生在完成学业后，有的选择留下来工作，因为那里有更好的就业机会；有些选择留在外国，原因是他们比较喜欢异乡的新生活方式和社会环境；而有的马来西 亚学生，好比女性则嫁给当地人而不得不留下来，因为在马来西亚的法例下，她们的子女不能成为马来西亚公民或永久居民。
2. 人才外流比预计中更加严重
根据世界银行的统计，1960年，旅居海外的马来西亚人只有9,576名 ，而当年世界登记的移民总数是平均每个国家 38万2千912 名。到了 2005年，世界登记的移民总数增加到平均每个国家 91万9千302名，提高了 2.4 倍。然而，过去 45年来，马来西亚的移民人数则激升到 148万9千168名，增加了将近一百倍。
在1981年，在澳洲定居的马来西亚人是 3万1千589名，到了2007年，人数则增加到 9万2千337 名 (参阅表一) 。1981年定居英国的马来西亚人是 4万5千430名，而到2007年则增加到 6万1千人。移居美国的我国人数变化最大，在1981年只有1万1千零1名，但是，由于美国积极引进杰出的专 才，到了2007年，移居美国的马来西亚人数激增到5万4千321名。同样的，邻国新加坡也大量招揽马来西亚专才，移居到该国的马来西亚人数，从1981 年的12万零104名，增加到2000年的30万3千828名。
表一: 在海外的马来西亚移民形势
从整个数据看来已是严重的现象，但对移民数据的进一步分析，更加令人担忧。
世界银行发布的报告显示，在1990年，接受高深教育的马来西亚人定居于经济合作及发展组织国家的人数达到大约7万2千649名，其中移居澳洲的人数最多，共有 3万4千716名， 接下来是美国，1万2千315名，以及英国9千812名 (参阅表二)。最新的数据显示，在 2000年，接受高深教育的马来西亚人定居于经济合作及发展组织国家的人数，增加了40.84%。2000年，留在经济合作及发展组织国家的马来西亚大学毕业生人数共有10万2千321名，占了移居这些国家的马来西亚人总数(13万2千468)的77.2% 。 (参阅表三).
表二: 接受高深教育的马来西亚人定居于“经济合作及发展组织”国家形势
表三: 2000年接受高深教育的移民定居于“经济合作及发展组织”国家的人数
而我国失去的是哪些大学毕业生？
以经济合作及发展组织国家的外国出生医务人员的数据为例子：在2000年我国的医院严重缺乏护士和医生的时候，却有7,431 名马来西亚护士、 4,129 名医生、 652 名牙医以及 798 名药剂师在经济合作及发展组织国家工作 (参阅表四)
表四: 2000年在“经济合作及发展组织”国家的外国出生医药人员
另一方面，由于全球目前对高科技的殷切需求与日俱增，导致美国需要大量的科技研究员，进而加剧了从发展中世界(包括马来西亚)的专才移居美国的趋势。表五显示，在 2003年，共有 7,955 马来西亚的科技研究员在美国工作，而留在我国服务的科技研究员人数只剩下 1万零419 名。
表五: 2003年受聘于美国的科技研究员
3. 不光是我国损失人才
然而，在全球高度竞争的环境中，必须指出的是，不光是马来西亚的顶尖人才流向经济合作及发展组织国家。
表三显示，也是经济合作及发展组织成员国的韩国，有88万5千885名公民移居该组织的其他成员国，其中65万2千894人 (73.7%)是大学毕业生，占了韩国总人口的大约 1.39%。印度则有１５０万人移居“经济合作及发展组织”国家，其中 69.0%是大学毕业生。
即使比马来西亚富裕，但面积小很多的邻国新加坡，在2000 年也有6万7千560 名公民移居经济合作及发展组织国家，其中 5万零１９名是大学毕业生，占移民总数的74%，比马来西亚稍微低。从大学生移民对总人口的比例看来，新加坡流失的人才，显然比马来西亚还要多，因为在经济合作及发展组织国家的大学生总数，新加坡人占1.24%，马来西亚人只占0.44%。难怪新加坡目前还在想方设法，招揽长堤彼岸的优秀马来西亚专才。
此外，表三显示，也许，印尼和泰国“出口”到经济合作及发展组织国家人口和劳动力中占比较高的比例，但是只有大约 40% 的移民曾接受高等教育。主要原因是，接受高等教育的劳动力，只有少部分能够掌握英文，因此，他们要加入经济合作及发展组织国家的高科技工作行列，面对很大的困难。
