Article posted (can't remember exactly when, probably 2001) on a Singapore government website that was asking for feedback on how to remake Singapore. This article written in response to the question posed below.
Beyond Careers: New Roads to Success.
We now have an escalator approach to success. Young Singaporeans strive to get on the right track in education, graduate, get on to one of the established career tracks by working for a large company, and expect to be set for life. What needs to be changed in order for us to be a more entrepreneurial society? How will education, attitudes and values need to be changed? The Economic Review Committee will be looking mainly at the economic and financial incentives. This committee will look at the soft side. How will we stimulate creativity, greater risk taking, higher tolerance of failure, and provide alternative role models of success?
1. Abolish the Singapore scholarship system in its present form.
This has served us well for the last 2 decades. But the appropriateness of long term scholarship bonds in rapidly changing market conditions should be examined. Many scholars are just "serving out their time", present in body but elsewhere in spirit. And this spirit might include entrepreneurial ambitions.
Instead of 5+ year bond in return for a fully funded scholarship, give the scholar an option. You can either get full scholarship in return for a 3 year bond, or you can decide at the end of your degree to convert your scholarship to a loan. You decide, based on your career options and interests at the end of your degree.
This is what happens in leading US consulting firms like McKinsey and The Boston Consulting Group with regard to funding an MBA programme for their entry-level consultants. MBA-wannabes will get full funding, but if they choose not to join the firm after graduation, they have to pay back the funds. Usually their new employers will foot the bill or at least arrange for a loan scheme with a bank.
In practice if one were to do this for Singapore, we need to get real abut the length of the bond period. Anything above 3 years is too long in my opinion, but we still see 7 year bonds around.
A side benefit of implementing something like this is that a lot more scholarships will have to be offered to get the same number of recruits that government agencies want - which will mean a bigger pool of people who will benefit from scholarship/loan opportunities.
2. Break up the GLCs into smaller business units, and encourage management buy-outs (MBOs)It pains me to see some GLCs speak of 4 core businesses when core really means one. Break them up! Unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of the business unit heads. Spin off business units, encourage management buy-outs of stakes in these business units and see what these ex-business units can do as a focused independent company.
Sever the relationship at the board level between the parent company and the spin-off entity so that the latter can truly become independent and even deal with the former parent's competitors.
The days of leaving management of companies to a few trusted hands shows the government's own risk averseness. Time to walk the talk. You might discover some hidden talent within the 2nd level management ranks. No doubt you will win some and lose some.
A secondary benefit of a proliferation of MBOs in Singapore is that the bond market will come to life (as management teams seek financing to buy-out business units). Investment bankers will be kept busy, and maybe all those retrenched folks in the financial services sector will be rehired again.(I have dealt with some representatives of a GLC and they are a royal pain - all looking to look good internally but not really caring about whether customer/partners needs are met. Maybe, as an independent entity, where their survival depends on their customers, their customers' voices might be heard)
3. Encourage franchising.
A two tiered approach in this area. First, assist some good local products and services to develop a franchise system that can be expanded internationally. Second, encourage Singaporeans, particularly those recently retrenched, to consider franchising as a first step into the world of entrepreneurship.
With regard to the first, it is refreshing to see the worldwide Coffee Bean head franchise bought out by a Singaporean, and now being expanded internationally. There is Ya-Kun Kaya toast, who are beginning their journey in franchising. Some possibilities: a fish head curry franchise (like Muthu's Curry), a roti prata and teh tarik franchise, a kueh franchise (like Bengawan Solo), a nyonya food franchise (sorry the franchise opportunities examples used so far revolve around food, but hey, this is a core competency of Singaporeans). Subsidise the costs of setting up a franchise system, and get some professionals on the government's payroll to identify, encourage and advise local successful businesses to build a franchise system.
Second, encourage Singaporeans to start their entrepreneurial career through franchising. Have more franchise fairs, list franchises in a web-accessible database and try lower the entry risks for potential franchisors (e.g. low interest loan scheme to pay for franchise fees, or a one for one matching scheme to pay for franchise and start-up fees, like our current angel investing programme). Encourage GLCs who own master franchises to farm them out, and not be too kiasu about the upfront franchise fees.
Run training/information programmes that enable a potential franchisee to identify which franchises have a high chance of succeeding, and which are just fronts for master franchise owners to make a fast buck (read bubble tea).
4. Encourage risk-sharing by land and building owners (especially the GLCs)
A disproportionate proportion of the cost of doing business in Singapore is high rental costs (even in current depressed markets, commercial landlords including GLCs are still holding out for high rents). High rents means greater operational risk, and our poor franchisee above and other entrepreneurial companies are likely to struggle to cover their operational costs.
Why not encourage the kind of leases that encourage risk sharing between landlord and tenant, common in the States? For example, why not tie rental to the sales revenue of a particular retail tenant. Instead of charging a Ya-Kun Kaya Toast franchisee a rent of $10,000 a month, why not have a cap and collar approach - charge minimum rental of $5,000, then 2% of retails sales up to a maximum of $15,000 a month?
This substantially reduces the operational risk for the tenant, and aligns both the interests of the landlord and the tenant to ensure that the tenant's business is successful. Landlord will do all they can to encourage foot traffic, and their success or otherwise in doing so will reflect immediately in their monthly rental takings.No reason why this should not apply to other non-retail businesses, but alignment of interests between landlord and tenant will be harder to achieve.
5. Reform of education system
I must admit that although I did my secondary education in Singapore, I have not experienced the Singapore education system. However, it is telling that many parents I speak to are scared of the Singapore education system, which is perceived to be ruthless and unforgiving.
So much so that Singaporean parents are considering sending their children to alternative education systems (trying to find a lubang to get into international schools); non Singaporeans asked to work in Singapore are deterred from coming here because they fear their kids cannot cope in Singaporean schools. It speaks volumes when a whole movie can be written on the unforgiving nature of Singapore schools.
Let us first acknowledge something. This is a good problem to have. Other South-East Asian countries (and many of the developed ones) are still at the stage of figuring out how to provide a good basic education (underpaid teachers, no talent in the profession, teachers supplementing poor wages by selling Amway products). Singapore instead is thinking of how to tweak its solid education system so it produces more well-rounded individuals, and where academic failure does not necessarily mean the end of the world. A very, very unique, highest order first world problem. Suggestions:
A.. Get rid of streaming at the primary school level.
Begin streaming at the secondary school stage only. This is to explicitly recognise that primary school is very much in the realm of the period of discovery, Get the kids to enjoy knowledge for knowledge's sake at this stage. So long as the kids get a good grounding in the 3Rs (reading, writing and arithmetic) that prepares them well for secondary school, our basic job is done. But if we can get them excited about the world around them, and because of that they thirst for knowledge, this is a great goal to work for. Streaming gets in the way of this as the focus is more on exams than on knowledge.
B. Even where streaming is introduced, e,g, Secondary 1, only certain subjects should be streamed, e.g. English, Mathematics, Sciences. Kids should be able to be in Stream 1 for English yet Stream 2 for Mathematics, and mingle with other students for other subjects.
This get rids of elitism and encourages mingling of students of different abilities in the same class, notwithstanding that they are streamed for others.
C. The secondary school curriculum should emphasis learning more than exams. This means that we should base end-of-year results less on exams than on class projects. Sure, continue the class tests to measure abilities, but also place equal if not more emphasis on projects, where knowledge from different disciplines is applied. We can always shift gear to the GCSE exam mode two years before actual date of the exam.
