PAS: Lives in denial

Parti Islam se-Malaysia (PAS) is living in a denial. It wants to contest the same 70 seats it used to in the last General Election, even if it agrees to cooperate with Pakatan Harapan + PPBM (Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia).

PAS must remember that it only managed to win substantial electoral seats (for its standard) in the past, largely due to “form” rather than “substance”. The “form” is in fact, the image of PAS in the eyes of multi-racial voters, as it joined hands with other opposition parties.

PAS, which thrives on Islamic politics, has large amount of vote bank (theoretically). This is because, over 60% of Malaysians are Malays and/or Muslims.

However, it has never managed to win large number of federal seats in the past. The most PAS has received is 27 seats (1999). The party won 23 seats in 2008 and 21 seats in 2013.

With regard to state constituency seats, the most seats won by PAS was in 1999 (98 seats). Apart from that, it won 84 seats (2008) and 85 seats (2013).

Note that whenever PAS wins big, it is when PAS cooperates with other opposition parties such as DAP and PKR.

PAS carries little substance in its political trajectory. By jumping on the Islamic bandwagon, the party portrays itself as the holy champion of the religion. However, looking at its track record in economic, trade and social policy formulation, PAS can be construed as an organisation with poor fundamentals.

To put it simply, PAS has no chance of winning big, let alone in retaining all its seats. There’s two options though, cooperate with UMNO/BN or re-negotiate seats with the enlarged opposition coalition.

However, with more parties in the opposition joining the fray (Amanah and PPBM), PAS must let go off some of its seats. DAP and PKR will have to do the same as well, to allow Amanah and PPBM gain some stable contesting opportunities.

PAS needs to realise that non-Malay/non-Muslim voters hold the deciding power in many seats that it has contested in GE13. Without PAS collaborating with Pakatan Harapan + PPBM, the party is sure to lose as it is highly unlikely that non-Muslims will vote for this party that showed its true colour in recent times.

Take the Kota Raja seat for example, where the incumbent is Dr. Siti Mariah from Amanah. She was previously from PAS.

Dr Siti Mariah has a proven track record in the federal constituency and if PAS does contest in the seat in GE14, the Islamic party will unlikely break the Malay/Muslim votes, favouring UMNO/BN.

It is unlikely for the non-Muslims there to vote for PAS. Not a big surprise as PAS is deliberately using Islam implicitly to divide Malaysians.

While Dr. Siti Mariah has a great chance of winning now, the hope may be derailed with PAS moving into the picture.

PAS must realise of its status quo. The best option facing PAS is to join hands with the opposition coalition and to reduce its seats for contest in the next GE. Even if PAS has no substance, at least the “form” as earlier mentioned can save it.

PAS should not succumb to arrogance. Otherwise, PAS will just be a goner.

Inter-faith subject in Malaysia; Is it feasible and necessary?

It has recently been proposed that an inter-faith subject should be introduced in Malaysian schools. Great as it may sound, the plan will not be free from criticisms. In fact, the relevance of such plan is highly contentious. In Malaysia, whenever a problem arises, one of the most commonly cited solutions would be the introduction of a subject in class, to solve the problem in the long run. People have called for subjects on corruption, money-management, civics education, sex education and etcetera. Of course, recommending such solution is easy but the question is, will it be feasible? The introduction of more and more subjects in classroom only burdens the students and encroaches on the time allocated for core-subjects. Otherwise to counter this, the school period can be extended to accommodate the new subjects. But that too comes with a cost. Students’ time for leisure and recreation are taken away in absolute subtlety.

The idea of having an inter-faith subject for the young is definitely not done with ill-intentions. I believe, it is proposed to inculcate a greater sense of tolerance and acceptability among the younger generations. Especially for a country like Malaysia, where there is an “invisible ticking time-bomb” waiting for the moment to detonate and rip our social fabric apart, unity and better understanding amongst the citizens of Malaysia, are highly warranted. Let’s just admit it, our unity is brittle and rather small provocations from anyone can tear us apart. To rectify this, the ability to understand each other, despite the differences we all have, is highly crucial. Maybe, inter-faith education could be just the right formulae that we have hoped for.

But, the question is, should we have yet another full-fledged subject for the students? What we should realise is that, not everything can be taught in classroom. Until now, the Malaysian government have resorted to use classroom subjects to inculcate many moral values deemed important for the upbringing of the young. Thus, subjects such as Civics Education and Moral Studies were introduced, supposedly to shape holistic-minded pupils. Civic and moral values that should be learned through practical and hands-on approaches, have been narrowed into mere words on pages. Instead of this, the schools and the teachers should spread the positive values by shaping a culture in the education institutions that requires students to practically adopt the values while in school.