表四也显示，不光是我国流失医药人才。菲律宾目前有 11万零577名护士以及1万5千859 名医生在经济合作及发展组织国家定居。此外，来自台湾的5千332 名医生， 香港的 2千798 名医生，甚至来自新加坡的 1千356 名医生也在这些国家落户。至于科技研究员，表五显示，在 2003 年，移居美国的中国科技研究员共有15万8 千524名 (占国内科技研究员总数的17.5%)，越南研究员有 4万4千236 名 (等于国内科技研究员总数的4.5 倍)，香港研究员有2万6千602 名 (等于国内科技研究员总数的2.1 倍)。与这些国家和地区的成千上万移民相比，在美国工作的7千多名我国科学工作者人数，实际上只是小数目。当然，我们不应该因此而感到安慰。
表三、表四和表五的数据，说明了21世纪的全球环境、经济合作及发展组织国家拥有的先进设施、蓬勃的社会机制、世界一些知名的大学和研究所，以及欣欣向荣的市场，都是吸取发展中世界专业人士的强大天然磁场。
4. 然而我国获得了什么？
我国目前拥有大约 250万名非熟练的合法和非法外劳。其中有大约65万名在制造业工作，其次是在建筑业工作，有大约30万名。另外有22万名当家庭女佣，其余的则分别在服务业、园丘业和农业领域工作。光是服务业就雇佣了大约40万名外劳，他们主要做侍应生、保安员、普通工人和清洁工人的工作。
我国对非熟练外劳习以为常的依赖，已经深化，并达到许多制造业工厂以及棕油的出口(例如森那美、 IOI集团和KLK等园丘)，因为没有他们工作而必须停止运作的程度。根据万达镇商业大楼的一名执行人员说，餐饮业目前有高达90% 的工人是外劳。因此，我们现在向他们点菜和点饮料时，无法以马来文、华语、英语或任何我们所通晓的语言和他们沟通，已经不再令人感到出奇！
结果，我国获得到底是谁呢?
表六: 在马来西亚的移民原籍
表六显示，在2000年，共有62万7千700名印尼人在马来西亚工作，菲律宾工人共有12万4千600名，孟加拉国人 5万5千200 名，中国人 5万3千500 名，而来自印度的工人有 4万8千名。虽然资料没有说明这些工人的技术水平，但是，假定他们当中有许多的专业人士，那可是天真的想法。
表六也显示，在2000年，只有 5,750 名美国公民； 8,800 名日本人； 3,100 名澳洲人以及 1,250 名纽西兰人 (都是经济合作及发展组织成员国的公民)在马来西亚定居。同样的，资料没有说明他们的技术水平，但是，我们可以说，他们大多数是在制造业和服务领域工作的专才或专业人士。
这符合国家经济咨询理事会最近发表有关新经济模式的报告内容。这份报告说，我国的专才人数，在2000年有将近 9万名，而到了2008年，专才人数减少了将近半数。结果是，“我国缺乏具有活力的专才，去推动马来西亚开展更高的加值活动”。
表三到表五显现的趋势，说明我国的人才外流现象是严重的。表六显示，我国正在设法招揽回国服务的专才，却没有回来。当然，表三到表五也说明，不光是我国流失人才。
我们是否能够因而有充足的理由感到安慰？我认为不能。因为其他国家已经采取步骤，想方设法纠正问题，然而，我国还是无动于衷，完全没有试图去解决所面对的挑战。
5. 为什么马来西亚会流失人才？
这个问题已经受到广泛的讨论，不过，让我概述我国流失人才的原因。
法例问题
正如我在文章开头所叙述一样，在马来西亚的法例下，一名马来西亚女性在海外嫁给了非马来西亚人，她所生下的孩子不能获得马来西亚公民权，甚至不能享有永久居民的地位。这造成大批的专才，不得不选择定居海外，而不愿回国服务。
我记得，拿督赛诺鲁查曼 (一名退休的马来西亚大使) 上个月在一项晚宴上告诉我，他的女儿是在公共服务局保送下前往都柏林攻读医科，她经过多年的努力后，考获了医药专科学位而成为专科医生。然而，令人遗憾的是，由于她嫁给了一名挪威同学，她所生下的孩子被列为马来西亚非公民，而不能回国服务。拿督赛诺鲁查曼眼眶充满着泪水说，虽然曾经出任大使，他从来没有感到这么的无助，因为他无法向女儿解释为什么马来西亚不能接受他的子女….