In these class projects, one can introduce an entrepreneurial bias e.g. new products/services that will improve our lives, innovative ways to raise funds for charity, to nurture and encourage creativity
D. Consider replacing A-Levels with the International Baccalaureate (IB) system. It is well recognised that IB is a more holistic form education which includes a good emphasis of application of learning (e.g. in assessed projects) as opposed to just learning itself.
6. Educate general public on entrepreneurship
In the early 80's, I remembered John Cleese of the Monty Python fame, doing corporate videos on business management. These were immensely entertaining and were targeted towards people who wanted to learn the basic fundamentals of running a business. It was delivered in a casual and humorous way, which probably accounts for its success.We can do a similar one focusing on running your own business, starring Gurmit Singh. There are discrete topics probably to do an 8 part series, starting from identifying opportunities, to financing a business to managing cash flow. Air it on TV, in Mandarin, in Malay, in English, get people engaged through its humorous delivery.
Complementing this could be 8-10 week programmes in entrepreneurial management, which could be offered along the lines of the WSTP programmes offered by SPEC/SHRI currently. I'd be happy to contribute towards the development of such a programme if required.
7. Continue to publicise entrepreneurial role models
Don't just focus on Sim Won Hoo, but also middle of the road entrepreneurs too, even the successful Muthu's curry and Ya-Kun Kaya Toast owner. Focus on the phoenixes too. Get them to speak of the difficulties they faced along the way, not just their successes, to prepare their audience for the challenges ahead.
Friday, September 14, 2001
Friday, November 10, 2000
Archive: Today, Too Late?
Article discussing impact of Today, a new Singapore tabloid, on the Singapore media market. Edited version published in Business Times on 10 November, 2000.
If you've been walking down a number of MRT stations these last few days, you can't miss the bright yellow bins which await the arrival of Today, the new free newspaper launched by Mediacorp,Singtel Yellow Pages and SMRT. Mediacorp's publicity machine has rolled into full swing, courtesy of its subsidiaries TCS and RCS. But more telling is the comparative silence of the newspapers owned by their media rivals, Singapore Press Holdings. The battle of the media giants has begun, or has it?
To SPH, the launch of Today must seem less a battle than a skirmish. This is definitely not Normandy for them, more like a small outpost in the sub-Saharan desert. Even the venerable Goldman Sachs seems to think so, judging by their bullish comments on SPH on Wednesday.
Credit to SPH: They moved quickly to isolate the assault by Today. Immediately upon digesting the announcement of a rival free newspaper, the SPH team moved swiftly to pre-empt Today's launch by itself launching two new newspapers, Streats and Project Eyeball. The former, a free newspaper too, was probably a direct reaction to Today; Project Eyeball however, was probably already in the skunkworks. Net result? Today has now to contend with not just one but three other rivals chasing the same advertising dollars: The New Paper, Streats and Project Eyeball.
From an advertising pie of $x, Today's potential share fell from $x/2 to $x/4 overnight (the advertising pie destined to be shared between The New Paper and Today only is now shared between The New Paper, Today, Streats and Project Eyeball). I recall from my O Level economics days, this being called the brand proliferation strategy, practised by the Unilevers and Procter & Gambles of this world, to limit the assault of independent brands. The idea is for the incumbent to flood the market with different brands, so that new entrants will be limited to a smaller market share. Classic strategy stuff.
But there is yet another reason why it's crucial for SPH to contain the fighting ground at the The New Paper type level. In the same way that an aircraft carrier is flanked by cruisers and destroyers, The New Paper, Streats and Project Eyeball are flanking the mothership, none other than the cash cow of The Straits Times itself. Let's keep the enemy busy fighting our flankers, and move the fighting ground as far away from the mothership as possible. Kinda like our national air defence strategy.
I would venture a guess that more than 80% of the profit of all the SPH newspapers combined is derived from just two papers – The Straits Times and the The Business Times (together with their week-end editions). The New Paper probably at best makes a marginal profit. So when Today launches an assault on The New Paper market, it’s missing the point. And for good measure, SPH has also deployed the flankers, Streats and Project Eyeball, to contain it.
So Today will have a tough job on its hands. It enters a segment which is already only marginally profitable for the incumbent, and not only that, it now has to fight for share for that segment against not just one, but three other opponents. I’d always root for the underdog (particularly if their opponent is a former monopolist), but this time, I have to admit I’m not optimistic. I guess it’s left to someone else to figure out SPH’s vulnerable nerve. So, who’s going to assault Normandy?
Post-script: 9 months later, Today appears to have made a successful entry into the newspaper marketplace. Its short news summaries, tabloid format and freeness has enabled it to garner a good amount of advertising. Project Eyeball is now defunct whilst Streats and Today are still battling in the MRTs.
If you've been walking down a number of MRT stations these last few days, you can't miss the bright yellow bins which await the arrival of Today, the new free newspaper launched by Mediacorp,Singtel Yellow Pages and SMRT. Mediacorp's publicity machine has rolled into full swing, courtesy of its subsidiaries TCS and RCS. But more telling is the comparative silence of the newspapers owned by their media rivals, Singapore Press Holdings. The battle of the media giants has begun, or has it?
To SPH, the launch of Today must seem less a battle than a skirmish. This is definitely not Normandy for them, more like a small outpost in the sub-Saharan desert. Even the venerable Goldman Sachs seems to think so, judging by their bullish comments on SPH on Wednesday.
Credit to SPH: They moved quickly to isolate the assault by Today. Immediately upon digesting the announcement of a rival free newspaper, the SPH team moved swiftly to pre-empt Today's launch by itself launching two new newspapers, Streats and Project Eyeball. The former, a free newspaper too, was probably a direct reaction to Today; Project Eyeball however, was probably already in the skunkworks. Net result? Today has now to contend with not just one but three other rivals chasing the same advertising dollars: The New Paper, Streats and Project Eyeball.
From an advertising pie of $x, Today's potential share fell from $x/2 to $x/4 overnight (the advertising pie destined to be shared between The New Paper and Today only is now shared between The New Paper, Today, Streats and Project Eyeball). I recall from my O Level economics days, this being called the brand proliferation strategy, practised by the Unilevers and Procter & Gambles of this world, to limit the assault of independent brands. The idea is for the incumbent to flood the market with different brands, so that new entrants will be limited to a smaller market share. Classic strategy stuff.
But there is yet another reason why it's crucial for SPH to contain the fighting ground at the The New Paper type level. In the same way that an aircraft carrier is flanked by cruisers and destroyers, The New Paper, Streats and Project Eyeball are flanking the mothership, none other than the cash cow of The Straits Times itself. Let's keep the enemy busy fighting our flankers, and move the fighting ground as far away from the mothership as possible. Kinda like our national air defence strategy.
I would venture a guess that more than 80% of the profit of all the SPH newspapers combined is derived from just two papers – The Straits Times and the The Business Times (together with their week-end editions). The New Paper probably at best makes a marginal profit. So when Today launches an assault on The New Paper market, it’s missing the point. And for good measure, SPH has also deployed the flankers, Streats and Project Eyeball, to contain it.
So Today will have a tough job on its hands. It enters a segment which is already only marginally profitable for the incumbent, and not only that, it now has to fight for share for that segment against not just one, but three other opponents. I’d always root for the underdog (particularly if their opponent is a former monopolist), but this time, I have to admit I’m not optimistic. I guess it’s left to someone else to figure out SPH’s vulnerable nerve. So, who’s going to assault Normandy?
Post-script: 9 months later, Today appears to have made a successful entry into the newspaper marketplace. Its short news summaries, tabloid format and freeness has enabled it to garner a good amount of advertising. Project Eyeball is now defunct whilst Streats and Today are still battling in the MRTs.
