Saturday, 23 February 2019

Industry4WRD Must Deliver Substances

Industry4WRD is the official name given to the Malaysian blueprint towards self-aligning with the advent of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and it was officially launched on the 31st October 2018.

As at today, the 23rd of February 2019, a full 115 days have elapsed and one should reasonably ask as to what has been done apart from the carnival-kind of grand officiating and publicity? Carefully read the official publication of Industry4WRD, I have always felt doubts as to whether it is a plan for a smart manufacturing ecosystem transformation or it is a mere brief version of another Industrial Master Plan (IMP) as of we are now about coming to an end of the Third Industrial Master Plan (2006 – 2020) as compared to the previous two IMPs, namely the 1st IMP (1986 – 1995) and the 2nd IMP (1996 – 2005).

Whether or not Industry4WRD would encounter the consequence like the National IoT Strategic Roadmap which was launched on the 9th July 2015 is an interesting development to be observed. Ask around industrial practitioners and government agencies, what had been delivered from and who can still remember about the National IoT Strategic Roadmap? I bet you, you will get extremely disappointing and frustrating answers.
Of course, Industry4WRD and the National IoT Strategic Roadmap differ in the sense that first, the former was launched by the prime minister, whereas the latter was launched by the minister of the then MOSTI (Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation), and therefore they carry definitely different weights, and second, the National IoT Strategic Roadmap is a complete misconception of smartness in the IoT application and misalignment with the Fourth Industrial Revolution.  

The major obstacle that Malaysia has always come across is the competency of execution. We can always have excellent write-ups, wonderful presentations, bombastic figures, and expensive publicities to create impression and awareness, but nothing else thereafter. The remaining works will be left to those volunteers who felt obliged to social-industrial acceleration works.

As a technopreneur as well as a close observer of Made in China 2025, the Chinese version of Industry 4.0, since its public release on the 19th May 2015, I have had a number of opportunities to discuss with a few key figures and visit the smart manufacturing a.k.a. intelligent manufacturing ecosystem test-sites.

The mode of Malaysia executes Industry4WRD is apparently far less than adequate and appropriate, which could be summed up in two key observations. First is the failure of the government to guide manufacturing enterprises to transform themselves into smart manufacturing capabilities. Second is the failure to give rise to industrial passion and sense of urgency and cruciality.

Government plays indisputably vital roles to lay the foundations. What are those foundations? Apart from public utilities, infrastructures, HR capabilities, and implementation agencies as what usual socioeconomic needs, those specifics to smart manufacturing transformation are (1) Standards; (2) Assessment Model; (3) IT-OT Integration Efforts.

Standards – China and Germany have established a government-to-government collaboration to formulate various standards to be adopted in the smart manufacturing ecosystem. Doe SIRIM or other agencies do working towards the same direction? Can these works be published to make known to industrialists at large as what China has been doing thus far?

Assessment Model – Germany has its Industry 4.0 Maturity Model and China has its Intelligent Manufacturing Capability Maturity Model. Although Industry4WRD comes together with Industry4WRD Readiness Assessment Guideline, the 8-page documentary produces very limited information to be used by the public. Unless MPC (Malaysia Productivity Corporation) wants to maintain its as proprietary intellectual property to generate profit when rendering consultancy, the said Guideline must be made available to the public to its fullness and entirety. If not, it may be seen as a form of malpractice taking into consideration that MPC is not a private profit organization but a government agency, or else what MPC has is indeed a mere 8-page documentary of Guideline.

IT-OT Integration Efforts – IT stands for information technology and OT stands for operational technology. It is gravely wrong to merely talk about IT in the smart manufacturing ecosystem, without taking into account of OT. Simply put, OT is the use of computers to monitor or alter the physical state of a system, such as the control system for a power station or the control network for a rail system. Surprisingly and regrettably, there is a complete absence of the OT in the Industry4WRD documentaries, which in my opinion Industry4WRD is merely an ordinary industry development plan, rather than a plan towards smart manufacturing transformation.

To this end, and to what I could best envision, Industry4WRD would not produce many meaningful nor significant outcomes if wrongs are not rectified immediately and industrial movement is not in planning track. Business-as-usual can be expected if not worse.   

Saturday, 24 February 2018

The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Industry 4.0: An Etymology

Have you ever given some thoughts as to the etymological reason of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) and Industry 4.0? I guess many are not and simply absorb the terms without thinking, but some would feel annoyed and reluctant to accept the terms.