对于数以千计返回马来西亚服务的专才的外国籍配偶，她们的命运如何呢？她们本身可能是医药界专家、出众的科学工作者或很有经验的教师，但是，她们甚至不能享有永久居民的地位，而且也不获准在我国 – 丈夫的国家工作。
教育机会
在上个世纪90年代末之前，大量的马来西亚人为了子女的教育而移居外国。由于实行固打制和财务援助的问题，马来西亚人(尤其是非马来人)接受大学教育的机会很有限。不过，自从实行1996 年私立大学法令后，我国的高等教育机会迅速扩大。政府设立了高等教育贷学金计划，为所有学生，包括来自独立中学的学生提供财务援助，以及为所有卓越的学生开放公共服务局的奖学金后，所有有意继续升学的马来西亚学生，现在已经可以在国内实现他们深造的梦想。
虽然仍然有许多马来西亚人出国深造，但是，他们现在是因选择而出，而不再是非出国不可。
国内的社会政治问题
在这个地球村的世界，马来西亚人不断的接触世界环境。我们经常通过电视和媒体，看到、感受到和听到有关第一世界的生活方式、第一世界的民事社会结构以及第一世界的社会机制。许多马来西亚人对我国的社会政治机制运作不理想而感到失望，他们经常受到我国多元宗教和多元种族的背景存有的许多敏感问题所限制。
美国歌手碧昂斯曾经获准在吉隆坡演出，但是，由于一些人提出抗议而导致她不被允许进入我国。当然，她还是继续前往印尼演出，而且在雅加达吸引的广大群众创下了纪录。很多马来西亚人不能接受这种社会生活受到限制的例子，必然产生了外国（或许长提彼岸）的月亮比较圆的心理。
当然，马来西亚从来没有和世界其他国家认真建立公共关系，结果，经常受到世界媒体给以负面的报道。在海外的我国专业人士眼里，我国形象受到的破坏的程度更大。
令人欣慰的是，我国首相纳吉明确地了解这些问题。他目前通过落实新经济模式（包括强调实行以需求为基础的政策，而不是以种族为基础的政策），关键表现指数以及全民的一个马来西亚计划，做出了重大的改革。希望这些改革在今后一年内能够有结果，大大提升人民的“满意”因素，同时减少促成马来西亚人移居的社会政治环境因素。
第一世界的招揽政策
由于目前高科技的蓬勃成长，许多第一世界国家了解到，要攫取新的革兴产品和服务(iPads、 精明电话、纳米产品等)的市场，它们必须采取积极的步骤，立刻汇集专才，而不是通过自然的成长。这些先进国 (我也把新加坡和香港列入这个级别内) 实施了有关专才移居的吸引人的政策:
美国: 自由发出雇主赞助签证(H-1B)给拥有至少文科、理科、教育系以及其他学科学位的移民。
英国: 实行以一层极分数为主的移民计划。在这项计划下，移民必须根据年龄、经验和学历获取至少75分。
澳洲: 落实熟练移民计划。在这项计划下，申请者也是根据年龄、经验和学历，而受到评估和打分数。
新加坡: 在接到申请的3个工作日内，就发出雇主赞助工作签证 (计划 1)。在 计划 4之下， 新加坡蓄意招揽全世界的出众专业人士到该国定居。
香港: 欣然的根据分数制度发出工作准证；分数也是根据年龄、经验和学历进行评估。
在这些计划下，许多马来西亚人已经移居到这些国家，并且正在对它们的社会发展做出贡献。
6. 如何留住和聘用人才？