Now, if after proper consultations with stakeholders (including the students) are done and it is decided that such inter-faith subject is vital to be introduced, the implementation should be done with great care and with proper guidelines.

Inter-faith subject should be neutral and the discussions embodied in the subject should be done in a secular manner. Neutral means, all types of religious faith and dogma should have equal and fair representation in the subject. Not a single, major religion or belief should be left out. Secular on the other hand means that, the discussions in the subject should not strive to show that one particular religion is above the others and that other religions are fake and sinful. Inter-faith studies in Malaysian schools should be in line with global scholarly-religious discussions, and not taught as per the ideologies of the Malaysian religious bodies and political parties.

Inter-faith studies should be able to teach the students what each religion constitutes and preaches. Inter-faith studies should also enable students to identify the similarities and differences amongst the different religions. The students should be taught not just to tolerate, but to accept the differences that exist around them. Inter-faith studies, at such an early age, should not be a medium to argue who is right and who is wrong. Most importantly, the instructors or teachers should be well-equipped with inter-faith knowledge and skills to simplify the idea of multi-religions that may seem intricate to the students. The teachers, should play a neutral role in the classroom and teach the subject without prejudice. No teacher should try to imply that their religion is the best. Otherwise, it would be akin to asking the controversial televangelist Zakir Naik to teach inter-faith religion. He would end up concluding that his religion is the only sacred faith in the world. Absurd, isn’t it?

Actually, Malaysia already has elements of inter-faith studies in several subjects such as in History, Moral Education and Civics Education. However, it is only in the History subject (particularly in Form Four) where it is taught relatively extensively. Like it or not, the Form Four History textbook is a “great” example on how inter-faith studies can go bad, or rather disastrous. Out of 10 chapters, five (5) chapters are dedicated for Islam and its civilisation. Islam is taught “extremely extensively”, and it is, however, not surprising. Now, learning about Islam, especially for the non-Muslims, is definitely not wrong and it is in fact highly encouraged. But the scale of how other religions are given very less importance is worryingly perplexing. It is “dumbfounding” to see how explanation on the basics of Hinduism (purportedly the oldest religion), Buddhism and Christianity (known for vast historical significance) is only mentioned in two pages (Chapter Two). This begs the question, what makes Islam so special for it require five chapters when other religions are mentioned in mere pages?

Not only that, the elements of inter-faith studies in the text book have been selectively shaped. It is surprising that while the major religions are discussed (even Confucianism, which is a set of philosophies, is included), one of the Abrahamic religion is excluded. Yes, it is the religion of Judaism. Not a single paragraph is dedicated to explain about the religion. Again, it is perplexing as to why Judaism is not included in the list of religions. If the students can be taught about two of the Abrahamic religions (Christianity and Islam), the same should apply to Judaism. In thinking about the relevance for the exclusion of Judaism from the syllabus, one can only deduce that it is due to the intolerance against Judaism among many Malaysians and the alleged “Agenda Yahudi”. Another possible excuse that I can think of is, Judaism is not a major religion in Malaysia and thus, the need to learn about it does not arise. With such intolerance shown towards Judaism, it is not surprising to see many adopting anti-Semitic perspective in Malaysia.

Not only have other religions been made to look inferior, even Islam is not taught in the way it should be. The discussions above Islam tried to show Islam as a singular religion, without any denominations as seen in Christianity. Shia Islam, a denomination in Islam, is not mentioned and explained in the text book. Although Shiites (those in the Shia Islam branch) constitute only about 15-20% of total Muslim population worldwide, Shia is definitely an important denomination and faith within the larger Islam. It should also be noted that while Sunni is predominantly practised by Malaysian Muslims, Shiites also exist in Malaysia and they face persecution (both directly and indirectly) from the government and many Sunni Muslims. It is why I have noted above that if inter-faith subject is to be introduced in Malaysian schools, it should be in line with global scholarly-religious discussions, and not taught as per the ideologies of the Malaysian religious bodies and political parties. Apart from that, in Chapter Six of the textbook, it teaches extensively about the great Muslim civilisations. After the demise of Prophet Muhammad, a period of leadership known as Khulafa al-Rashidin took place and were continued by three caliphates, namely the Umayyad, Abbisid and the Ottoman.