Saturday, October 14, 2000
Beggar thy neighbour!
Article written from the perspective of a Malaysian, published in Malaysia's The Sun, in connection with Senior Minister's Lee Kuan Yew's visit to Kuala Lumpur on Oct 2000. Note that estimates of potential economic value will not pass muster with my ex-BCG colleagues - they were finger-in-the-sky numbers for purposes of drawing attention to the magnitude of potential gains.
In our dealings with trade and economic issues with our ASEAN neighbours, our official response towards questions about potential intra-ASEAN competition has been "prosper, not beggar, thy neighbour". The theory is that the economic advancement of a particular country would benefit the economy of its neighbours as increased economic activity translates into higher demand for goods and services from neighbouring countries.
Indeed, this phrase at a basic level forms the underpinnings of the World Trade Organisation and the free trade movement. And judging by the number of times Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir has used this phrase in the media, it appears to be a central tenet of our official trade policy.
Except of course when it comes to Singapore and Malaysia's trade relations. In many aspects of the trade relations between the two countries, the converse seems to be at work - "beggar, not prosper, thy neighbour". So in many spheres, Malaysia and Singapore apparently compete head on. Both Malaysia and Singapore profess to being the Asia's leading centre for shipping, finance, education, air transport, shopping, tourism… the list goes on.
So we have comparisons made between KLIA vs Changi Airport, Westport and Tanjung Pelepas vs Tanjung Pagar Port Terminal, KLCC vs Raffles Place, MSC vs Suntec City, MAS vs SIA, Mesdaq vs Sesdaq, and for the shoppers among us, Bukit Bintang vs Orchard Road.
Why do we not apply the same prosper thy neighbour policy to Singapore? Historical baggage (and being reminded of it by Lee Kuan Yew in The Singapore Story) does not help. Maybe envy too, after all, didn't Malaysia have all the resources whilst Singapore had none, yet Singapore has already achieved developed nation status, whereas we're still wondering whether we'll make it by 2020? Add to this the need to appeal to domestic voters, the other turns out to be a great bogeyman. And it's easy isn't it to mask our own weaknesses by attributing Singapore's success to its alleged kiasuness (good heavens, we're not like that at all). So no wonder we get ensnared into issues such as the CIQ facilities for Malaysian customs, impasse over renewal of water supply agreements, delay of privatisation of Malayan Railway because of impasse on status of its land bank in Singapore.
More than we care to admit, however, Malaysia and Singapore's economies are highly interdependent. Singaporean companies are one of our largest foreign direct investors, our stockmarket feels the non-participation of Singapore's retail investors, our land prices are dependent on demand from Singapore.
But more importantly, by not cooperating, both countries leave untapped a tremendous amount of potential economic value, value that can only be generated through cooperation (at first cut, we are foregoing at least RM 250 billion in potential economic value, maybe more - see table)
Let's take an example. It's fairly undisputed that Singapore has the world's busiest port. It has the world's most advanced cargo handling and port management facilities, where goods are cleared even before they arrive at the port. It's positioning itself to become the Asia's logistics hub.
A beggar thy neighbour trade policy will provoke the following knee-jerk reaction " Dammit, they're becoming the leader in shipping. All our cargo is going through their ports, and we're losing valuable foreign exchange. We must build new ports to counter this threat, and we must force Malaysian shippers to use Malaysian ports to make them economically viable"
You will notice that this reaction pervades our transport policy, and therein lies the rationale for the existence of Tanjung Pelepas and Westport.
A smarter way to approach this issue is to say. "OK, granted. Singapore is the world leader in shipping and port management. We could try to compete with them but it's not easy to beat them at their own game. But you know what? We could position ourselves to benefit from their leadership in shipping and port management. They lack land for warehousing facilities, as land in Singapore is scarce. What if we were to provide warehousing facilities for Singapore ports? After all we have plentiful land in just across the border in Gelang Patah." Potential economic gain: RM20 billion.
"Hmmmm. Why stick at warehousing? Let's be really creative with this. Oh yeah, there's a railway track that goes all the way from Thailand to just 100 meters away from Singapore's Tanjong Pagar Port Terminal. Let's take advantage of Singapore's leading position as the transhipment hub of Asia to transport goods to and from Tanjong Pagar all the way up to Thailand. If it makes economic sense for Thai shippers, then we will have a great business charging for use of our railway services ". Potential economic gain: RM 20 billion
" Why stop at railways and warehousing? Let's develop a special free trade zone in Gelang Patah where goods are free to move between Gelang Patah in Johor and Tuas in Singapore without any customs, and people are free to move without any passports (do this by relocating current Second Link immigration checkpoints 5 miles further North on the highway) Why? So that goods can be warehoused in Gelang Patah without any worries about custom or immigration delays. Oh, whilst we're at it, there's a whole bunch of multinational electronics factories based in Tuas near the Singapore border that would love to take advantage of our vast land area and large labour pool to build new factories there. Especially if there were no border controls. More jobs, more foreign investment, more economic growth." Potential economic gain: RM20 billion.
These are not the only areas where Malaysia and Singapore together can create tremendous economic value where previously there were none. The development of high speed commuter railways from Malaysia to Singapore will enable Malaysia to attract many foreign professionals currently working in Singapore (they number 1 million people) to reside in Malaysia, increasing demand for residential properties and goods and services here. The increase of direct flights from Singapore to popular recreational destinations in Malaysia will enable the expatriate population in Singapore to spend week-end tourism dollars in Malaysia, boosting our tourism industry and foreign exchange. The list goes on (please see accompanying table http://www.geocities.com/malek_ali/beggar2.html).
If one were to hazard a guess as to the economic value of a prosper thy neighbour policy, this could amount to well in excess of RM250 billion to be shared between Singapore and Malaysia. Not a bad sum just for being good neighbours.
In our dealings with trade and economic issues with our ASEAN neighbours, our official response towards questions about potential intra-ASEAN competition has been "prosper, not beggar, thy neighbour". The theory is that the economic advancement of a particular country would benefit the economy of its neighbours as increased economic activity translates into higher demand for goods and services from neighbouring countries.
Indeed, this phrase at a basic level forms the underpinnings of the World Trade Organisation and the free trade movement. And judging by the number of times Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir has used this phrase in the media, it appears to be a central tenet of our official trade policy.
Except of course when it comes to Singapore and Malaysia's trade relations. In many aspects of the trade relations between the two countries, the converse seems to be at work - "beggar, not prosper, thy neighbour". So in many spheres, Malaysia and Singapore apparently compete head on. Both Malaysia and Singapore profess to being the Asia's leading centre for shipping, finance, education, air transport, shopping, tourism… the list goes on.
So we have comparisons made between KLIA vs Changi Airport, Westport and Tanjung Pelepas vs Tanjung Pagar Port Terminal, KLCC vs Raffles Place, MSC vs Suntec City, MAS vs SIA, Mesdaq vs Sesdaq, and for the shoppers among us, Bukit Bintang vs Orchard Road.
Why do we not apply the same prosper thy neighbour policy to Singapore? Historical baggage (and being reminded of it by Lee Kuan Yew in The Singapore Story) does not help. Maybe envy too, after all, didn't Malaysia have all the resources whilst Singapore had none, yet Singapore has already achieved developed nation status, whereas we're still wondering whether we'll make it by 2020? Add to this the need to appeal to domestic voters, the other turns out to be a great bogeyman. And it's easy isn't it to mask our own weaknesses by attributing Singapore's success to its alleged kiasuness (good heavens, we're not like that at all). So no wonder we get ensnared into issues such as the CIQ facilities for Malaysian customs, impasse over renewal of water supply agreements, delay of privatisation of Malayan Railway because of impasse on status of its land bank in Singapore.