Reading the history of the world economic development, we learn about “Industrial Revolution” which cut across two horizontal time periods respectively named as First and Second. “Industrial Revolution” is a term introduced by Louis-Guilaume Otto, a French envoy, in 1799, and was becoming more common by the late of the 1830s.  

The history has never recorded the existence of the Third Industrial Revolution (3IR), but then how come the 4IR is so widely used nowadays?

If we carefully recall our memory, the period of the 3IR, as described in many literatures, used to be commonly termed as “Information Age”, “Information Economy” and gradually evolved to become a more fashionable term known as “Knowledge Economy” which marked by the introduction of Program Logic Control (PLC).

Both terms of the 3IR and the 4IR first appeared about the same time in the documentaries of the Industry 4.0, a German national-level blueprint to confront the advent of the said 4IR. The official publication of Industry 4.0 in 2013 is widely perceived as a mark of the cornerstone for the beginning of the 4IR.

When President Obama took office in 2009, the automotive industry – the heartbeat of the American manufacturing sector – “was on the brink of collapse and the economy was on the verge the next Great Depression.” It was that President Obama successfully revitalized American automotive sector, and went further to reengineer the entire American manufacturing ecosystem. In June 2011, President Obama launched the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP), “a national effort bringing together industry, universities, and the federal government to invest in the emerging technologies that will create high-quality manufacturing jobs and enhance America global competitiveness.”

The impact of AMP was profound and apparent as evidenced by speedy recovery and regain the losing advantages of American manufacturing in the global arena. One of the agendas of President Obama’s second term presidency election, “Bring American manufacturing back to the American continent,” become a collective choice of American manufacturing at large which operating productions overseas.

Eyeing the bold move of America, Germany was not without doing anything. In 2012 German government commissioned a workgroup to study its national competitive advantage which directly resulted in the launch of Industry 4.0 initiative in 2013 and proclaimed the world entered into an era of the 4IR. This positioning swiftly earned the world limelight and the terms like Industry 4.0 and the 4IR have been dominating global publicity and popularity.

Why the terms Industry 4.0 and the 4IR have swiftly gained such a massive and sweeping popularity as compares to AMP which was introduced two years earlier?

I opined that the introduction of the terms Industry 4.0 and the 4IR are a deliberate strategic move of Germany backed by a team of sociolinguists, aiming to bring global widespread recognition that Germany is making a comeback as the leader in world manufacturing battlefield. To justify the valid use of the term 4IR, these sociolinguists purposefully created the term 3IR so that the public unwittingly accepts the advent of the 4IR.

This stand is supported by the facts: (1) the 3IR has never existed in the world economic development history text; (2) the period as denoted in the 3IR was widely known as “Information Age”, “Information Economy” or “Knowledge Economy”; and (3) both the 3IR and the 4IR first appeared about at the same time in the documentaries of the Industry 4.0.     

Once the use of the 4IR is justified, German sociolinguists have to establish its correlation with German official blueprint documentaries, hence the creation of Industry 4.0 which proven to be an excellent caption. Take note that, the use of Industry 1.0, Industry 2.0 and Industry 3.0 has never existed in the literature of history, they are all slyly introduced by German sociolinguists in Industry 4.0 documentaries with an implicit intent to direct public thinking pattern.

The main purpose of writing this article is to call upon Malaysian government to deliberate a good and meaningful caption when Malaysian version of the 4IR is made public. A good caption draws a clear destination and motivates Rakyat works towards the same destination. If I have a say, allow me to propose “Malaysian Industry Quantum Leap” as its caption.

(NOTE: I wrote this article a few months back, but I did not publish it. I decided to publish it following the release of the final draft copy of Malaysian National Industry 4.0 Policy Framework as well as the discussions arisen from the Facebook of Dr. Mazlan Abbas, CEO of Favoriot.)

Thursday, 17 November 2016

A Message on the 17th Anniversary

Today, the 17th day of November, 2016, marks the 17th Anniversary of my company, Softegic Systems Management Sdn Bhd, in business operations.

17 years ago, I did not really give much deliberation on business plan as taught in the business textbooks when I made such a profound decision in my career development pathway in 1999. I simply felt that I should do something at my very own ways to pursue the aspiration of propelling a better adoption and deployment of information systems for strategic value proposition in ever increasing competitive business environment. Hence, I registered a RM 2 company together with my late father, bought a PC, a desk, a chair, a printer, a fax machine, rented half of an office behind Pacific Mall in Butterworth, and started looking for software development business and delivered alone.