我国除了聘请非马来西亚籍的专才，传授和丰富我国的专门知识之外，还应该采取哪些措施，去留住国内现有的人才，以及吸引在海外的专才回国服务呢？显然的，这是我所要探讨和设法回答的问题。
首先，除了推动新经济模式和一个马来西亚计划所需要的改革之外，我国亦须立刻废除所有性别偏袒法例的障碍，因为它们阻止嫁给非马来西亚人的我国女性专才的丈夫和子女成为公民或获取永久居留权。除非这么做，否则，数以千计的马来西亚专才将永远不会再回国服务。
与此同时，数以千计已经回国服务的马来西亚人的妻子，应该立刻为她们发出永久居留权，甚至公民权，以便她们的专门知识，能够被国家充分使用。
只要取消这些法令，我国就能够立刻扩大人才的汇集。
第二， 我们必须和经济合作及发展组织国家磋商进行更多的国与国青年交换计划，例如马来西亚-纽西兰青年交换计划。过去几十年来，我国青年不断前往这些国家，现在，通过青年交换计划，我们至少可以开始吸引这些国家的一些青年前来我国。他们开始是作客，过后可能成为我国的专家。
第三， 我们应该摒弃冷战时期的思维而迎接挑战，立刻对工作准证、永久居留和公民权的政策作出改革。政府应该迅速批准雇主为专才申请的工作准证，以便他们能够引进在管理生意或工厂方面所需要的专门知识。此外，当局也应该为我国所聘请的高级专家提供永久居留的地位，因为它们为我国提供的服务，将带来革新，进而为我国人民提供成千上万的高收入工作。
既然我国能够批准成千上万的非熟练劳工，为什么就不能允许跨国公司所需要的工程师、科学工作者以及其他专才进入我国呢？
第四，我国需要重新检讨为吸引专业人士回国服务而落实的奖掖计划 。在人力资源部实行的“专家回归计划”下，每名被批准回归的专才，可以带回两辆免税的汽车 (申请者的累计收入也豁免抽税)。经济合作及发展组织国家根本没有提供这些优惠。
我国必须向其他国家的成功例子看齐，例如台湾在上个世纪80年代，为从美国回归的科学家成立了‘新竹科技园’。这些回归的科学家获得科研的地位，以创立事业，而他们的子女获得了教育援助金。台湾因而崛起为信息科技用品的主要出口经济体。韩国模仿美国的研究环境，成立了科技研究所，为回归的专才提供研究拨款以及管理自主的地位。如今，韩国的宽频渗透率达到了96%。即使是中国，也为回归的专才实行了“自由来往”的政策，以及设立特别发展区。
我国应该通过在各国的大使馆，进行鉴定和直接聘请分布在全世界的我国专才，使他们充当我国全球大使网络的部分成员。在他们的支持和进行亲善联系下，肯定有助于大大提升和改善我国的形象。他们当中甚至可以受促请在我国设立基地。如果他们有很好的计划，当局应该为他们提供创业资金以及科研基金，以便协助他们把这些计划转型为产品和服务。
我国现在开始落实这些政策来吸引专才，已经算是相当迟了。
我曾经和在海外的许多我国专才见面，他们向我表示，他们仍然想念马来西亚，而且怀念椰浆饭，我国多姿多彩的多元种族生活方式，以及相当没有压力性质的工作环境。同样的，在亚洲各城市当中，很多日本、美国和韩国专才比较喜欢选择在吉隆坡工作。
虽然目前吸引和聘请专才回国服务，可以说迟了一点，但是，至少我们知道，我们正在开始推动亲善活动。我国现在应该作出最全面的承诺，落实这些吸引及聘请计划，这样，我国要实现高收入经济体的计划，才得以在不久的将来实现。
完/
More...
