Defined research criteria

By R Nadeswaran, The Sun

THE horror stories one hears about government grants, especially meant for research, can make a few chapters if a revised edition of Grimm’s Fairy Tales is published.

From mark-ups to non-existent activities, we have been told, money has been doled out without question and in many cases without proper answers.

In short, money meant for use in efforts to create new and innovative products and resources that will assist the country have literally ended up in the pockets of a few masquerading as researchers and scientists.

Just how much has been allocated for research is not known because each ministry or government agency has been doling out money under what each terms “our budget”.

The system of dishing out grants in Malaysia has never been transparent and neither has any expertise been enlisted to scrutinise the proposed research or budget. On top of that, the results and findings of the research (in many cases) were never asked for nor given.

As this is being written, a journalist from Malaysia has alerted me to the Sports Ministry spending RM6 million to have a foreign company “conduct a study on sports in Malaysia”.

What results they can or will produce are unknown, but on what basis the company was chosen is as hazy as the low clouds which hover over Genting Highlands. There is no need to submit the methodology, the reasons for the study and how it would help the country.

Last week, I met a Malaysian student who had applied for a grant of £750 (RM3,675) to undertake a study at the Marquette University in Wisconsin during the summer break for his dissertation on A comparison of sports gambling laws in Malaysia, the UK and the US. He had to write a 500-word essay on what he intends to do and the proposed budget. He then had to appear before a panel and present his ideas and what he intends to achieve.

Sorry for the digression, but for the first time, we are seeing some semblance of regulated criteria (including making presentation and competing with each other) to be used when applications are made for public funds.

But there’s no reason to cheer because we have been told that there’s a massive opposition to such a move because some of our government agencies and their civil service heads feel that their turf and authority are being undermined.

If such opposition is against wastage or excessive spending, everyone will join in a chorus of condemnation. However, in this case, the objection is to some form of accountability of public money.

As the National Innovation Policy under the auspices of the Prime Minister’s Department is about to be unveiled, the ground rules have been put in place by the Special Innovation Unit (Unik) which oversees the funding.

But the guns have already been drawn by those who cannot meet the basic require-ment – tell us your aims and expectations from the research for which you are seeking funds.

Spending millions on why thousands of migratory birds end up at the Tenaga Nasional Power Station in Kapar is not going to be beneficial to Malaysians except for the handful of bird-watchers and conservationists.

Similarly, if money is spent on research on goat farming, the results must be made available to everyone – not exactly the researcher, his family and friends.

Some ministries and government agencies, we have been told, are up in arms because they “were not consulted” when the rules were drawn up. But since when did anyone care about consultation when rules and regulations were drawn up arbitrarily when they dished out the cash?

It has often been said that public money should be used prudently and there’s a saying “treat people’s money as if it was yours”. There’s no better reason for openness, transparency and accountability than that the money being utilised belongs to millions of Malaysian taxpayers.

With calls for belt-tightening and prudent spending, Unik must stand firm against attempts to browbeat a stand which all right-thinking Malaysians will support.

For some, change may be difficult to accept and comply with, but no one will benefit if old wayward conduct does not change.

Those seeking government handouts must come with clean hands and conduct themselves in a manner befitting the requirements of prudence and caution in spending money which does not belong to them.

The civil servants objecting to the new requirements may be little Napoleons in their respective territories, but they must adhere to rules, regulations, procedure and requirements – however harsh they may appear.

There’s no such thing as a free meal, and the sooner these people realise and accept this reality, the better it will be for the nation and its people.