"Capitalise on Soaring Rare Earths Demand "

 by Professor Dato Dr Ahmad Ibrahim, Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy, UCSI University

 

   It has been long predicted that the business in rare earths will head for soaring growth as the world pushes towards NetZero. Lynas, the world’s largest producer of rare earths outside of China, has just reported a three fold jump in profits from a year earlier, as world rare earths prices reached almost 80% higher than in the previous year. The demand for rare earths for the manufacture of magnets, which are used to power electric motors, has seen a massive jump. Their use in iPhones and laptops remains  strong as the world continues to digitalise. It has been announced that Lynas will further expand production in their Western Australia-based Mount Weld mine with a further injection of A$500 million. It is good to hear that Perak has just announced investing in rare earths mining. A few other states with rare earths deposits including Kedah and Kelantan also show interest. This is encouraging development. But we should not be missing out on the opportunity to capitalise on the rare earths that are already accessible on our door step, from Lynas. We should not be perturbed just because of some misguided pressures from pseudo rare earths experts. We must instead get guidance from the real experts. 

What the real experts are saying is the complete opposite of the doomsayers. The radioactive risks associated with rare earths processing have been scientifically proven to be almost negligible. The environmental risks are also manageable with the right treatment regime, not much different from the usual chemical processing industry. There is no reason to be unnecessary alarmed by the claims bandied around by the anti-rare earths groups. In fact we should be active not only in the rare earths mining, but more so as a committed player in the entire value chain of the rare earths business. Investing in the rare earths industry will help us realise our high income dreams. We should move beyond the volatile price taking commodity business. The fact that the commodity business is now rattled by labour issues creates more urgency to invest in the less labour intensive and higher paying industry like the rare earths supply chain business.

 However, building the rare earths-based industry calls for careful planning and strategising. As usual, we should start with a roadmap or blueprint to guide us. But the roadmap to be action-oriented, not theoretical and academic. Unlike many of our past blueprints which lack reality. That explains why implementing them has been problematic and challenging. Building a vibrant rare earths industry must start with the right business model. We need to be clear on our target market and the competition we will be up against. Technology is at the heart of the rare earths business. And we all know technology changes fast. So we need a kind of technology clearing house which would advise industry on investments in research and technology development. Having the right talent pool is also critical in building such industry. The blueprint has therefore to be holistic if it is to have any chance of success. Since we are starting from scratch, attracting the right foreign investment should be the first step. We should prioritise those with a good understanding of the market, as well as a good command of the technology. Even talents may need to be sourced internationally initially. But we should in parallel build our own talent capacity. Lynas is a good example of an international business where a high percentage of local talents is deployed. We need to eventually attract domestic investment because being over dependent on foreign investment will not guarantee the sustainability of the industry.

 As the world races to deliver NetZero, the demand for rare earths is seen racing upwards. This has come about because rare earth elements have become a critical element in the manufacture of low carbon emission equipments which support Netzero. The key component includes power magnets used in the electric motors. As a country which has viable rare earths deposits, we should not hesitate to capitalise them for the nation’s socio-economic advantage. We have the capacity to be a viable global player.          

 

"Academic Intolerance Hurts Growth Of New Ideas"

by Professor Datuk Dr. Ahmad Ibrahim, Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies UCSI University

ALL great things start with an idea. This applies to national policies, business undertakings and societal projects. They would always begin with ideas coming from someone, somewhere. More often than not, tracing back such ideas would confirm they originate from those with knowledge and experience who constantly think of new ideas to bring to the table. These people are idea-centric, seldom stingy with their ideas. Over the years, we have seen how great scientists and business icons of the world often share their thoughts before they submit them for application. Many such greats would most likely have their early beginnings in higher learning institutions. This is understandable since university academics are constantly doing research and discovering new things.

    Some of the new ideas are also accidental outcomes of research. There have been many such cases. The story about the MP3 technology spotted accidentally from a research project is well known.The Fraunhofer institutes in Germany made that accidental discovery which earned them millions in licensing royalty. 

    Here at home, we have also borne witness to the emergence of great ideas coming from university academics. One such idea is the Tabung Haji model introduced by the late Royal Professor Ungku Abdul Aziz Ungku Abdul Hamid. He also had a hand in other ideas, such as the business of cooperatives, which have now assumed national significance, and the establishment of Angkasa. Admittedly, when Ungku Aziz helmed Universiti Malaya, discourse and debates among academics were common. 

    That was how new ideas were born and polished till they became ready for real adoption. Thought leadership was then the hallmark of universities. It is unfortunate that tolerating differences of opinion has seen much erosion in recent years. It was such tolerance that has been important in churning out new ideas. Oftentimes, the crude ideas when mooted could even be controversial. But, they were debated and argued, further improving their acceptance. It has become clear in recent times that many new academics are not comfortable with controversial ideas. They are quick to pass judgment and brand them unacceptable. Some even say they should be avoided at all costs. If we continue with such intolerance, universities will one day be no longer the nation’s repository of knowledge and birthplace of new ideas.

