Selangor has rather arrogantly declared that it is now \’a developed state\’. Rather strangely, it did not use the services of any of the development agencies, either global or local, to verify its definition and declaration.
The Economic Planning Unit (EPU) in the Prime Minister\’s Department or the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) would have been a credible authority for such a verification process but Selangor appears to know better, I suppose, since it is \’developed\’.
Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi\’s query remains valid: what methodology did Selangor use?
A very poor attempt to explain the methodology was revealed via a supplement in the New Straits Times last Saturday, but this raises more questions.
The concept of development has been defined in various and different ways. It ranges from pure idealism to absolute pragmatism. But, most recently in 2000, globally, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are a definition that has been accepted by all the UN member-countries.
In Malaysia, the UNDP collaboratively with the EPU assessed and reviewed the country\’s success in terms of the MDGs. In fact, the PM launched that report of assessment. Although Malaysia did well in most of the eight MDG areas, there are a number of areas in which there was a lot of room for improvement.
The MDGs are the subject of an on-going dialogue in the development community, with most recently the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia and UNDP hosting a high-level policy dialogue on the achievement targets of the MDGs under the Ninth Malaysia Plan.
Moreover, through Vision 2020, former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 1991 also clearly defined the qualitative dimension of what it means to be a developed nation in our own mould. The Vision 2020 defined nine challenges of becoming a developed nation.
Even more significantly, within the National IT Agenda launched in 1996, the concept of a values-based knowledge society was also evolved. Within this, both the social and economic dimensions of a developed society were clearly defined.
It introduced ICT and the concepts of the information and knowledge age into the notions of a developed society.
Point lost
Against this backdrop of the definitions of development, it is sad that the very point about becoming a developed society has been undermined by the Selangor government by the less than credible process of declaration.
To have engaged and deployed non-development agencies and less than credible partners outside of the development paradigm to self-declare developed status reminds me of the jaguh kampung (big fish in small pond) phenomena.
When I was younger and lived in Sungai Petani, I had a good friend who used to declare \”that John is the best sepak takraw player in Kampung Raja, Sungai Petani.\” Then, he would conclude, \”and I am the second best player\”!
There are various and mixed motives for one to declare oneself as a success or a champion. Depending on one\’s motives, that definition can either be good or bad or misleading.
It is not without reason therefore that there is an on-going debate on whether Hang Jebat or Hang Tuah is the real hero of the Melaka Sultanate, now that the Sultan of Melaka is no more.
Malaysia is too small a country to simply evolve very local and narrowly defined concepts of development. Any definition of development by Malaysia today must be externally linked to have any external meaning and interpretable capability.
Of course, we could have some very internal definitions, but surely they must be attested to by the responsible and relevant national development agencies. In this case that agency must be the EPU.
The state government does not have either the jurisdiction or the credibility to declare it has attained developed status based on its own whims and fancies. Such tendencies create more questions than answers, as the Selangor definition shows.