More than we care to admit, however, Malaysia and Singapore's economies are highly interdependent. Singaporean companies are one of our largest foreign direct investors, our stockmarket feels the non-participation of Singapore's retail investors, our land prices are dependent on demand from Singapore.
But more importantly, by not cooperating, both countries leave untapped a tremendous amount of potential economic value, value that can only be generated through cooperation (at first cut, we are foregoing at least RM 250 billion in potential economic value, maybe more - see table)
Let's take an example. It's fairly undisputed that Singapore has the world's busiest port. It has the world's most advanced cargo handling and port management facilities, where goods are cleared even before they arrive at the port. It's positioning itself to become the Asia's logistics hub.
A beggar thy neighbour trade policy will provoke the following knee-jerk reaction " Dammit, they're becoming the leader in shipping. All our cargo is going through their ports, and we're losing valuable foreign exchange. We must build new ports to counter this threat, and we must force Malaysian shippers to use Malaysian ports to make them economically viable"
You will notice that this reaction pervades our transport policy, and therein lies the rationale for the existence of Tanjung Pelepas and Westport.
A smarter way to approach this issue is to say. "OK, granted. Singapore is the world leader in shipping and port management. We could try to compete with them but it's not easy to beat them at their own game. But you know what? We could position ourselves to benefit from their leadership in shipping and port management. They lack land for warehousing facilities, as land in Singapore is scarce. What if we were to provide warehousing facilities for Singapore ports? After all we have plentiful land in just across the border in Gelang Patah." Potential economic gain: RM20 billion.
"Hmmmm. Why stick at warehousing? Let's be really creative with this. Oh yeah, there's a railway track that goes all the way from Thailand to just 100 meters away from Singapore's Tanjong Pagar Port Terminal. Let's take advantage of Singapore's leading position as the transhipment hub of Asia to transport goods to and from Tanjong Pagar all the way up to Thailand. If it makes economic sense for Thai shippers, then we will have a great business charging for use of our railway services ". Potential economic gain: RM 20 billion
" Why stop at railways and warehousing? Let's develop a special free trade zone in Gelang Patah where goods are free to move between Gelang Patah in Johor and Tuas in Singapore without any customs, and people are free to move without any passports (do this by relocating current Second Link immigration checkpoints 5 miles further North on the highway) Why? So that goods can be warehoused in Gelang Patah without any worries about custom or immigration delays. Oh, whilst we're at it, there's a whole bunch of multinational electronics factories based in Tuas near the Singapore border that would love to take advantage of our vast land area and large labour pool to build new factories there. Especially if there were no border controls. More jobs, more foreign investment, more economic growth." Potential economic gain: RM20 billion.
These are not the only areas where Malaysia and Singapore together can create tremendous economic value where previously there were none. The development of high speed commuter railways from Malaysia to Singapore will enable Malaysia to attract many foreign professionals currently working in Singapore (they number 1 million people) to reside in Malaysia, increasing demand for residential properties and goods and services here. The increase of direct flights from Singapore to popular recreational destinations in Malaysia will enable the expatriate population in Singapore to spend week-end tourism dollars in Malaysia, boosting our tourism industry and foreign exchange. The list goes on (please see accompanying table http://www.geocities.com/malek_ali/beggar2.html).
If one were to hazard a guess as to the economic value of a prosper thy neighbour policy, this could amount to well in excess of RM250 billion to be shared between Singapore and Malaysia. Not a bad sum just for being good neighbours.
Monday, August 14, 2000
Damn the commuters!
Article posted on a KL environmental watchgroup online forum sometime in the fall of 2000, in response to a plea for ideas and solutions to KL traffic woes
Our current approach to resolving the traffic congestion problems in KL is driven by 2 elements:1. Attack the symptoms (hey, if there's a lot more cars on the road, we should build a lot more roads right?) 2. Let's make some money doing it (If Renong can do it with the North South highway, why can't we?)
Hence the flurry of toll highway projects, and the creation of a business culture based on a toll-gate mentality (water, sewage, LRT projects are all also built on this business culture - get the concession first and then charge consumers an arm and a leg for it).
Lest I sound like just a whinger, let me propose an action plan: Attack the root cause, not the symptom.
The root cause of traffic congestion, I contend, is the lack of alternative transport. Hey, I used to live in Ulu Klang, and I wanna get to Bukit Bintang. Sorry friend, LRT does not serve Bukit Bintang (yet its the most popular shopping area!). We don't need more roads, we need more LRT stops at the relevant places. C'mon, it does not require Einstein to figure out we need an LRT stop at Bukit Bintang, unless we're trying to change decades old pattern of KL residents behaviour. So the net result: streams of cars containing only one passenger i.e. the driver heading in and out of KL, day in, day out.
The problem is a comprehensive MRT/LRT network costs a lot of money. So if you notice, we took the cheap way out and built along ex-railway land. Cheap methods yield cheap results (all you architects out there will agree). And Star-LRT has the temerity to wonder aloud why passenger traffic levels are not what they forecasted! (Kawan, your routes do not go anywhere useful, duh!).
So, Action Step 1 : Build a comprehensive MRT/LRT network
Let's lay down one inalienable fact. Passenger transport systems are NOT profitable. Whether its Japanese bullet trains or London Underground, other countries' experience tells us that the private sector ain't gonna make money out of this. (So why is Putra, Star-LRT, PLRT in this business in the first place? - well, as I said, it's a concession driven business culture, therefore, get the concession first, spend some arm-twisted banker's money on lucrative procurement contracts second, and then worry about the operations last).
So whaddawe do? Hate to say this folks, but we gotta spend some taxpayer's money. We've got to give Putra and Star a subsidy to operate the existing network. They're both head over heels in the red, and eventhough the systems ain't ideal, we have to save it. Either taxpayers pay off their construction loans so that they can at least maintain a profitable operation (the Singapore MRT approach), or we have to give them a subsidy every year to operate those lines (the UK British Rail approach). In return, taxpayers should get full disclosure of operational finances. So:
Action Step 2: Save Putra and Star-LRT
What about PLRT monorail? Well figure out the passenger traffic capacity of those things. If they are as I suspect unable to carry high passenger levels, scrap the whole damn shebang. Right now it's still possible to stop that project, obliterate all those gargantuan landscape blighters (you know those concrete pillar monstrosities in the middle of town which do nothing but advertise Digi phones), and let PLRT figure out how to sort their loans with their bankers. Sorry, no taxpayers money for this one as the usefulness of the project is not proven.
So, Action step 3: Scrap PLRT
So no PLRT means no access to BUkit Bintang and Raja Chulan/Sultan Ismail right? Wrong. Next we need to get a true blue transport specialist to study commuter patterns in the Klang valley area and propose an ideal case (i.e. if we had all the money in the world, this would be the rail routes). Then let's sit down and decide the trade-offs that we will have to make. It will have to involve a lot of tunnelling, which means that a lot of prep work would have to be done beforehand e.g. redirection of sewage tunnels, power lines, telecom lines, etc. Yes, this is the kind of project that separates the men from the boys. And all those urban/city planners will have to get off their comfortable armchairs and get their hands dirty. Let's not kid ourselves - it will cost a lot of $$$$$$$ - but so long as this does not go to private pockets, it's money well worth spending.