In retrospective, there are two major milestones that I must put on record.

First, in 2002 I came to a system deliverable dispute with a PLC in Bukit Tengah resulting the outstanding sum of payment worth RM180K not being paid. At the same period, a staff of mine whom I sent to Shanghai for a software development task had screwed up my project that worth RM100K. The incidents had seriously jeopardized the survival and business continuity of my company. With no other alternative, I was compelled to retrench all staffs and leave me alone for a period of three years. In 2004, I had managed to convince Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) to collaborate on a “Localized Balanced Scorecard” software R&D project via one of the grants from MOSTI where I submitted 3 research elements; (1) the KPI content together with leading-lagging relationship for selected strategies in Malaysian context, (2) the introduction of Regression Analysis to validate the KPIs relationships defined, (3) the introduction of constraints into the methodology of Balanced Scorecard via the application of Simplex Algorithm in optimization computation. The representatives of USM were Professor Dato’ Daing Nasir (present Vice Chancellor of Universiti Malaysia Pahang) and Professor Dato’ Yuserrie Zainuddin, (present Deputy Vice Chancellor of Universiti Malaysia Pahang) where the team of MOSTI grant panel assessors consists of 3 professors form UTM, 1 professor from UM and 1 professor form UPM, of which present Deputy Vice Chancellor of UTM, Professor Dr. Rose Alinda was one of them. Resulted from such collaboration, I was invited by Dr. TW Sam of USAINS (the commercial arm of USM) to setup operation office in the campus of USM, rightly next to the office of USAINS, in 2006. This series of development had undoubtedly lifted our strategic presence in market battlefield.

Second, from 2009 to 2011 I was engaged by MIMOS, Malaysia’s national ICT arm, as a consultant to one of its national projects on manufacturing-based supply chain solution. This engagement subsequently opened up doors for me to liaise with a number of government ministries and agencies for the sake of national interests. Such experiences have well served as an invaluable asset to further connecting with a few government bodies of the People’s Republic of China where I can contribute my know-hows and play a very small role in its world famous initiative known as Made in China 2025, a Chinese version of Industry 4.0 to propel smart manufacturing ecosystem transformation. This has undoubtedly reinforced our presence in the China’s market and thus gained eye-opening experiences in the-state-of-the-art technologies which hardly can find in Malaysia.

Be that as it may, 17 years of development journey is not short. I am not sure if I can have another 17 years, but what I can pretty sure is that, as far as I am still here, I shall continue doing the best although knowing that my personal capability is of tiny.

May I request the God to guide me continue to be courageous, persistent and tapping into opportunities come before me.

Monday, 19 September 2016

《天涯咫尺》-- 写在爸爸的百日祭









Wednesday, 23 March 2016

A Helpless Self-mumbling

The widespread fake TIME cover page photo over Facebook in the couple of days has prompted me to pen down some thoughts.

[My Question]: Is corruption the major factor contributing to the decline of Malaysia’s competition in global battlefield?

I am afraid that it is not. One theory has suggested that the development of Malaysia has stopped or has only made very little progress since Anwar was sacked as DPM in 1998. The political chaos has since then never taken a pause, and thus the agendas towards economic and industrial development have not received adequate attention and the energy of Rakyat has focused on political episodes and solidarity instead of endeavouring towards national buildings.

18-year has elapsed, and yet we are still unable to jump out from this unpleasant eddy. A period of 18 years is more than enough to distort our positive attitude to a mind-set of accusation, blaming, short-sighted, and rigidity. Nationalism has lost its purity because it has been injected with politically toxic substance.        

One material fact that we must take into account is:

While we admire the economic and industrial development of the People’s Republic of China has been exponentially progressed, we are equally aware of the extent of corruption in China is perhaps worse than Malaysia. But then, how come China’s economic, industrial and technological development can take the speed of rocket launching? Shouldn’t be some other driving forces to propel towards such great and historic achievements?    

Comparing the two countries; Malaysia and China, I would make a simple conclusion that, despite corruption is a phenomenon that we hate to see and feel, neither is it a sole nor major obstacle towards national economic and industry development. The outstanding achievement of the People’s Republic of China is self-explanatory.   