Again, all the mentioned caliphates belong to the Sunni denomination. The Fatimid Caliphate which existed during the period of the Abbisid Caliphate was “carefully carved-out”. The only reason that I could think of is the fact that Fatimid Caliphate belonged to the Shia denomination. The Fatimid Caliphate is no small, insignificant empire. It spanned over a large geographical location and existed during the Islamic Golden Age. The caliphate practised religious tolerance and was renowned in that time. In fact, the much-celebrated Al-Azhar University in Egypt is an institution that came from the Fatimid Caliphate. Thus, it is rather mind-boggling on why such empire was excluded from the textbook chapter. Again, the only reason that I could think of is, as many Sunnis in Malaysia would say, Shia is not Islam.

Just because most Muslims in Malaysia are Sunni and many do not regard Shiites as Muslims, the young children should not be deprived of the real knowledge. Most importantly, the religious perspective of Malaysian Muslims should not cause non-Muslims deprivation in gaining knowledge.

On top of all these, if an inter-faith subject is to be introduced, a special chapter on atheism, agnosticism and other general non-belief categories should be included. Students should be taught why some individuals prefer to abandon conventional faiths and instead prefer to declare themselves as atheist or agnostics. In the process of teaching the students, atheists or agnostics should be labelled as immoral and sinful beings. Rather, the students should be taught that everyone should be respected and discriminated against just because of their religious faith.

If Malaysia can accommodate all the aforementioned criteria, only then should inter-faith subject be taught in schools. If the Education Ministry so wishes to retain the current “formulae” in teaching about religious diversity, by all means, please scrape off the plan. It will not do any good for anyone.

Colourful Women of Malaysia; Pale Second-Class Citizens

If you are a woman in Malaysia, you are less equal compared to another male citizen. To make it simple, for every $1 a man earns, you will only earn $0.58. This is just an example to show why Malaysian women are akin to second-class citizens.

More often than not, when one discusses about women's rights, the nature of discussion revolves around how their rights are violated when they are expected solely to care for the children, abandoned by their spouses without any financial aid or when the women are criticised for their attires in public. Women in Malaysia are regarded as fully enfranchised from the male control, unlike in the olden days. They are seen as equally treated as their male counterparts and not discriminated. This, however, is not completely true. In the Global Gender Gap 2015 by World Economic Forum, Malaysia has scored 0.655. A score of 0 indicate perfect inequality and the other end of the spectrum (which is a score of 1), indicates perfect equality. Looking at the score, Malaysians should not be too quick in being proud of the “accomplishment”.

This is because, although Malaysia's score is above the midpoint, its ranking internationally is saddening. Malaysia has been ranked at the 111th spot out of a total of 145 countries. For a country that tries to be in the high-income league within 5 years, this is indeed shocking. Yet, this is not the peak of the shock. Scrutinising the Global Gender Gap reports in the past 5 years (2011-2015), Malaysia's ranking has been deteriorating. Since 2011, in which Malaysia's ranking was at 97th , it has been falling until reaching 111th rank in 2015. But the “good” news is, Malaysia's score has improved (albeit very marginally) from 0.653 in 2011 to 0.655 in 2015. An improvement of 0.002. The latest report was published only a few weeks ago, yet received minimal coverage in the media unlike other rankings where Malaysia has performed incredibly.

How are women treated in the employment sector?

Department of Statistics Malaysia's “Salaries & Wages Survey Report 2014” has found that the median monthly wage of male employees was RM1,600 while the female employees' median stood at RM1,500. The same report has shown that the gender wage gap in 2014 was 5.8%. To add salt into injury, the gender wage gap has only increased compared to 2013, when it was at 4.6%. It is understandable when women are underpaid if they are lowly skilled and are less experienced. But in Malaysia, it may not be necessarily so. In Malaysia, among the population that have attained tertiary education, female-male ratio stands at 1.21. This means that there are more females with tertiary education and Malaysia is also ranked first in the world. This is a great accomplishment of our education system. Considering this, it is a big question on why women are lowly paid compared to their male counterparts.

Of course, there will be voices claiming that tertiary education alone may not guarantee appropriate salaries. These voices will suggest that women are less skilled and less experienced, and thus, their pay will be low as well. The Statistics Department’s Salaries and Wages Survey Report 2013 has shown that women in Malaysia earn 18-39% less than the men. For example, in the skilled workers category, a woman earned 39.7% less than a man. In the managers category, a woman earned 18.7% less than a man. Considering the fact that a person will not be able appointed to a managerial post without high skills, how did the women within the category be entitled to such a low pay relative to a man's salary? The latest Global Gender Gap report has indicated that in Malaysia, the female-male ratio in wage equality for similar work is at 0.81. In simpler terms, a woman only earns 81% of what a man earns even though both have completed the same work. A point to ponder is, do women in Malaysia deserve this discrimination?