And to speed up the process, maybe us concerned citizens can do one thing. Let's get a quotation from several of these transportation specialists as to how much would a comprehensive transportation planning study cost. Then let's approach Petronas to sponsor this plan (or HSBC since their corporate theme is saving the environment) . We then nominate one of our best private sector urban planners to lead the planning process with the chosen transportation specialists.
Once we've got the blueprint, then let's say to the federal government "hiya folks, here's a solution, signed off and approved by us, the Klang valley residents. You wanna one of your cronies to implement it? Fine. We don't mind you spending our taxpayer's money on this, but we know the costings so don't mess around."
So, Action step no. 4 : Get sponsorship of a comprehensive transportation study for the Klang valley.
Thursday, June 01, 2000
5 years after graduating from Harvard Business School, the class of 95 was due to meet for its 5th reunion in June 2000. We were asked to pen a note on what we've been doing since graduation.
Has it been five years? Time just flies in the tropics, with no seasons to remind you of the pace of time. And the tropics is where Steph and I have been all this time, first in Malaysia , now in Singapore. Yes Malaysia was a little bit of a homecoming, having been living and working abroad since leaving home at the tender age of 16. The settling in process in Kuala Lumpur was made smoother by being with BCG at the time - it was great to work in a familiar work environment whilst getting acclimatized to how things work in Malaysia. But there was one teething problem. Steph and I had to get married again. Let me explain.
Steph and I were married in England prior to HBS, but this was not recognized under Malaysian law as we did not go through a "proper" Muslim ceremony. And there were tough penalties for not going legit (time in jail was a possibility). So on a BCG recruiting trip to London, Steph and I took the opportunity of getting married again before an Egyptian cleric and two witnesses roped in from the adjoining Regent's Park mosque. "Where did you go?" asked some BCG colleagues afterwards. "Oh, I just got married", was the reply. That was February 14, 1997.
Confident from this new marriage, I moonlighted in the evenings writing up a business plan for a classifieds-only paper. The newspaper classifieds market was great at the time, and the idea was to start with the first all-classifieds paper in Malaysia, then take it to Singapore, then use the offline publications to enter the Internet classifieds marketspace.
By August 1997, funding was concluded, and I left BCG and we began buying equipment, leasing office space and recruiting people. There was one small thing. In July, Thailand's currency had buckled. Isolated incident, we thought. Then it came smack bang at our doorstep. Malaysia's currency was now under attack and the stock market swooned - first by 30%, then 50% and by the end of year, by almost 80%. What we thought to be just a financial problem turned out to be a much more protracted one, and the classifieds market went silent. Whoops.
After persevering for one year, I threw my lot in with a group MIT guys who had built the leading jobs portal in Malaysia, JobStreet.com. The mandate was to raise funds and regionalize Jobstreet.com. To date, we have raised two rounds of financing and opened 3 offices (Singapore, Philippines and India) and Steph and I are now based in Singapore.
So it's been a mixed 5 years. Baptism by fire comes close to describing the experience of starting a start-up business during tumultous times. On the other hand, Steph and I had a great experience working together (a situation which, I must confess, I was very wary about initially). I also got known in town as Mr. Batman due to some publicity stunts that required me to dress up as the hooded hero (Didi and Malcolm, thank you very much for the Batman cufflinks). This put me in good stead with venture capitalists whom I was to meet later ("So you're the Batman I read about!"), which then sets the right tone for ensuing discussions.
That's where we are, look forward to seeing everyone at the Reunion!
Monday, May 01, 2000
The Way Forward - An Action Plan for Malaysian Primary Schools
A response to the editor of the Edge requesting feedback on a commentary on the sad state of Malaysian primary schools. Published in the Edge in May 2000. Article dedicated to John Lim, my Standard 5 teacher and school prefect master at St John's School I, KL.
Agree on most points. However, as with a lot of commentaries, it's short on an action plan, though there were hints at 2 elements - raising rewards for primary school teachers and raising entry standards. Here is an attempt to follow through your article with an concrete action plan:
1. Decide on the objective of our primary education system.
I propose that the objective is a good general base of the 3Rs (reading, 'riting, 'rithmetic), and a solid basic conversational and written skills in at 2 languages - English and Bahasa Malaysia. A third language is an option e.g. Mandarin or Tamil.The secondary school will be able to build on this when it comes to more functional subjects at the secondary level.
2. Design a national curriculum for the national schools incorporating these objectives.
It's not difficult. Look back at the national curriculum of say 25 years ago - they had these basic 3R objectives in mind.
3. Keeping in mind that English is the lingua franca of commerce and technology, for the present and in the forseeable future, incorporate English not as a subject, but as a medium of instruction in mathematics and science-based subjects.
Bahasa Malaysia can remain the medium of instruction for History, Geography and other arts-based subjects. Mandarin and Tamil will be options at national schools.
4. Do not implement the national school curriculum immediately.
Select 1-2 urban national schools in each of Kuala Lumpur, Pulau Pinang and Johor Bahru to pilot this new national curriculum. Call them vision schools if you like. Devote high quality teaching resources to this schools. Select the most motivated and high quality teachers among the disillusioned group we have now. Give them new pay scales (so that they do not have to peddle Amway products). Give them performance criteria upfront, including surveys by parents in terms of their child development, in addition to things like exam results of their class. If they beat the criteria, give them a bonus. If they don't, fire them. As a carrot, this core group of talented, motivated teachers, if they succeed, should be offered the role of trainers of teachers of future schools.
5. Hire expert primary school educationists, from abroad if necessary, to train the pilot school teachers.
Recognise that money is not the only motivating factor for people to join a particular profesion - it is also the ability to develop oneself in terms of skills and careers. Investing in training for these pilot teachers is critical. A one year course training course including a spell in a benchmark primary school overseas is the minimum. (they don't have to go far, you can find many of these south of the border)
6. Let the process begin.
Attract students and win support of their parents by demonstrating the amount of investment in terms of teacher training into these pilot schools. (Persuading parents from the alternative national schools will not be hard - it will be harder to persuade parents from Chinese schools).
7. Document and publicise the early successes of students of these pilot schools.
Actively involve parents in gauging their children's development. If they see successes, you can bet your bottom dollar they will be the strongest advocates of the new schools and curriculum8. After the pilot, which should last at least 2 or 3 years, prepare the roll out of this new national curriculum together with attendant teacher resources to 2-3 more urban schools in each major city in Malaysia, and major towns.
Also select selected rural schools that are receptive to such schools. Focus on existing national schools. Teachers from the original pilot schools should be stationed in each of these schools, to help the transition from the old curriculum to the new curriculum. again, upgrade pay scales in return for a new performnance based contracts.
9. After 5-6 years, the first results of a full complete primary education system based on new curriculum will be available. If this is a success, we then have proof that the new curriculum supported by adequate teaching resources has worked. Publicise and propagate the success - implement wider roll-out.
10. Invite, don't coerce, the Chinese and Tamil language schools to adopt the new national curriculum.
If they refuse, fine, it's their loss. If they coopt in, support them with the same resources as with national schools. The whole reason that they are resisting vision schools today is that there is no demonstrable proof that the new vision schools will improve educational and teaching standards. Would you buy an untested product from someone whose current product does not work, just based on his promises? Certainly not.
11. In terms of teacher resources, there are plenty of teacher training schools in UK for example who would dearly love to send their teacher trainees to work for a year in a foreign country. Offer one year temporary positions to these teachers to work in Malaysian primary schools - get them to teach the English curriculum - i.e. the science and mathematics-based subjects. You don;t need to pay them very much - food and lodging plus a small living allownace is fine - it;s the experience they want not the money.