Monday, 12 October 2015

视野决定格局,心智决定方向:函达 张守江律师有关董总争纷的立言、立论



您回应郑自勉的文章,被众多叶邹派粉丝张贴在面墙,我亦被Alan Ong Yeow  Fooi加标签,置入性行销,有幸拜读。长文洋洋洒洒约4千余字,却尽失中肯,尽显偏颇。晚辈趁周日闲暇,特修函一封,表述您的错误立言、立论。

【1】       前辈引援60年代华校面临改制时刻,二分之三华校校董诸公接受改制,并以今日独中的成就,企图佐证人多不一定对,以驳斥“少数服从多数,没有例外”的铁律。
【2】       这是一项明显的错误援引;60年代华校面临改制的投票,是完全不具备约束力的,投票过后,各自为政,然而董总作为一个法人实体,会员、中委、常委的投票,完全是具备法律约束力的。
【3】       您的引述,唤起我曾经阅读过的哲学史,仿佛是把苏格拉底和柏拉图时代的马其顿、雅典城邦松散结构现象,强套入拥有严格法律体系的当代新加坡,意图佐证新加坡的不合理、不明智。这种鱼目混珠的行文用句,不可取!
【4】       就是叶邹刚愎自用,不愿意贯彻“少数服从多数,没有例外”铁律,董总才会闹得如此狼狈不堪,难道这就是前辈观念下的“对”?!
【5】       叶邹固然有个人的权益(Right)去坚持自己所为的“对”,但是却实实在在损害了华教的利益(Interest)。也许绝大走夫贩卒无法区分“权益”和“利益”,学法的人必须要时时刻刻将两者区分。
【6】       再者,您伙同一些华教左胶将60年代的改制,视为一种万恶政策,是极其腐朽及劣质的意识形态。晚辈是道道地地改制下的国中生,对华文水平从白话文到文言文再到意象文掌握能力、中华人文荟萃、中国古代与现代史乃至台海两岸史迹等,自认不逊于独中生。为什么华教左胶们会认为独中生彰显Chineseness,而国中生不能?这是意淫了Chineseness!(按:我曾经在STPM时期进入某独中,不久便和教授历史科的印裔班主任发生冲突,走过自我流放,直至离校毕业,坚定弃拿离校证和毕业证书至今,直至308前一晚和江南大叔演出,两次踏入该独中校园。)

任期为4”(Shall be for four years
【7】       您引述董总章程5A.9条中“任期为4”,并将之翻译为 Shall be for four years是严重错误的。按照一般法律的诠释,Shall具备Mandatory(依法强制性的)的意义。您把原本的“为”字,翻译为Shall,是企图让人以为是Mandatory,为叶邹坚持不下台寻求一项牵强的理由。
【8】       董总章程一共出现了25次的【须】字眼,为什么5A.9条中出现的是【为】字眼,而不是【须】?
【9】       在中文修辞,“须”、“需”、“理应”、“应该”等,有不同的内涵与意义,这和英文的修辞:Shall/MustNeedOughtShould等雷同。董总章程5A.9条中“任期为4”里的【为】究竟应该怎么解读和翻译呢?按我国联合邦宪法赋予结社自由的精神,【为】应该翻译为Ought,而不是Shall。这意味着,“理应”是4年,而不是“必须”4年。
【10】   事实上,高庭法官已经裁决,中央委员和中央常务委员不享有4年的“必须”任期,并谕令叶新田纳入“解散中央委员会和中央常务委员会”议程,并召开会议。该名高庭法官也驳回了叶新田申请暂执行庭令的申请,这可看出该名高庭法官是多么不齿叶新田的作为。您这又何苦为叶邹粉饰恶行呢?
【11】   是故,从高庭的判决来看,高庭否决了您将【为】翻译成Shall的语义。
【12】   即使是Shall,法官也可以基于“自然公正”和“衡平法”原则,行使酌处权给予否决。

【13】   您援引的3宗先例,乍看之下仿佛颇具说服力。
【14】   6年前,我参加仲裁官培训班时,有一讲师(没记错的话,是目前吉隆坡区域仲裁中心,KLRCA,总监Datuk Professor Sundra Rajoo)提出这么一道问题:我国是个习惯法国度,有先例(Precedent)作为审判裁决参考,那么一名仲裁官在审理案件时,究竟是先行分析事实,选择适用法律,有了腹稿,再搜寻适用先例,还是先以先例作为指引,再分析事实,选择适用法律?
【15】   学员们与讲师互动讨论的结果是前者,即:搜寻适用先例是在分析事实,选择适用法律,有了腹稿之后。理由计有:没有两个案子是一模一样的、先例是配角,不是主角、即使先例类似,Subject Matter也可以不同、即使Subject Matter类似,引发争议的过程和程序也可以不同、在诉讼程序里,先例是在诉讼最后阶段提呈,不是在先前阶段。
【16】   由是观之,您简略形容的3宗先例,对思维慎密且具备法学素养的读者,并没有太大的影响力。然而对叶邹“衣带渐宽终不悔,蜡炬成灰泪始干”的粉丝群,就如捡到宝。
【17】   您必须坦然告诉叶邹粉丝们,在叶邹诉讼案件中,高庭法官已经否决了这些先例,不然也不会裁决叶新田败诉。

