JPA Managing scholars is incompetent!

Tweet

Lin Ern Sheong -JPA scholarship: A bond-free scholarship for young Malaysians

I am currently a 4th year student at the University of California, Berkeley. I am also a JPA scholar.  (JPA stands for Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam, or the Public Service Department of Malaysia.)

While I am thankful for the JPA Scholarship, I could not fail to note the lackadaisical method which JPA employs to ensure that its scholars return home and serve the nation after graduation, especially those who are not in the fields of medicine and law.

Many JPA-sponsored students I know have not returned home upon graduation from overseas institutions.
The story would go like this. The JPA scholar reports to Putrajaya after graduation, and then tries to apply for jobs with the Government. If he does not hear back from JPA within 12 months, he is released from his 6-year bond with the Government. There is no need to pay back.

I suspect that many scholars do not even report home, but go on chasing their own dreams abroad immediately after graduation.

Indeed, many do not hear from the Government within 12 months. I have also heard of JPA scholars who genuinely wanted to serve the Government but could not, because JPA was unable to give them any postings.

For this very reason, the JPA Scholarship has become a much sought after scholarship. It is effectively a bond-free scholarship! This is a far cry compared to scholarships from other Malaysian corporations such as Petronas, Khazanah and Bank Negara, which are strict with its scholars when it comes to returning home after studying abroad.

It doesn’t make sense to spend hundreds of thousands of ringgit per scholar and then let them do whatever they want after graduation. I have been having a hard time explaining to those of other nationalities why my scholarship’s bond is pretty much nonexistent, despite the fact that so much money is spent by the Government.

Since the incorporation of TalentCorp, things might have changed, as there are now more job openings in the private sector for returning scholars. The question is, has anything really changed?

Hitherto, the JPA Scholarship has been an avenue for brain drain — right under the Government’s nose. If JPA does not have enough jobs for its scholars, they should at least enforce that scholars are to work within the country for 6 years, or else pay the Government back.

Otherwise, I would have to come to the logical conclusion that the JPA Scholarship was meant to encourage Malaysia’s brain drain.

Ideally, the JPA Scholarship should serve the purpose of harnessing Malaysia’s best talent for the public service of the nation.

* Lin Ern Sheong hails from Petaling Jaya and is proud be Malaysian, at home or abroad. He is currently studying Physics and Electrical Engineering in the United States.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication.

Managing scholars

I REFER to Lin Ern Sheong’s letter above.

The topic of JPA scholars returning to Malaysia upon graduation has been a much discussed topic.
However, aside from establishing TalentCorp, it seems that no other concrete action has been taken to ensure that an appropriate action plan is executed to assist scholars with placements in industries.

Being a JPA scholar and currently working in one of the ministries, I have encountered numerous types of JPA scholars: those who returned and wanted to serve the Government as officers; those who returned and wanted to contribute their knowledge in a relevant field of study; those who did not want to serve their bonds; those who refused to return home on graduation; and those who wanted to serve the Government only if the jobs offered were related to their field of study, among others.

These JPA scholars clearly indicate that there must be a well-planned programme to cater for them upon graduation.

Every year, JPA scholarships are awarded to thousands of applicants and suffice to say, keeping track of each applicant is an arduous task.

But, regardless of this, it should not be a reason for our nonchalance in keeping track of the progress of each student, particularly those studying overseas.

With the introduction of the Government Transformation Programme and the reiteration on the importance of Return of Investment, it would only be appropriate if a specific programme, to ensure that these students are placed appropriately in the industry and their talent tapped, is initiated.

Although TalentCorp has been established, it is not an enforcing body (which in my opinion is JPA) and its aim spreads across a continuum of objectives such as trying to get researchers, scientists and professionals working overseas to return.

But there is a need to cater to the placement of scholars upon graduation. Even if they’re not working for the Government, at least ensure that they are working in Malaysia so that the knowledge gained overseas is of good use.

The initiative can even include a technology and knowledge transfer programme that allows these scholars to transfer the knowledge they gained overseas to local industries.

These are my personal opinions but I’m sure the enforcing body, that has been involved in sponsoring students locally and overseas, is more adept in proposing a thorough action plan.

I was a JPA scholar and I graduated as an engineer from one of the best universities in the United States and now, I am working as a diplomatic and administrative officer.

Many of my friends, who are in the same position as I, have either quit or are going to quit because they were not offered permanent positions as officers, and neither were they offered positions as research officers, science officers or engineers.

In short, the talents are not managed in a proper manner and it seems that whether these scholars return or not did not make any difference.

We, the scholars, are left to find our own ways and means to free ourselves from this contractual bondage so that we can expand our knowledge and industrial experience.

I, being one of them, am currently looking for opportunities to pursue my higher level degree overseas. This time, I might choose not to return.

AN OPINIONATED SCHOLAR,
Malacca

The rich, the good and the ugly

Tweet

SOMETIMES, we get the impression that people of a certain social class must know one another quite well.

So when we talk about the super-duper rich, we presume that they not only appear on the same Forbes list each year, but they probably have each other's private numbers on their smartphones.

And it does not really matter which country they come from, or which industry they belong to, because their extreme wealth is the common denominator.