12. Don't just limit reforms to the primary education system. Set up pilot secondary schools based on the same formula - developing medium of instruction in english for science and maths based subjects and Bahasa Malaysia for arts based subjects. Use the same pilot and roll-out techniques outlined above.
It's a 20 year plan. But our children are worth it.
Agree on most points. However, as with a lot of commentaries, it's short on an action plan, though there were hints at 2 elements - raising rewards for primary school teachers and raising entry standards. Here is an attempt to follow through your article with an concrete action plan:
1. Decide on the objective of our primary education system.
I propose that the objective is a good general base of the 3Rs (reading, 'riting, 'rithmetic), and a solid basic conversational and written skills in at 2 languages - English and Bahasa Malaysia. A third language is an option e.g. Mandarin or Tamil.The secondary school will be able to build on this when it comes to more functional subjects at the secondary level.
2. Design a national curriculum for the national schools incorporating these objectives.
It's not difficult. Look back at the national curriculum of say 25 years ago - they had these basic 3R objectives in mind.
3. Keeping in mind that English is the lingua franca of commerce and technology, for the present and in the forseeable future, incorporate English not as a subject, but as a medium of instruction in mathematics and science-based subjects.
Bahasa Malaysia can remain the medium of instruction for History, Geography and other arts-based subjects. Mandarin and Tamil will be options at national schools.
4. Do not implement the national school curriculum immediately.
Select 1-2 urban national schools in each of Kuala Lumpur, Pulau Pinang and Johor Bahru to pilot this new national curriculum. Call them vision schools if you like. Devote high quality teaching resources to this schools. Select the most motivated and high quality teachers among the disillusioned group we have now. Give them new pay scales (so that they do not have to peddle Amway products). Give them performance criteria upfront, including surveys by parents in terms of their child development, in addition to things like exam results of their class. If they beat the criteria, give them a bonus. If they don't, fire them. As a carrot, this core group of talented, motivated teachers, if they succeed, should be offered the role of trainers of teachers of future schools.
5. Hire expert primary school educationists, from abroad if necessary, to train the pilot school teachers.
Recognise that money is not the only motivating factor for people to join a particular profesion - it is also the ability to develop oneself in terms of skills and careers. Investing in training for these pilot teachers is critical. A one year course training course including a spell in a benchmark primary school overseas is the minimum. (they don't have to go far, you can find many of these south of the border)
6. Let the process begin.
Attract students and win support of their parents by demonstrating the amount of investment in terms of teacher training into these pilot schools. (Persuading parents from the alternative national schools will not be hard - it will be harder to persuade parents from Chinese schools).
7. Document and publicise the early successes of students of these pilot schools.
Actively involve parents in gauging their children's development. If they see successes, you can bet your bottom dollar they will be the strongest advocates of the new schools and curriculum8. After the pilot, which should last at least 2 or 3 years, prepare the roll out of this new national curriculum together with attendant teacher resources to 2-3 more urban schools in each major city in Malaysia, and major towns.
Also select selected rural schools that are receptive to such schools. Focus on existing national schools. Teachers from the original pilot schools should be stationed in each of these schools, to help the transition from the old curriculum to the new curriculum. again, upgrade pay scales in return for a new performnance based contracts.
9. After 5-6 years, the first results of a full complete primary education system based on new curriculum will be available. If this is a success, we then have proof that the new curriculum supported by adequate teaching resources has worked. Publicise and propagate the success - implement wider roll-out.
10. Invite, don't coerce, the Chinese and Tamil language schools to adopt the new national curriculum.
If they refuse, fine, it's their loss. If they coopt in, support them with the same resources as with national schools. The whole reason that they are resisting vision schools today is that there is no demonstrable proof that the new vision schools will improve educational and teaching standards. Would you buy an untested product from someone whose current product does not work, just based on his promises? Certainly not.
11. In terms of teacher resources, there are plenty of teacher training schools in UK for example who would dearly love to send their teacher trainees to work for a year in a foreign country. Offer one year temporary positions to these teachers to work in Malaysian primary schools - get them to teach the English curriculum - i.e. the science and mathematics-based subjects. You don;t need to pay them very much - food and lodging plus a small living allownace is fine - it;s the experience they want not the money.
12. Don't just limit reforms to the primary education system. Set up pilot secondary schools based on the same formula - developing medium of instruction in english for science and maths based subjects and Bahasa Malaysia for arts based subjects. Use the same pilot and roll-out techniques outlined above.
It's a 20 year plan. But our children are worth it.
Thursday, November 11, 1999
Damn the New Voters
A terse letter, written on 11 November 1999, about being disenfranchised from the Malaysian general election. Needless to say, it was not published.
The Malaysian Parliament was dissolved today to pave way for a general election to be held before the end of the year. It is generally acknowledged that the timing of the election before January 2000 is crucial - 650,000 new voters will join the electoral rolls in January 2000, who are unlikely to vote for Barisan Nasional, the ruling coalition led by Dr. Mahathir, Malaysia's longest serving premier.
It is a sad reflection of Malaysian democracy, which is meant to embrace the inclusive concept of universal suffrage, that an election date is chosen precisely because of the number of voters that it would exclude. 650,000 voters to be precise - more than 3% of the total population and an even larger percentage of people who are eligible to vote.
Whereas voter turnout and voter registration is seen by most countries as an indicator of the mandate achieved by the winning side, it is a shame to see that this is not really a consideration at all in the context of Malaysian elections. Who cares about mandates? Who cares about getting ground-level feedback on your policies? Damn the new voters - just so long as we win!
I happen to be one of these voters who will not make the electoral roll for this election. I feel disenfranchised and frustrated at not being able to state my approval or otherwise of the present government. Whoever forms the next government, they will not have the mandate of these 650,000 voters. Don't blame these voters if they happen not to respect the results of the election.
The Malaysian Parliament was dissolved today to pave way for a general election to be held before the end of the year. It is generally acknowledged that the timing of the election before January 2000 is crucial - 650,000 new voters will join the electoral rolls in January 2000, who are unlikely to vote for Barisan Nasional, the ruling coalition led by Dr. Mahathir, Malaysia's longest serving premier.
It is a sad reflection of Malaysian democracy, which is meant to embrace the inclusive concept of universal suffrage, that an election date is chosen precisely because of the number of voters that it would exclude. 650,000 voters to be precise - more than 3% of the total population and an even larger percentage of people who are eligible to vote.
Whereas voter turnout and voter registration is seen by most countries as an indicator of the mandate achieved by the winning side, it is a shame to see that this is not really a consideration at all in the context of Malaysian elections. Who cares about mandates? Who cares about getting ground-level feedback on your policies? Damn the new voters - just so long as we win!
I happen to be one of these voters who will not make the electoral roll for this election. I feel disenfranchised and frustrated at not being able to state my approval or otherwise of the present government. Whoever forms the next government, they will not have the mandate of these 650,000 voters. Don't blame these voters if they happen not to respect the results of the election.
Friday, July 31, 1998
Baptism By Fire
A post-script to the KL Classifieds venture below. 5 years after graduating from HBS, the class of 95 was due to meet for its 5th reunion in June 2000. We were asked to pen a note on what we've been doing since graduation.
Has it been five years? Time just flies in the tropics, with no seasons to remind you of the pace of time. And the tropics is where Steph and I have been all this time, first in Malaysia , now in Singapore.
Yes Malaysia was a little bit of a homecoming, having been living and working abroad since leaving home at the tender age of 16. The settling in process in Kuala Lumpur was made smoother by being with BCG at the time - it was great to work in a familiar work environment whilst getting acclimatized to how things work in Malaysia. But there was one teething problem. Steph and I had to get married again. Let me explain.
