The failure of the 'Brain Gain' scheme (of the 94 who came 93 left) can be explained as a microcosm of the 'culture of denial' of the wider society. (The term 'denial' here, is used in the context of a refusal to submit to or accept what is known to be correct, simply because of one's own professional incompetence and incapacity).

The specific reasons for the 'dismal failure' of the scheme have yet to be determined, but anyone who has worked for any length of time at the policy level in the civil service, being a member of the university academia, and/or engaged in innovative research and in implementation of strategies, will agree that possibly the most compelling reason for the failure of the scheme is likely to be this 'culture of denial'.

The highly academically and professionally qualified and experienced returning Malaysians exposed, as they had been to the 'state of the art' knowledge base, new technology, research methodology and tested implementation strategies, would have presented their local counterparts with a scenario where the latter felt 'threatened'. This is because they themselves could not 'zero into' the new ideas, plans and outcome proposals in a meaningful way. Therefore, as a defensive mechanism and so as not to expose their own incompetence and incapacity the local counterparts 'play down' or 'block' the implementation of suggestions for new developments, changes, and strategies. Worse, they could simply ignore or refuse to implement them.

This is the genesis of the 'culture of denial'. It does not matter if major plans and projects fall short of implementation targets or end in failure or even if it exacerbates the racial and social class polarisation resulting in the political stability of the nation being adversely affected.

This culture takes on special meaning in the context of not being a one-off phenomenon as identified in the 'Peter Principle' which recognises that "in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to the level of his incompetence". Therefore it follows that the denial syndrome of the senior professionals will tend to become entrenched and percolate down the line to the other levels as well. This means that the entire system gradually becomes stagnated and stunted within a status quo orientation, which by definition, will be inimical to progressive social changes.

Racial dimension

In this connection I am indebted to Rose Ismail for providing specific arguments that are relevant to this analysis in an article entitled 'Iron out chinks before embarking on brain gain scheme' (NST 26/9/04).

The denial culture also applies to situations where she says"specialists are caught in the internal politics of a ministry or department that they only want to flee". Moreover there is "the interminable silence when big and small decisions have to be made" and quoting a specific source adds, "We (the specialists) are strung along and treated as if we have no right to know anything". Most pertinently she includes the 'racial' dimension as well that can be seen to further aggravate the denial syndrome in the comment "Some say race has contributed significantly to the problem. A number of specialists claim they are treated like second class citizens in a system dominated by one race".

Rose goes on to make an insightful observation that perhaps "weakness in the system rather than racial discrimination is (may be) the cause of the problem". I believe that weaknesses of the system can 'cause' the denial syndrome.

We shall now examine existing weaknesses of the system in specific areas resulting in the culture of denial.

It is internationally recognised that the one tested way to address such a problem as the culture of denial would be through the education system. It is not simply a matter of education as an end in itself or as a status symbol, but rather in terms of the acquisition of relevant meaningful skills and abilities backed by a sound knowledge base and in the context of life-long learning.

But in the local context of our multiracial society the above analysis of the denial culture takes on a more poignant and defining political/ pragmatic significance. It is a fact that as a result of the government affirmative action policies, particularly at the levels and in the areas identified as above, there is now a preponderance of Malays, so that it is true to say that any radical changes, must come from this cadre of personnel.

Therefore the moot question is whether public universities are turning out the right caliber of Malay graduates to break out of this culture of denial? Unfortunately the answer must be a resounding 'No' because more than 90 percent of unemployed graduates from pubic universities are bumiputras (mostly Malays). This means that when they eventually find jobs (after re-training) and with the affirmative action policy in place they will in turn become the new generation of those subscribing to the culture of denial.

But it is not as though these graduates themselves are to be entirely blamed for this situation. In an article on Asia Times Online (Southeast Asia) entitled 'Umno elections, a time for re-invention' Anil Netto quotes Assoc Prof Zainal Abidin Kidam, director of corporate planning, University Putra Malaysia as asking the question,"Are we in limbo or what? There is not even one local university that really excels in either teaching or research and development, let alone consultancy."

