The New Straits Times reported both the following on July 26:
'Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was yesterday reported as saying that the government would step up efforts to attract Malaysian talent abroad. He said more would be done to make sure that Malaysia's best and brightest in foreign universities were not poached by other countries.'
'Mahathir Mohamad, the former prime minister, today said developed countries should not be allowed to poach Malaysian talent for free. He said those wanting the services of Malaysian overseas graduates should be made to pay for them. He said graduates should be categorised as intellectual property as the government had spent a huge sum of money providing them with education.'
It is clear that both men value the talent of Malaysian overseas graduates, but have very different perceptions of what 'value' means. The former leader understands 'value' in ringgit and sen and is only interested in receiving appropriate compensation for the supply of such talent to developed countries.
Whereas Pak Lah shows that he has a clear vision for the development of the country through the repatriation of talent from overseas.
Dr M considers overseas talent to be 'intellectual property', the development for which the government had paid. He thus believes that the government has the right to demand a surcharge from developed countries for the services rendered by such overseas talent.
This cannot be a sound viewpoint for anyone, let alone a former leader, to adopt.
These days, it is no longer disputed that every nation has a responsibility to provide primary and secondary education to its citizens. Since every citizen has a right to such education, it is not an advantage for which only overseas graduates should pay.
What then presumably troubles Dr M is the money spent on tertiary education overseas. If that is the case, Dr M can only be concerned with the 'brain drain' of government scholars and not the failure of privately-funded students to return from overseas.
Surely the answer in this instance must be a restructuring, if necessary, of the 'bond' which government scholars are subject to.There cannot be an argument for charging developed countries a surcharge for the services of our overseas graduates. In the case of privately-funded students, t his would be tantamount to a windfall on the part of the government.
Leaving aside the above, what is more disconcerting is that it is implicit in Dr M's view that overseas graduates are the 'property' of the government. No free nation can 'own' its citizens and we surely do not dispute that we are a free nation. What the government should instead concern itself with is the encouragement of the return of overseas talent.
It may be that Dr M had intended to provide a solution with his suggestion of a surcharge. Assuming that such a surcharge could be collected (leaving aside the extra-territorial implications of such a policy), this would have the effect of making Malaysian overseas graduates 'uncompetitive' in labour markets overseas.
This would unfortunately render Malaysian overseas graduates 'unemployable' in developed countries and this is, in fact, contrary to the spirit of 'Malaysia Boleh'. We should instead value overseas education and work experience because on their return, Malaysians working overseas would make invaluable contributions to the development of our country.
Hence, what this country should rightly address, as proposed by Pak Lah, is the encouragement of the return of overseas graduates once they have developed their potential through their invaluable work experience overseas.
So why would such graduates refuse to return from overseas? Like many other developing countries in the world, Malaysia may not be able to compete with developed countries in terms of earnings and opportunity for career development.
Although it is true that the cost of living in Malaysia is lower than in the developed countries, the cost of education outside Malaysia is huge. The savings of a professional working for a lifetime in Malaysia may not be enough to finance a child studying overseas.
Under our current university enrolment system, overseas studies may be a necessity rather than a choice of luxury. This is an important fact of life. This may be why, over the years, many Malaysians have chosen to vote with their feet.
However, we cannot argue that in a free nation, overseas graduates should receive special privileges. We should not be elitist just because someone has returned from a well-known university or from an exalted foreign job.
What we should instead be concerned with is the provision of a meritocractic framework within which all individuals can work and realise their full potential. However, such a commitment to meritocracy is not consistent with the NEP. So perhaps, the NEP has no place in this country.