Steph and I were married in England prior to HBS, but this was not recognized under Malaysian law as we did not go through a "proper" Muslim ceremony. And there were tough penalties for not going legit (time in jail was a possibility). So on a BCG recruiting trip to London, Steph and I took the opportunity of getting married again before an Egyptian cleric and two witnesses roped in from the adjoining Regent's Park mosque. "Where did you go?" asked some BCG colleagues afterwards. "Oh, I just got married", was the reply. That was February 14, 1997.
Confident from this new marriage, I moonlighted in the evenings writing up a business plan for a classifieds-only paper. The newspaper classifieds market was great at the time, and the idea was to start with the first all-classifieds paper in Malaysia, then take it to Singapore, then use the offline publications to enter the Internet classifieds marketspace. By August 1997, funding was concluded, and I left BCG and we began buying equipment, leasing office space and recruiting people.
There was one small thing. In July, Thailand's currency had buckled. Isolated incident, we thought. Then it came smack bang at our doorstep. Malaysia's currency was now under attack and the stock market swooned - first by 30%, then 50% and by the end of year, by almost 80%. What we thought to be just a financial problem turned out to be a much more protracted one, and the classifieds market went silent.
Whoops. After persevering for one year, I threw my lot in with a group MIT guys who had built the leading jobs portal in Malaysia, JobStreet.com. The mandate was to raise funds and regionalize Jobstreet.com. To date, we have raised two rounds of financing and opened 3 offices (Singapore, Philippines and India) and Steph and I are now based in Singapore.
So it's been a mixed 5 years. Baptism by fire comes close to describing the experience of starting a start-up business during tumultous times. On the other hand, Steph and I had a great experience working together (a situation which, I must confess, I was very wary about initially). I also got known in town as Mr. Batman due to some publicity stunts that required me to dress up as the hooded hero (Didi and Malcolm, thank you very much for the Batman cufflinks). This put me in good stead with venture capitalists whom I was to meet later ("So you're the Batman I read about!"), which then sets the right tone for ensuing discussions.
That's where we are, look forward to seeing everyone at the Reunion!
Has it been five years? Time just flies in the tropics, with no seasons to remind you of the pace of time. And the tropics is where Steph and I have been all this time, first in Malaysia , now in Singapore.
Yes Malaysia was a little bit of a homecoming, having been living and working abroad since leaving home at the tender age of 16. The settling in process in Kuala Lumpur was made smoother by being with BCG at the time - it was great to work in a familiar work environment whilst getting acclimatized to how things work in Malaysia. But there was one teething problem. Steph and I had to get married again. Let me explain.
Steph and I were married in England prior to HBS, but this was not recognized under Malaysian law as we did not go through a "proper" Muslim ceremony. And there were tough penalties for not going legit (time in jail was a possibility). So on a BCG recruiting trip to London, Steph and I took the opportunity of getting married again before an Egyptian cleric and two witnesses roped in from the adjoining Regent's Park mosque. "Where did you go?" asked some BCG colleagues afterwards. "Oh, I just got married", was the reply. That was February 14, 1997.
Confident from this new marriage, I moonlighted in the evenings writing up a business plan for a classifieds-only paper. The newspaper classifieds market was great at the time, and the idea was to start with the first all-classifieds paper in Malaysia, then take it to Singapore, then use the offline publications to enter the Internet classifieds marketspace. By August 1997, funding was concluded, and I left BCG and we began buying equipment, leasing office space and recruiting people.
There was one small thing. In July, Thailand's currency had buckled. Isolated incident, we thought. Then it came smack bang at our doorstep. Malaysia's currency was now under attack and the stock market swooned - first by 30%, then 50% and by the end of year, by almost 80%. What we thought to be just a financial problem turned out to be a much more protracted one, and the classifieds market went silent.
Whoops. After persevering for one year, I threw my lot in with a group MIT guys who had built the leading jobs portal in Malaysia, JobStreet.com. The mandate was to raise funds and regionalize Jobstreet.com. To date, we have raised two rounds of financing and opened 3 offices (Singapore, Philippines and India) and Steph and I are now based in Singapore.
So it's been a mixed 5 years. Baptism by fire comes close to describing the experience of starting a start-up business during tumultous times. On the other hand, Steph and I had a great experience working together (a situation which, I must confess, I was very wary about initially). I also got known in town as Mr. Batman due to some publicity stunts that required me to dress up as the hooded hero (Didi and Malcolm, thank you very much for the Batman cufflinks). This put me in good stead with venture capitalists whom I was to meet later ("So you're the Batman I read about!"), which then sets the right tone for ensuing discussions.
That's where we are, look forward to seeing everyone at the Reunion!
Wednesday, July 01, 1998
Archive: Malaysian Entrepreneur Thinks Secret Of Success Is Classified
An off-beat article in the Asian Wall Street Journal in July 1998 on some of the maverick marketing tactics employed in my first entrepreneurial adventure, a classifieds paper. I dispute that these were part of my "core strategy" but journalists do need some creative licence..... By LOUISE LEE
TWICE A WEEK, Malek Ali dons heavy black boots and a black rubber mask with pointy ears, then walks into traffic.
Does this sound like an activity for a man with a Harvard MBA ? Mr. Ali thinks so. In fact, it's part of his core strategy for launching his new business, a newspaper.
It's certainly getting him noticed. Children see him and yell "Batman!" out of car windows. Lunch-hour drivers honk their horns and give Mr. Ali the thumbs-up. For two hours, Mr. Ali approaches taxis, private cars and any pedestrian willing to pause, and offers them a flier pitching his publication, KL Classifieds, which he started four months ago.
His weekly 32-page tabloid publishes classified ads and display ads. To sell such a low-glitz product on a shoestring budget, Mr. Ali is betting on in-your-face, street-level theatrics. The effort in part reflects the fact that a generally affordable marketing method for most products -- putting ads in Kuala Lumpur's dailies -- isn't an option for KL Classifieds, since existing papers aren't enthusiastic about running ads for a competitor.
The expense is minimal, other than "a little bit of embarrassment and gritting of teeth," says Mr. Ali, a 31-year-old former associate at Boston Consulting Group, a management-consulting firm. Mr. Ali did use more-conventional methods of advertising during last spring's launch of the paper, which sells for about 25 U.S. cents a copy and includes ads for products ranging from household goods to cars to computers. A launch budget of only $65,000 made television out of the question, so he turned to radio and bus banners. One of the radio spots, which were scripted by ad agency Leo Burnett, portrayed a man receiving a birthday gift: a "combination button-sewing machine with double-action propeller ice-crusher." The spot ended with the tagline, "Want to sell something? Get KL Classifieds." Banners on the backs of buses read: "Forget Monday. The week begins on Thursday," a reference to the day the paper reaches newsstands.
Mr. Ali believes the ads were effective, but he was itching for more bang for his startup buck. "I get upset when people say, `I haven't heard any of your ads,' " he says. So he ended the radio ads after six weeks. Then, on April Fools' Day, Mr. Ali and a handful of his eight staff members hit the street. One staffer carried a steering wheel and walked down the street making engine noises; his T-shirt read, "Looking for a car?" Mr. Ali carried a dog leash that had been stiffened so that he appeared to be walking an invisible dog. His sign said, "Lost something?"
Reactions from passersby ranged from curiosity to sheer fright, recalls Mr. Ali. But the antics worked: they got a burst of attention fast, and the phones lines lit up, he says. "Basically, it was guerrilla warfare," says Huang Ean Hwa, a Leo Burnett ad director who worked on KL Classifieds'marketing effort.