    It is still not too late to stop this decline in thought leadership. Some say the root cause is the fear of failure among today’s academics—the fear of making mistakes. It has driven many to hide in their comfort zone. This is unhealthy and will not give rise to new ideas. They may not realise that without fresh ideas there can be no great innovation, which is now recognised as a critical recipe for human development. We will succumb to development paralysis if we continue to deny the need to generate good ideas. This is where the culture of critical thinking needs constant nurturing by having a healthy ecosystem of agreeing to disagree and inculcating the respect for idea sharing in others.

"Make Universities Source of Game Changing Ideas For Nation Building"

 by Professor Dato Dr Ahmad Ibrahim, Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy Studies UCSI University

ALL great things start with an idea. This applies to national policies, business undertakings, societal projects and many more. They would always begin with ideas coming from someone somewhere. More often than not, tracing back such ideas would would confirm they originate from those with knowledge and experience. People with knowledge and experience constantly think of new ideas to bring to the table.  These people are idea centric. They are seldom stingy with their ideas. They would eagerly share their raw crude unpolished ideas seeking comments to make them better. Over the years, we have seen how great scientists and business icons of the world often share their thoughts before they eventually submit them for the real application.

   Many such great would most likely have their early beginnings in higher learning institutions, the universities to be precise. This is understandable since university academics are the people who are constantly doing research and discovering new things. It is therefore logical that much of the new ideas emerge from the outputs of research undertakings. Some of the new ideas are also accidental outcomes of research. There have been many such cases of accidental patents. The story about the MP3 technology spotted accidentaly from a research project is now quite well known. The Fraunhofer institutes in Germany made that accidental discovery which earned them millions in licensing royalty.

    Here at home, we have also borne witness to the emergence of great ideas coming from university academics. One such idea which has been cited often is the Tabung Haji model introduced by the late Royal Professor Ungku Aziz. He also had a hand in many other ideas such as the business of cooperatives which have now assumed national significance. The establishment of ANGKASA also came from his idea. Admittedly, those days when Ungku Aziz was helming University Malaya, UM, the only university in the country then, discourses and debates among the academics were commonplace. That was how new ideas were born and polished till they became ready for real adoption. All the ideas then started as crude and unproven. But after some research and intellectual bargaining, they became more polished and meaningful. The ecosystem then was very conducive for idea generation and sharing of thoughts.

 

 Thought leadership was then the hallmark of universities. It is unfortunate that such culture of tolerating differences of opinion has seen much erosion in recent years. Whereas, it was such practice of tolerance that has been the single most important factor in churning out new ideas. Often times the crude ideas when first mooted could even be controversial. Sometimes they were toxic to some. But they were debated and argued, thereby further improving their acceptance. Communicating the crude ideas well is also needed if they are to be elevated to be workable. It has become abundantly clear in recent times that many among the new academics are not comfortable with ideas which start as controversial. They are quick to pass judgement and brand them as unacceptable. Some are even saying they should be avoided at all costs. If we continue with such intolerance, universities will one day be no longer the nation’s repository of knowledge and the birthplace of new ideas.

 

 It is still not too late to stop this unfortunate decline in thought leadership. We should take stock of what has actually led to this rampant intolerance of conflicting views. Some say the root cause is the fear of failure among today’s academics. The fear of making mistakes has driven many to hide in their comfort zone. This is unhealthy and will not help give rise to new ideas. They may not realise that without fresh ideas there can be no great innovation which is now recognised as a critical recipe for human development. We will succumb to a state of development paralysis if we continue to deny the need to generate good ideas. This is where the culture of critical thinking needs constant nurturing. Few would deny the need for thought leadership to flourish in universities. The only way to nurture this is to have a healthy ecosystem of agreeing to disagree and inculcating the respect for idea sharing.    

 

 

 

             

"We Need More Doable and Actionable Science Policies"

 by Professor Dato Dr Ahmad Ibrahim, Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy, UCSI University

TODAY’S world is very much influenced by science. Just pick any issue that now confronts the world. We will see that science is always at the centre. Climate change has become an issue because science provides the evidence on global warming and carbon emission rising. The shape of world commerce has been transformed because of the advances in the internet and cyber sciences. Infectious diseases can be better spotted through science, and science also provides the answer on prevention and therapy. We saw this during the covid pandemic. Even industrial development is now very much dictated by the science of automation and innovation. In other word, the world must invest in science. This explains why all development policies and plans of countries around the world are rooted in science, as the strategic weapon for sustained progress. Without the advancement in science, the world will be at a loss navigating the future and ensuring its sustainability. We are no exception.

As a country, we have introduced many policies on science. The latest that have hit the launch pads include policies on Industry4.0, Digital Economy policy, Bioeconomy policy, Smart City, STEM and many more. Soon there will be many more in the pipeline. These include policies on hydrogen economy, blue economy, artificial intelligence, just to name some. There is no denying that all such policies went through very rigorous stakeholders engagement and many so called focus group discussions, before they were finalised for adoption. It is also true that many have cried foul on the implementation of such policies. The truth is there is always a lot of fanfare in the launching of the policies. But the almost silence after the launching has been disturbing. We seldom hear reports of progress and whether the plans have even been acted upon. This is very worrying because much efforts and costs have gone in designing the policies. Failure to effectively implement is even more costly for the country.

