I am not at all surprised that the government had to backtrack on the Institut Jantung Negara decision. I pray that the bad plan will be stopped permanently. The so-called ‘privatisation’ was a public policy which was begun by governments all over the world around the late 1970s and early 1980s on the assumption that there were some tasks that the private sector could perform and manage better than the public sector.

To move this policy forward positively, the government of Malaysia even had a ‘master plan for privatisation’ which listed all the potential projects which were open to such ‘baton-passing’ from the public to the private sector.

But after 20 years of this so-called policy, the sad truth is that this policy unfortunately became a backdoor way for privately-connected and government-linked interests to acquire public sector cash cows for their own purposes of asset stripping agendas. Only a full-fledged review of the privatisation policy will prove what I mean; that is if the government is prepared to undertake such a review. If they are now, I then wonder even more why.

Therefore, over the years, after the very well known UEM North-South Highway case made it to the courts, another phrase earned more popularity as an aberration of the real concept of privatisation. The policy was euphemistically called ‘piratisation’. By the term ‘piratisation’, I mean a very private, purpose-driven agenda of taking-over public agendas and national assets but stripping them off their real economic value which then contributes to public service disservice vide increased costs.

In fact, I would venture to say that by the end of the 1990s, ‘piratisation’ was the main order of the day. In fact, the project management function of the Treasury became the primary agenda of the EPU which was traditionally responsible for a longer-term planning agenda for development. Under this unpublished agenda any thing and non-thing that could be ‘hijacked’ was taken over by dubious private interests under the rubric of privatisation.

Thereby, even local authorities were selling public land spaces to billboard companies as their version of a ‘piratisation policy’. The worst case I was aware of was when some private individuals even ‘piratised’ the printing and distribution of PMR trial exam papers in Selangor, for a price under an obvious abuse of the so-called policy.

I even wrote to the secretary-general of finance to protest it, but never received a reply. In short, modern day pirates are much like the ones who operate in the Somalian and international waters. They begin attacking all available public places and spaces with their very private intent and agenda. The government colludes and assists them to do it under very favourable terms only to bail them out after the asset-stripping.

Why else, for example, would the government have even tolerated the idea that the Stadium Merdeka could be sold and demolished for private interests? In another time and under different circumstances, such proponents may even have been put in jail for behaving like anti- nationalists!

Scheming for greed

Under a similar inspiration, all public spaces, whether green lungs or highlands, were also abused for private development purposes. Therefore, behind my house, for example, a 30-year old playground and skating ring plus badminton courts were taken over for ‘the development of a religious place.’ In the meantime, our children who lost their playgrounds are driven into the malls doing their new religious thing called ‘lepak-ing.’ But that is another issue and another question for another day.

The operating rule of the day was that making ‘greed money’ was legitimate so long as it is done in a ‘technically legitimate way.’ Forget the original intentions of the developers and designers; forget that it is a public utility and meant only for public services, without regard to wealth or status or income level of the patients. Forget the fact that the prime mover of the project was none other than the former prime minister who risked his life by choosing to have his heart surgery at home with limited facilities, instead of going abroad.

And, with that risk, thereafter, was born that idea of a National Heart Institute. To me, the very fact that the word ‘national’ was used in the project, already defines the public intentions of such a project; and one must always think twice and three times before tinkering with such a national asset, whether it is called Stadium Merdeka or the IJN.

But, sadly, even the so-called board of governors of this so-called national GLC flagship have lost their traditional values and are scheming for greed. The public-listed Sime Darby does not have the sense or sufficient pride to discern nobler values in the interest of this nation. Much like the famous cartoon depicted by Lat in the heydays of the oil wealth, and much like the then arrogant Arabs, we think everything, including the British crown jewels, is up for sale.

I could see why a GLC like Sime Darby may want to seek to own the National Heart Institute but it would only be to fulfill their Corporate Social Responsibility to the nation. After all, given their limited experience in running hospitals, they may even have some competence and expertise to run the IJN. But why do it through the back-door? Most importantly, why not talk to all the stakeholders first? Why not first and foremost talk to the real knowledge asset owners of the IJN - the surgeons and skilled staff, who number almost in the hundreds, but all of whom have been also educated and trained with government funds.

You see, the IJN, unlike infrastructure projects of the past, including large estates or even like the Felda corporation, are run by what Peter Drucker has called ‘knowledge workers’. In fact, Peter Drucker, the world-famous management guru, called the surgical team the best example of such a team of knowledge workers. Such a knowledge worker company is worth nothing on paper, without the key knowledge workers who work as a team to create and sustain the real value of her offering.

Their value innovation is really not that unique, but rather staid, but they have the discipline, commitment and teamwork to continue to serve the community at hand. But only if they are willing; and doing it voluntarily.

Can’t be traded like cattle

Therefore, my three sen worth of advice to the government is please be careful in how you seek to privatise all your knowledge assets, and not just the IJN. Remember, it is the people with the knowledge who are the most valuable, but they cannot be traded like cattle, or to change masters, as these so-called bad stewards (not owners) feel like.

Although there is no distinctive IP that the IJN knowledge workers hold today, it is their success as a surgical team working together for a national purpose that has brought them such fame and high quality of service.

Please do not treat that experience and learning as if is it can be bought and sold at the stock market. It cannot and should never be. My further warning to the government is that there are other knowledge assets, which I am familiar with, which are similarly being traded like they are paper transactions and I believe that they will meet the same fate in the longer run.

Having therefore worked with Mimos Berhad for the last eight years or so before my retirement, I am now aware that similar ‘back-door piratisation efforts’ are underway in a number of the so- called projects in Mimos Berhad which appear to be ready for commercialisation.

Whether they are ready or not, I am not sure, but I am very sure that all these knowledge assets were developed using public funds, including most, if not all, of the people’s assets. They and their asset creations cannot be traded like cattle.

Let this foiled attempt therefore be a clear lesson to the government on how to deal openly and transparently when disposing fully-owned public service assets in the future.

Privatisation or piratisation? (Pt 2)