Part Two:

Development Plan and Policy Framework

The release and unveiling of the OPP3, the NVP and the 8MP in April 2001 by YAB the Prime Minister, speaks volume of the Malaysian development planning system. We have, in last month’s commentary focused on the rationale and basis of the Perspective Plans and the Five-Year Development Plans including the 8MP.

The Plan document aside, it is significant to point out that the most important accompaniment of the Plan are the development policies. Since 1971, Malaysians have been all too familiar with OPP1 and the New Economic Policy (NEP), OPP2 and the National Development Plan (NDP) in 1991, and now OPP3 and the National Vision Policy (NVP) in 2001. It will be a worthwhile exercise of mind games to start pondering on what the next national policy might be come 2010, when we will be ten years en route to 2020. Of course, it needs no guessing that Vision 2020 is the overarching national development policy objective.

In order to better understand the general policy framework, we can continue to sub-divide the policy framework into at least three broad categories. Firstly, the broad policy objectives for the overall economic development of the country are set out in the national development plans like the ten-year OPP and the five-year Malaysia Plan. Secondly, the macro or cross-sectoral policies address the cross-cutting issues. Such policies are embodied in policy areas like the National Environment Policy and the National Biodiversity Policy amongst others. Thirdly, there are the sectoral policies such as the National Forestry Policy, the National Mineral Policy or the National Agricultural Policy.

The enthusiastic readers, the querists, or the students of development and policy sciences will likely be bewildered by going into Government Homepage and to find out no less than twenty seven (27) other policies which have been very well written to clearly state the Government’s views on development issues facing the country. Looking through these policies, it is clear that policymaking in Malaysia has been a well-thought out and painstaking exercise, and is way beyond and above Lindblom’s “muddling through” process of incrementalism (in relation to the academic debate in making policy choices, the other being based on rational models).

Malaysia’s past experiences over the years can also be further explained through the long established and mature development planning system. While textbooks would often distinguish between central planning and indicative planning, Malaysia’s approach has always been the pursuit of total development planning covering socio-economic issues, with well-established central agencies, EPU, ICU, Treasury, at national level, and SPU, PIMU, SFS or its variants at the state level to plan and co-ordinate policy formulation and implementation.

The pursuit of development by many developing countries particularly during the decades of the 1950s and 1960s of the last century after winning independence (Malaysia included), was to enable them to graduate from being classified as an underdeveloped, undeveloped, less developed, developing or third world country to a developed country status, has always been a cherished dream. Successful development would lead to high and sustained economic growth, rising income, equitable distribution, high level of employment and job opportunities, structural change, socio-economic transformation and modernisation of society. In essence, there is total development.

To achieve all these would necessitate, among others, sound planning and efficient programmes and project implementation. Towards this end, it means we need a capable and efficient administrative and develop-ment machinery. It also means conti-nuous strengthening, upgrading and building of capacities and capabilities.

In Malaysia, the public sector has always played a prominent and leading role in these efforts. No less significant has been the role and contribution of the private sector as the other engine of growth. In fact, the success that has been attained thus far can be attributed to the contribution of both sectors in the spirit of smart alliances and partnerships through the joint public-private sector endeavours. In policy terms this fits within the spirit of Malaysia Incorporated concept.

What do all these signify to us in the State Civil Service? There are various possibilities. One of these being, given the continued preponderance and proclivity for preparing and formulating plans and policies in the country, it would not be out of tangent to suggest that development and policy science courses should be given priority in our training programmes apart from the emphasis on management and leadership modules. If anything, at least it will enable officers to have a better appreciation and understanding of the development issues and challenges ahead, both from the development planner and policy analyst perspectives, as well as to understand the technical and intellectual rigours that go with the preparation of the plans and policies. The other line of action is for the various agencies to frame their own guidelines and guideposts as points of reference. This exercise should be viewed as an enabler once they embark on executing and implementing their programmes and projects.