Figures that matter
by Fong Chan Onn
Much has been articulated about how the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is not reflective of the purchases of ordinary Malaysians anymore. This is especially true for the low to middle income wage earners, where the bulk of the population sits. The reported CPI in Malaysia has been increasing by about 3% per annum for the last three decades, while the world CPI has gone up 3,000 times over the same period. So much so, that housewives scoff when they are told that prices of goods and services are only increasing at 3% a year. Taxi drivers screamed everytime their vehicles are up for a service because they are charged for spare-parts and servicing which go up by at least 10% annually.
Their scepticism stems not from disbelief in the institution's calculation, but the sheer stress that they have to bear from having to make ends meet, particularly those living in the urban areas. It also makes the ordinary citizens think that politicians and the policy makers are completely disconnected from the realities of Malaysian life, cocooned in making decisions that do not reflect the hardship that they have to bear.
Employers and trade unions, when making yearly adjustments to wages levels, use the CPI as the basis for salary increments. Trade unions' grosses are justified in the case of arguing that wage levels are not enough for a typical household to survive. However, they are equally frustrated with the system, as there is no other index or basis for greater wage increments.
It must be recognized that central to the “middle income trap” is, in fact, directly due to the way the CPI is being skewed and suppressed. The table below shows the breakdown of the weightage allotted for the various broad categories of items consumed on a daily basis. “Food and non-alcoholic beverages” and “Housing, water, electricity, gas and others fuels” make up over 52.8% of the weightage. Without going into the finer details of what the actual items are in these two categories, it is suffice to say that most of the items are either heavily subsidised or, price controlled. Like sugar, flour, water, petrol, electricity and so forth.
The dislocation in the CPI and the real prices paid by a household becomes more obvious when we consider that we do not just consume flour and sugar in its raw form, but in value added items like cooked food and beverages. Eating out in coffee-shops or warungs certainly include prepared items such as cooked fish, vegetable and prawns which are always levied at market prices, but not captured in the CPI. Transport which makes up 15.9% of the weightage does not take into account hire purchase for cars or motorcycles or the cost of imported spare-parts for their repair. Construction materials such as cement and clinker maybe price controlled but for certain the prices of houses and rental are determined at the markets rates which are not subject to regulation.
Mobile devices have become an integral part of our daily lives. Most of us have to pay bills for SMSes, telephone calls and data download that are not included in the communication category.
The impact of an artificially low inflation rate is as follows;
The implications of having an unrealistic CPI is a very serious matter, not to be brushed aside as mere grumblings of the Rakyat. However, just like in the treatment of the removal of subsidies and price controls, proper safety nets must be in place to protect the lower income and vulnerable groups. The general price levels of the basket of goods and services will no doubt adjust itself as subsidies and controlled items are subsequently removed but this has to be done gradually to prevent hyper-inflation. And additional items such as communication devices and computers will have to be introduced to reflect a more competitive and advanced Malaysia.
Next to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the CPI is probably the most important economic
indicator that all governments utilize to gauge the health of an economy. As the CPI is the basis of many policy benchmarks with very far reaching implications in the management of an economy and the wealth of a nation, a strong case of a more realistic mechanism for the computation of CPI is timely and much needed in an open and globally connected economy like Malaysia.
End/
More...