How are women treated in politics?

Malaysia's political sphere has seen the presence of some strong female leadership in the past and also in the present. Few notable names would be Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz, Datuk Seri Sharizat Abdul Jalil, Nurul Izzah Anwar and perhaps few others. But undeniably, in general, the domestic political arena is dominated by the presence of the male politicians. Top posts in political parties are predominantly controlled by men as well as in the federal and the states' executive branches. Positions in political parties are usually earned through one's charisma and strong leadership skills (not to mention the presence of bribery). The question is, are women in politics less competitive than their male counterparts or women simply despise partaking in politics? Or perhaps, is it the male chauvinism in political parties that prevent the growth of women in politics?

Looking at the composition of women in the lower chamber of the Parliment (Dewan Rakyat), one can simply deduce that women are poorly represented. After the 12th and 13th general elections of Malaysia, proportion of elected female representative in the Parliament, stagnated at a paltry 10%. The Global Gender Gap 2015 ranked Malaysia at 134 out of 145 countries. It means Malaysia is at the bottom 20 countries worldwide, as per the report. This poor representation can be explained by lack of women nominated by political parties in the general elections. The ugly truth is, the perception that women are not suitable for political contestations still lingers. Just before the 2013 General Election, Datuk Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man (Pahang PAS commissioner) stated that the state committee has decided not to field any women among the 40% of “new faces” going into the general election. He believes that they were not ready “due to work and other commitments”. Not only that, recently during the Selangor crisis of appointing the next Mentri Besar after Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, an UMNO lawyer, Datuk Mohd Hafarizam Harun said Datuk Seri Wan Azizah is not suitable for the post as she suffers from menses monthly. If even the Opposition Leader of the Dewan Rakyat is discriminated because of her gender, what about others?

In the 2013 General Election, Barisan Nasional nominated 727 candidates (parliamentary and state assembly). Out of these, only 71 of them are females and they form 9.8% of the total nominated candidates. On the other hand, the now defunct Pakatan Rakyat nominated 733 candidates and 77 of them are females. This essentially means that 10.5% of the candidates nominated by Pakatan Rakyat are females, which is marginally higher than Barisan Nasional by 0.7%.

Looking at the federal cabinet composition, women representation has been at dismal proportions for years. The author has analysed federal cabinet compositions (excluding Deputy Ministers) under the last three Prime Ministers. The analysis includes the cabinet line-ups in 1999 (under Mahathir); 2004, 2006 and 2008 (under Abdullah) as well as 2009, 2013, 2015 (under Najib). The years 2006, 2009 and 2015 indicate the line-ups after Cabinet reshuffling. It has been found that from 1999 to 2015, the maximum number of women ministers has been at merely 3. This is indeed shocking. In 1999, female representation in the Cabinet stood at 10.71%. The average during the Abdullah administration was at 8.24% while Najib administration's was at 7.16%. It can be said that the percentage of female representation in the Cabinet has been falling throughout the years.

Recommendation

As this article has focused on employment and politics, it is recommended that the government introduces new measures in helping the women increase their participation in these areas. Although the existing Industrial Relation Act 1967 provides for an Industrial Court, it has been widely criticised as time-consuming and inefficient. Thus, in the interest of honouring the rights of the women in the employment sector, a statutory commission should be established to cater to the complaints from women in the workforce in regards to discrimination and to act upon the complaints promptly. This commission should be empowered to audit all business entities against discrimination of workers (regardless of gender). This commission should be able to fill in the gap left by poor workers' related laws and trade unions in Malaysia. The commission should also be powerful in penalising businesses that discriminate workers' because of their gender. Apart from that, Bursa Malaysia and Companies Commission of Malaysia should make it mandatory for businesses to report the “level of equality” in wage payment and others, annually. This will enable the creation of proper database of treatment of workers that can be utilised by the aforementioned commission.

The Parliament should amend the Election Act to include statutory provision that 30% of parliamentary and state seats in each states will be designated only for female-contestation. India, for example, has somewhat determined that certain constituencies can only be contested by women. By allowing 30% of each states' political seats only for women, it can remarkably increase female participation in the political arena. Not only that, each contesting political party should be required to nominate at least 30% women candidates, as prerequisite for contestation in the general elections.

The government should also adopt a binding pledge that 50% of the upcoming Cabinet line-ups will be represented by women ministers. It is unacceptable if the Prime Minister complains of not having qualified female candidate for the ministerial posts, as even many of the incumbent male ministers lack the ability to become a good minister. Perhaps, female ministers can do better. But, of course, qualified individuals especially technocrats, should be appointed to lead the ministries.