On this basis it seems fair to conclude that local universities themselves are producing Malay graduates that amply 'fit the bill' for the denial syndrome.

Education system

It must also be mentioned that the education system can be held accountable for contributing to this denial culture particularly for Malay students because of the lack of exposure to the English language. From the colonial background when Malay students were prevented from learning English, the switch to the Malay medium as the sole language of instruction, without English as a second language, put these students at a further disadvantage from benefiting from a comprehensive university education.

Indeed, it can even be argued that by not being 'forced' to study English as a new language the way Chinese and Indian students had to learn the Malay language, Malay students did not have to learn something entirely new; although of course they were also required to study Malay as a language. The point is, they were not required to mentally discipline themselves to learn something academically which was completely and totally new from what they had been used to.

In other words, generally speaking, since the colonial days Malay students were not motivated to develop a new mental frame of mind conducive to the acquisition of new knowledge and life long learning. In fact this situation also negatively affects Malay students at overseas universities. The lack of fluency in the English language seriously limits their ability to benefit from the kind of educational exposure that would otherwise have been possible in a foreign setting. It is therefore not surprising to find their pattern of interaction among students largely limited to themselves.

Then again because of the weakness in the English language many register for 'soft' disciplines or 'area studies' where maximum emphasis is given to 'field work' and course assignments. As a result, if an advertisement for a position say in advertising or public relations in the local media, it is not uncommon to find applicants with a variety of qualifications some bordering on the 'exotic' if not weird!

Therefore once again these graduates can be expected to be suitable candidates for the denial syndrome for the reasons advanced as above.

Breaking out

One way to 'break out' of this denial culture and to reach out to the rakyat is through the introduction of development projects within the framework of participatory democracy at grass roots level from a bottom-top perspective. In fact the initial success of Tun Abdul Razak's 'Red Book' strategy while internationally hailed, has regrettably been abandoned in Malaysia largely because of this denial culture. The failure of the many social institutions set up for the implementation of the 'Red Book' strategy is ample testimony to the failure.

It is therefore very encouraging to note that Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has indicated that priority will be given to development projects under rural development and agriculture. But the major problem once again is whether the government has the capacity and the capability to implement the plans and projects?

This is a serious problem because it is well known that many projects under the respective Five Year Plans had been delayed or even abandoned because of the lack of expertise. Perhaps it may not be out of place to highlight what may be extraordinary example. The UNDP was commissioned by the government to undertake a social impact assessment of Felda and as the lead sociologist I prepared and submitted the report in June 2002.

To the best of my knowledge the report has not to date been read and therefore the recommendations not acted on. Indeed I am prepared to say this report has among its findings and recommendations many concerns that have direct relevance to the current Felda 'listing' exercise and would most certainly have made the exercise more viable. As it stands the government has now announced that the exercise has been put on 'hold'.

The ministers for agriculture and national unity respectively have appointed advisory committees to assist in the planning and implementation process. But with respect, appointing a large number of individuals to these committees is surely not the best move forward. The fact that many are VIP's and others without direct involvement and hands-on experiences suggests that their recommendations may not be that relevant. Indeed also appointing retired officers from the respective ministries may not be such a bright idea especially considering that they themselves might have been responsible in the first place for the 'failures' mentioned above.

Finally, Rose correctly pointed out that "the country needs a bunch of experts here and there to help kick-start programmes and projects" and adds that perhaps we should "make do with what we have".

The question is will the denial culture permit 'local' experts who are not bumiputra to be appointed?

DR COLLIN ABRAHAM holds a doctorate degree in race relations from Oxford. He was initially a civil servant attached to the Ministry of Welfare as well as undertook research projects with the Ministry of Rural Development and EPU. He was subsequently seconded to Universiti Sains Malaysia where he was associate professor in sociology, and more recently visiting fellow.