Much has been articulated about how the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is not reflective of the purchases of ordinary Malaysians anymore. This is especially true for the low to middle income wage earners, where the bulk of the population sits. The reported CPI in Malaysia has been increasing by about 3% per annum for the last three decades, while the world CPI has gone up 3,000 times over the same period. So much so, that housewives scoff when they are told that prices of goods and services are only increasing at 3% a year. Taxi drivers screamed everytime their vehicles are up for a service because they are charged for spare-parts and servicing which go up by at least 10% annually.
Their scepticism stems not from disbelief in the institution's calculation, but the sheer stress that they have to bear from having to make ends meet, particularly those living in the urban areas. It also makes the ordinary citizens think that politicians and the policy makers are completely disconnected from the realities of Malaysian life, cocooned in making decisions that do not reflect the hardship that they have to bear.
Employers and trade unions, when making yearly adjustments to wages levels, use the CPI as the basis for salary increments. Trade unions' grosses are justified in the case of arguing that wage levels are not enough for a typical household to survive. However, they are equally frustrated with the system, as there is no other index or basis for greater wage increments.
It must be recognized that central to the “middle income trap” is, in fact, directly due to the way the CPI is being skewed and suppressed. The table below shows the breakdown of the weightage allotted for the various broad categories of items consumed on a daily basis. “Food and non-alcoholic beverages” and “Housing, water, electricity, gas and others fuels” make up over 52.8% of the weightage. Without going into the finer details of what the actual items are in these two categories, it is suffice to say that most of the items are either heavily subsidised or, price controlled. Like sugar, flour, water, petrol, electricity and so forth.
The dislocation in the CPI and the real prices paid by a household becomes more obvious when we consider that we do not just consume flour and sugar in its raw form, but in value added items like cooked food and beverages. Eating out in coffee-shops or warungs certainly include prepared items such as cooked fish, vegetable and prawns which are always levied at market prices, but not captured in the CPI. Transport which makes up 15.9% of the weightage does not take into account hire purchase for cars or motorcycles or the cost of imported spare-parts for their repair. Construction materials such as cement and clinker maybe price controlled but for certain the prices of houses and rental are determined at the markets rates which are not subject to regulation.
Mobile devices have become an integral part of our daily lives. Most of us have to pay bills for SMSes, telephone calls and data download that are not included in the communication category.
The impact of an artificially low inflation rate is as follows;
- Important business decisions are based on the inflation rate, and this can mislead the private sector into making business judgements that are off-the-mark costing the economy billions in losses.
- It leads to wages being artificially suppressed, creating a widening income gap between Malaysians working domestically and those working outside of the country. This, in turn,exacerbates the 'brain drain' problem.
- With low wages, we are not able to attract outside talent into Malaysia even though our goods and services are supposedly cheaper.
- Creates a technology gap making Malaysia uncompetitive. Technology goods and services become expensive for Malaysians to purchase, including things like iPhones, Blackberry, iPads which are soon becoming everyday items.
- Continued reliance on cheap foreign exchange rate to ensure that Malaysian goods remain competitive but this is an unsustainable strategy in the long run.
- With a cheap currency, we cannot afford to purchase the most advanced machinery and technology leading to poor fixed asset/capital build-up. This also explains part of the problem of sluggish private sector investments.
The implications of having an unrealistic CPI is a very serious matter, not to be brushed aside as mere grumblings of the Rakyat. However, just like in the treatment of the removal of subsidies and price controls, proper safety nets must be in place to protect the lower income and vulnerable groups. The general price levels of the basket of goods and services will no doubt adjust itself as subsidies and controlled items are subsequently removed but this has to be done gradually to prevent hyper-inflation. And additional items such as communication devices and computers will have to be introduced to reflect a more competitive and advanced Malaysia.
Next to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the CPI is probably the most important economic
indicator that all governments utilize to gauge the health of an economy. As the CPI is the basis of many policy benchmarks with very far reaching implications in the management of an economy and the wealth of a nation, a strong case of a more realistic mechanism for the computation of CPI is timely and much needed in an open and globally connected economy like Malaysia.
End/
More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
