For the next few articles, beginning with this one, I want to see if I can write a series of fictional short stories that illustrate different views of economic development. This is Part I.
All in Politics
For the next few articles, beginning with this one, I want to see if I can write a series of fictional short stories that illustrate different views of economic development. This is Part I.
We need to reckon with power dynamics and decades of cultural evolution which led us to the “equilibrium” in which we find ourselves today. But there is hope, of course, by being adaptive and open in our paradigms of the world
But the point of the devolution of power is to ultimately build a more extremophile political economy that can then serve to ensure a more resilient Malaysia amid greater volatility globally
Tthe countries that can address the political economy of business in Southeast Asia — historically a family affair — will be best placed to capitalise on the investment story of Southeast Asia
But if we can hold off zombie interest groups for public policy, learn not to put human beings on pedestals, but simply take what their best and wisest decisions are for ourselves, while respecting our own mental health and that of everyone around us, maybe we’ll get through 2025 alright.
CREDs cannot just be about the vibes. Credibility, and therefore trust, cannot be earned overnight and merely through words
in reality, Malaysia’s main problem is not so much that costs are getting higher — this is true everywhere. Our main problem is that incomes are not rising as quickly and this is where the bulk of our attention should be
Whatever happens with global politics following the year of elections — especially with the US presidential election — navigating the waters of global policy means navigating “swamps, deserts and chasms”.
Taking the position as chair of Asean in 2025 requires some prioritisation of what is a national issue versus what is a regional or even global issue. Climate, electrification, food, regional geopolitical security, may be some of these issues, but what else?
Therefore, it isn’t that less bureaucracy is a good thing; we just need a high-performing bureaucracy. We really need to quit sabotaging our organisations, public and private.
So, as we aspire to be “innovative” or “creative”, we must learn to be better at evaluating plausible useful counterfactuals. Playing too safe doesn’t really get us anywhere beyond what may be in textbooks. And being too unanchored just creates arguments as useful as those in YouTube comments.