Many are now asking whether in drafting such policies much thought has been given as to whether they are practical. Can we practice what the policies preach? Do the target groups which have been identified to take actions truly understand the policies in the first place? Have the policies been effectively communicated to the target groups? Have we considered whether they have sufficient capacity to deliver? Do they have sufficient resources? Take the smart city framework which was launched three years ago. Apparently, the main target groups are the local authorities. Kuala Lumpur city has declared their blueprint on low carbon, for example. But most others are rather quiet. In fact, we do not see the issue of wastes improving at all. One key component of smart city is smart wastes. The recommendation is to deploy digital approaches to reduce sending wastes to the landfills. To date, many doubt that this is happening. In fact landfills everywhere are bursting at the seams. There seems to be no let up in the carbon emissions.

Some studies have been undertaken to scrutinise the policies that have been launched. Many have reached the conclusions that much of the policies are not action oriented. There have been too much focus on theories rather than the practical aspects. Very little thought has been given to the practicability of the eventual action plans. Many realise the need for close collaboration and sharing among stakeholders, including ministries, in delivering the many science policies. And many are also aware of the fact that operating in silos has been common among such implementing entities. Unfortunately, the matter has not been fully addressed when drafting the policies. There have been too much focus on the what and why, instead of also thinking about the how. Few would deny that the HOW is the part that matters most.

It is time we rethink the way we introduce science policies to the country. It is time we pay more attention to the how, especially the many challenges and obstacles that stand in the path of implementation. Unless the how part is better resolved, we may end up with policies which are well crafted but face problems delivering.    

    

"No Choice But To Develop High-Value, Less Labour-Intensive Industries"

by Professor Dato' Dr. Ahmad Ibrahim, Tan Sri Omar Centre for STI Policy, UCSI University

MALAYSIANS like to frequent mamak food stalls for roti canai and teh tarik. Some go for nasi kandar. Since they are mostly open for 24 hours, they have become popular haunts among all Malaysians, young and old. We also look forward to their fast service, not having to wait too long for the food. Things have, however, changed lately. The service has been slow and some have shortened their opening hours. Worker shortage is much to blame. The mamak restaurant business has been reliant on foreign labour all these years. With the current labour supply problem, it is inevitable that the service suffers a lot. Some try to resort to some form of robotics and automation. They have not worked well though. The labour problem started during the pandemic, when foreign workers had to return home. Bringing them back after the pandemic has been a struggle.

Many other sectors are facing a similar dilemma. Some highway construction projects have been delayed because of lack of labour. These include the SUKE highway, which is supposed to disperse traffic away from the city centre. The new MRT projects have also not been spared from the labour-related disruptions. Such delays have inevitably led to cost overruns. 

But, one sector that has constantly hit the headlines because of labour shortage is the plantation industry. Palm oil is especially hard-hit because the labour problems arose while the world palm oil prices have reached historic highs. It has been reported that the losses due to unharvested fruits run into billions of ringgit. Smallholder oil palm farmers are the ones most badly affected. They are very much dependent on the income from their oil palm harvests. Most of them are crying instead of laughing to the bank, as they did in the past when palm oil prices hit the roof. There have been attempts by the government to bring in workers from outside. But they have somehow not materialised. There were talks about agreements being signed with countries which supply workers. But as yet, there is still no sign of the workers, which the affected sectors desperately need, arriving. The oil palm sector has for years relied on workers from neighbouring Indonesia to work in the plantations. Apparently, they prove to be the ones who are the most efficient at harvesting oil palm. Admittedly, oil palm harvesting is the most difficult job in the plantations. It can also be very dangerous. Any wrong move can land that 30kg fruit bunch on your head with fatal consequences. No wonder locals shy away from such jobs. And not all foreign workers can do the job as efficiently as those from Indonesia. 

Workers from Bangladesh are mostly deployed in the construction and manufacturing sectors. Experts say there are many reasons why it is harder now to source for migrant labour. One has to do with the fact that countries that have been actively supplying workers in the past no longer have enough labour to spare. As a result of their own economic progress, employment opportunities in their countries have jumped. That, coupled with the much better pay their own domestic jobs offer, has discouraged many from venturing off shore. It also makes a lot of sense. Why leave the comfort of your own home where you can enjoy similar if not better livelihood than in a foreign land? This is what has contributed to the decline in the arrival of workers from Indonesia for the plantations sector. The plantation jobs in Indonesia are not only aplenty, but they also pay well. Gone are the days when they can earn more in Malaysia. Looks like we are running out of places to source for foreign labour. Even Vietnam has achieved prolific progress in its economy. They also shy away from 3D jobs. With the rise in foreign direct investments into their country, Vietnam is witnessing a rise in their middle-class. Even Cambodia is also following a strong path of economic progress, therefore no chance to import labour. We have no choice but to continue developing high-value, less labour-intensive industries. Going digital looks inevitable for the country.