So if you look at the richest men on the 2011 list, you can imagine Bill Gates, at No 2, giving Lakshmi Mittal of India, at No 4, a call that goes something like this, “Hi, Mittal, how much richer are you since I last called? Steel prices are rising but I am not doing too bad myself. Microsoft just dished out US$8.5 bil to buy up Skype. Small change, my man!”

But what is the reality? I suspect that while the pursuit of money drives these people, and they may share mutual public platforms, real friendship among them may not be as common as we think.

Gates and Warren Buffett recently brought together 61 American billionaires to a resort in Tuscon but it was not so much a gathering of old friends but total strangers.

Buffett reportedly knew only 12 of those invited though by the end of the evening, he had made 40 new friends.

The one thing in common for these ultra-rich philanthropists is that they belong to the special club of people who had pledged to give away at least half of their wealth under the Giving Pledge initiated by Buffett and Gates.


So what did these people talk about all evening? Apparently, since there was no real bond of friendship, they saw the meeting as a chance to “meet each other, compare notes, eat and laugh.” At least that's what the Associated Press pieced together by talking to a few of the diners after the event, which was totally off-limits to the press.

When my growing-up boys asked me about the important and rich people whom journalists get to meet in the course of work, I used to tell them that, like the rest of us, “the men pee standing, and have to put on their trousers one leg at a time.”

It was my way to remind them that there are more important things that make up a person's worth than wealth and position.

But there is no denying that these philanthropists have the potential to initiate sea changes if they put their hearts in the right place.

And it is good that other rich people around the world, including in Malaysia, are also embracing this concept of giving away part of one's wealth to address the world's many problems.

I was pleasantly surprised that our very own Dr Jane Cardosa, one of the three dynamic Cardosa sisters with roots in Convent Green Lane and Penang Free School, is a recent recipient of a US$100,000 grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to further her research into a vaccine for polio and hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD).

Hopefully, we will see more Malaysian philanthropic ringgit being made available to produce positive social returns.

Maybe someone should propose a study on how to eliminate the bigots and extremists in our midst who seek to build walls that divide, rather than bridges that unite.

And a further study on foot-in-the-mouth disease, which seems to be pretty rampant among the politicians.

Deputy executive editor Soo Ewe Jin realises that there is much good on the Internet that allows us to connect with worthy causes. But it seems that Malaysian misuse of cyberspace is what gets us the headlines.

Innovation Takes Real Effort, Even For Startups

Tweet

Martin Zwilling 

Image via Wikipedia

It seems to be an accepted fact these days that big companies normally innovate by buying a startup with innovative products, rather than focusing on in-house innovations. This is a good thing for entrepreneurs and investors, who can win big, but it’s not a given. I see many startups who seem satisfied with a “me too” approach, building yet another social network or e-commerce site, rather than being truly innovative.

Much has been published on this subject, including a new book “Look at More: A Proven Approach to Innovation, Growth, and Change” by Andy Stefanovich, which is really a guide to established companies for unleashing creativity within their organizations. He asserts that the problem is lack of inspiration, and he supports this with twenty years of real case studies from his own experience.

The good news is that most entrepreneurs and startups have more inspiration than almost anything else, and it sometimes leads to success despite their lack of resources and business skills. Yet even entrepreneurs need to focus on the most effective way to unleash innovation, and maximize their chances for success.


Andy offers a simple mantra for innovation, expressed as “Look at more stuff; think about it harder.” This mantra is complemented by a framework known as the five M’s, which are five key principles for unleashing creativity in any environment:

• Mood. Inspiration and creativity requires the right context of attitudes, feelings, and emotions. Every business leader who wants innovation must constantly monitor and set the proper mood for the environment. You can set the right mood by purposefully disrupting the status quo, initiating change, asking provocative questions, and listening.

• Mindset. This is the intellectual foundation of creativity, the baseline capacity each of us has for getting inspired, staying inspired, and thinking differently. Four thinking disciplines which produce a creative, inspired mindset include changing your perspective, taking risks, finding your passion, and challenging assumptions to embrace ambiguity.

• Mechanisms. These are the tools and processes of creativity that help you engineer inspiration into the way you work and empower your organization to embrace the kind of behavior that fosters innovation. Four key steps include building a context, generating ideas, filtering ideas, and building a blueprint for implementing the best ideas.

• Measurement. Even creativity needs guidance and critical feedback on the qualitative and quantitative performance of individuals and organizations. Measurements send a strong signal of what is important and where people should focus their passion and energy. In addition to measuring results, you need to measure mood, mindset, and the mechanisms above.

• Momentum. This is accomplished by the active championing and celebrating of inspiration and creativity that foster a self-reinforcing cycle for increasing innovation. Momentum is an organizational priority for inspired leaders who have a clear understanding of the other four M’s.

Not everyone has to be a leader for innovation to work. Research has indicated that followers are just as important to consider as leaders when thinking about creating the mood and momentum for creativity, inspiration, and innovation. Likewise, the right mindset alone isn’t enough. You have to be able to convince others and sell your ideas.

Thus, even entrepreneurs must not assume that their efforts and their team will be creative and innovative. “Me too” startups don’t get funded, and they certainly don’t get bought for a premium by the sleeping giants who are looking for outside innovation to kick-start their growth again. Thus I suggest that every entrepreneur and every startup review their own environments for the five M’s, to avoid getting tagged as a “has been” before they even “have been.”

Newscribe : get free news in real time