In conservative Kuala Lumpur, where button-down shirts and traditional Muslim dress predominate, a man in a Batman costume stands out. Here, people get excited about it, says Mr. Ali, who is Malaysian. He adds that "people are less jaded" here than residents of other cities, and see the novelty of offbeat costumes and cultural icons.
Some competitors, such as the New Straits Times as well as three tabloid papers, are taking note. "Is (Mr. Ali) a wacko?" says A. Ragunathan, an executive overseeing advertising at the Sun, a local tabloid published by Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd. Still, "a recession like this is when a guy can do anything to get some attention," says Mr. Ragunathan. He adds that KL Classifieds hasn't affected his ad sales at his paper, which has a daily circulation of about 85,000. So far, KL Classifieds reaches between 12,000 and 13,000 readers a week.
The street splash aside, Mr. Ali acknowledges hurdles to overcome. Some consumers have been "suspicious" of the paper's policy of accepting classified ads free of charge. The strategy behind accepting free adds is to boost the classified-ad volume, thus luring more readers and thereby attracting businesses that will pay for display ads. "It takes a bit of customer education," Mr. Ali says. Currently, only 20% of the ads in the paper are placed by paying customers, although Mr. Ali is aiming to raise that fraction to 50% over the next couple of years. He wouldn't disclose thepaper's monthly revenue, but says KL Classifieds aims to break even in "a couple of years."
Getting more people to place personals ads, too, is a challenge, says Steph Magdalino, another manager at the paper. When taking a phone order for a regular ad, she often tries to persuade the caller to place a personal one. "People are shy," she says. "We try to make them expressive. Tell someone you love them!"
On a recent Friday in a dusty parking lot, Mr. Ali transforms himself into the superhero, jamming his boots onto his feet and adjusting his mask. On this day, he leaves off the long black gloves that he sometimes wears. In the noontime sun, "it's just too hot," he says, sweat already forming on his nose.
For the next two hours, he and a few employees work amid the exhaust fumes on one of downtown's busiest streets. Mr. Ali weaves among traffic, waving and grinning and occasionally reaching into cars to shake the hand of a beaming young fan.
One of his customer-service staffers, Nicholas Marimuthu, wears a tall white chef's hat, a reference to the paper's cafe and restaurant ads, and distributes complementary copies. David Tang, a member of the paper's creative team, stands on the sidewalk pretending to sleep. His sandwich board says, "For a more interesting job, read KL Classifieds."
TWICE A WEEK, Malek Ali dons heavy black boots and a black rubber mask with pointy ears, then walks into traffic.
Does this sound like an activity for a man with a Harvard MBA ? Mr. Ali thinks so. In fact, it's part of his core strategy for launching his new business, a newspaper.
It's certainly getting him noticed. Children see him and yell "Batman!" out of car windows. Lunch-hour drivers honk their horns and give Mr. Ali the thumbs-up. For two hours, Mr. Ali approaches taxis, private cars and any pedestrian willing to pause, and offers them a flier pitching his publication, KL Classifieds, which he started four months ago.
His weekly 32-page tabloid publishes classified ads and display ads. To sell such a low-glitz product on a shoestring budget, Mr. Ali is betting on in-your-face, street-level theatrics. The effort in part reflects the fact that a generally affordable marketing method for most products -- putting ads in Kuala Lumpur's dailies -- isn't an option for KL Classifieds, since existing papers aren't enthusiastic about running ads for a competitor.
The expense is minimal, other than "a little bit of embarrassment and gritting of teeth," says Mr. Ali, a 31-year-old former associate at Boston Consulting Group, a management-consulting firm. Mr. Ali did use more-conventional methods of advertising during last spring's launch of the paper, which sells for about 25 U.S. cents a copy and includes ads for products ranging from household goods to cars to computers. A launch budget of only $65,000 made television out of the question, so he turned to radio and bus banners. One of the radio spots, which were scripted by ad agency Leo Burnett, portrayed a man receiving a birthday gift: a "combination button-sewing machine with double-action propeller ice-crusher." The spot ended with the tagline, "Want to sell something? Get KL Classifieds." Banners on the backs of buses read: "Forget Monday. The week begins on Thursday," a reference to the day the paper reaches newsstands.
Mr. Ali believes the ads were effective, but he was itching for more bang for his startup buck. "I get upset when people say, `I haven't heard any of your ads,' " he says. So he ended the radio ads after six weeks. Then, on April Fools' Day, Mr. Ali and a handful of his eight staff members hit the street. One staffer carried a steering wheel and walked down the street making engine noises; his T-shirt read, "Looking for a car?" Mr. Ali carried a dog leash that had been stiffened so that he appeared to be walking an invisible dog. His sign said, "Lost something?"
Reactions from passersby ranged from curiosity to sheer fright, recalls Mr. Ali. But the antics worked: they got a burst of attention fast, and the phones lines lit up, he says. "Basically, it was guerrilla warfare," says Huang Ean Hwa, a Leo Burnett ad director who worked on KL Classifieds'marketing effort.
In conservative Kuala Lumpur, where button-down shirts and traditional Muslim dress predominate, a man in a Batman costume stands out. Here, people get excited about it, says Mr. Ali, who is Malaysian. He adds that "people are less jaded" here than residents of other cities, and see the novelty of offbeat costumes and cultural icons.
Some competitors, such as the New Straits Times as well as three tabloid papers, are taking note. "Is (Mr. Ali) a wacko?" says A. Ragunathan, an executive overseeing advertising at the Sun, a local tabloid published by Sun Media Group Sdn Bhd. Still, "a recession like this is when a guy can do anything to get some attention," says Mr. Ragunathan. He adds that KL Classifieds hasn't affected his ad sales at his paper, which has a daily circulation of about 85,000. So far, KL Classifieds reaches between 12,000 and 13,000 readers a week.
The street splash aside, Mr. Ali acknowledges hurdles to overcome. Some consumers have been "suspicious" of the paper's policy of accepting classified ads free of charge. The strategy behind accepting free adds is to boost the classified-ad volume, thus luring more readers and thereby attracting businesses that will pay for display ads. "It takes a bit of customer education," Mr. Ali says. Currently, only 20% of the ads in the paper are placed by paying customers, although Mr. Ali is aiming to raise that fraction to 50% over the next couple of years. He wouldn't disclose thepaper's monthly revenue, but says KL Classifieds aims to break even in "a couple of years."
Getting more people to place personals ads, too, is a challenge, says Steph Magdalino, another manager at the paper. When taking a phone order for a regular ad, she often tries to persuade the caller to place a personal one. "People are shy," she says. "We try to make them expressive. Tell someone you love them!"
On a recent Friday in a dusty parking lot, Mr. Ali transforms himself into the superhero, jamming his boots onto his feet and adjusting his mask. On this day, he leaves off the long black gloves that he sometimes wears. In the noontime sun, "it's just too hot," he says, sweat already forming on his nose.
For the next two hours, he and a few employees work amid the exhaust fumes on one of downtown's busiest streets. Mr. Ali weaves among traffic, waving and grinning and occasionally reaching into cars to shake the hand of a beaming young fan.
One of his customer-service staffers, Nicholas Marimuthu, wears a tall white chef's hat, a reference to the paper's cafe and restaurant ads, and distributes complementary copies. David Tang, a member of the paper's creative team, stands on the sidewalk pretending to sleep. His sandwich board says, "For a more interesting job, read KL Classifieds."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