【18】   随着高庭于611日的裁决,指明道姓哪25名人士可以在614日的中委会议开会,610日的中委会议就即刻被否决。
【19】   叶邹从来就不曾针对610日的中委会议,入禀法庭申请。叶邹是针对614日的中委会议入禀诉讼。
【20】   您抓住610日的中委会议猛打,我觉得您打错方向了,要打就打614日的中委会议,而不是610日的。当然,在操弄叶邹粉丝情绪考量下,这的确会掀起他们的悲情愤慨,但是这不应该是一名学法的人士所为的。

【21】   在回答“关中是否独中”的问题时,您必须先行规范、界定“独中”的内涵。然而,按当下有效的《1996年教育法令》,并没有对“独中”作出规范、界定。“独中”一词,肯定不具备法理基础,仅是方便人们沟通的特定畴。
【22】   您固然可以回溯到马哈迪时期的政治方案,并争论其延续性和有效性,然而1997628日董总发布的官方文告具体指出,独中之所以能够生存下来,是当局没有严格执行1996年教育法令》第17条(1)项。我出示当时的官方文告(原文摘录自:如下:











【23】   时任董总法律顾问杨培根律师于2009311日撰文《1996年教育法令问答录》中,也作出相同的阐述。我出示当时的《杨文》(原文摘录自:如下:




(1) “国语必须成为国家教育制度内所有教育机构的主要教学媒介……除非得到教育部长的豁免。”(17(1))(注:国家教育制度内的教育机构包括私立学校,独中等)


(2) 另一项条文规定:“每一间学校必须为学生准备参加政府考试,除非获得豁免。”(第1974条)


【24】   按大将出版社社长傅承德的撰文,60所独中各师其政,统考属于自由选项,有者更非常偏向A Level和国外大学课程联盟,行政用语也不是全是中文等等有违《独中教学纲领》的指导。若然,为什么这些独中依旧归入60所独中行列?
【25】   由是观之,当您申论“关中不是独中”时,您就必须阐明独中的属性和本质,不然您的申论是空乏的、煽情的、扭曲的、偏颇的!

【26】   您言之凿凿,引经据典试图建立“关中不可报考统考,统考只局限在60所独中”的法理依据,尽管可以迷惑部分人士,但是更多人士十分不认同乃至唾弃您的立场、立言、立论。
【27】   一言以蔽之,既然您等如此坚信“统考只局限于60所独中的法理依据”,晚辈请您说服叶邹去函教育总监,作出以下具体询问:
            27.1.            按照《1996年教育法令》,在没获得考试局发出的准证情况下,董教总是否可以主办统考?
            27.2.                     27.1的答案是肯定的,按照《1996年教育法令》,报考统考的学生是否仅局限以下60所独中?(提供60所独中列表)
【28】   设若叶邹能够获得教育总监回函,具体给予以下答复,而不是“知悉”的用词:
            28.1.                     是的,按照《1996年教育法令》,在没获得考试局发出的准证情况下,董教总是可以主办统考。
            28.2.                     是的,按照《1996年教育法令》,报考统考的学生仅局限以下60所独中。
【29】   设若叶邹无法获得以上具体回复,或仅是含蓄的“知悉”回复,或拒绝去函询问,请坦诚承认本身的判断失误,即刻给予纠正。
【30】   统考的问题必须回到务实层面,在现有的灰色地带追求突破,您等实在不宜继续扭曲事实,操弄华社情绪。

【31】   未知您是否察觉,叶邹粉丝群在面书上的言论表述,尽显流氓地滚痞子风格?您作为这一群体的重要智囊与思维导师,具有不可推卸的责任与义务,当对这些流氓地滚痞子风格的言论表述,当头棒喝,加以制止。
【32】   即使社交媒体不能成为启发民智的平台,也不应沦为藉由流氓地滚痞子风格的言论表述,加速社群失序的推手。
【33】   是以,恳请您协助匡正社媒网络歪风!

顺祝      大安!

晚生      林德瀚