Conclusion

Improving the rights of the women in Malaysia is not an easy feat, in fact it is not easy even internationally. It is estimated that it may take 118 years or more to close the gender gap, based on the current trajectory. All parties have to play their roles in recognising the rights of women. Campaigns on this subject matter need to be more widely organised and should include males as well. Feminists need to understand that the struggle is against the system and the culture, thus more coordinated and diplomatic actions need to be employed. Some feminists tend to be “man-hating” and use force in demonstrating for their rights. Some even go bare-breasted in the spirit of “protesting”. Now, do you really think the men would feel threatened by that?

To close the gender gap, men have to be part of the initiative. The Asian Development Outlook 2015 Update has estimated that by eliminating gender disparity in developing Asia would increase per capita income by 70% within two generations. In particular, for Malaysia, closing the gender gap will enable increase in GDP by 15-20%, according to International Monetary Fund. Asian Development Bank found that if intra-female representation in the workforce is increased to 70% (which in 2014 was at 53.6% - this includes unemployed women actively in search for a job), annual GDP would be 2.9% higher in Malaysia.

To the men out there, recognising the rights of the women will create mutual benefits for everyone. Let us all allow women to enjoy the best of their lives and make sure that male chauvinism will not hamper Malaysia's growth.

Inequality in Malaysia; Is it too bad?

Should the government tax the rich more and distribute the revenue to the poor? Or rather, should the government own all the properties (factors of production) to create an equal (or equally poor) society? The answer is, give tax breaks to the “capitalists” in order to reduce inequality. Yes, this may seem as a case of juxtaposition, yet it is not be necessarily so.

Inequality matters, especially in Malaysia. Here, inequality can spark not only inter-class conflicts, but more worryingly, inter-ethnic tensions. In Malaysia, although the public perception on wealth inequality has only worsened, official data has shown otherwise. Over the last decade, wealth inequality has reduced rather significantly. In 2002, the Gini coefficient (a tool to measure income inequality ranging from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating an equal society and 1 indicating an extremely unequal society) stood at 0.46. However, as per the latest Household Income Survey, the Gini coefficient has dropped to 0.401. Statistically, this means Malaysia is getting more economically equitable. On a more interesting note, the intra-Bumiputra Gini coefficient is 0.389, the lowest compared to the Chinese and Indian community. This is interesting as the Gini coefficient of the Bumiputra has on average, been the highest of all three groups in the years, hitherto.

Not only that, to further substantiate the argument, the bottom 40% mean household income has grown 6.1% annually from 2002 till 2012, in contrast to only 5.6% for the middle 40% and 4.6% for the top 20% of households. Taking the figures into consideration, one can deduce that the growing concern of worsening inequality in Malaysia, is unjustified. However, there will always be caveats. The statistical findings may not be entirely representative of the Malaysian populace, as out of 6.7 million households, 81,137 households were surveyed. This is only about 1.2%.

Now, this article is not to argue whether absolute equality is possible or not, but rather to highlight ways to reduce inequality and move in the direction towards an equitable state. There are many ways to achieve equality, for example through Marxian type state control of factors of production (which will hamper individual liberty) and also through taxes. Even the World Bank advocates for the use of taxes and transfers to facilitate wealth distribution within a society. This can be best exemplified by the Nordic welfare state model, in which high taxes are levied to provide essential services as public goods at zero cost (although it is paid indirectly through taxes). Such model has remarkably succeeded, registering low Gini coefficients compared to other sovereign states.

But, taxes alone should not be the option. The state needs to look far beyond. Whilst welfare state concept may seem altruistic and compassionate towards the needy, it may not be sustainable, especially during the economic cycle’s recessionary period. This article agrees that public spending on key areas in Malaysia such as education and healthcare needs to be increased (and means-tested at the same time), however, over-reliance on the public purse is detrimental as well. The need to find the middle ground is inevitable.

Therefore, Malaysians need to discover the concept of “welfare society”, rather than too much dependence on welfare state. Welfare society basically extends the idea that the society itself plays a major role in re-distributing wealth. Sounds too utopian? Pretty much, yes. As aforementioned, there is a need to find a middle ground between welfare state and welfare society. While the government should levy higher taxes and introduce appropriate transfers, it should also encourage corporations and business entities to reduce inequality in their payrolls. This is how it works. Inequality exists everywhere, especially in one’s workplace. The senior manager of the company may pocket a high monthly salary, but this may not replicate among the ordinary staff. In such companies, intra-company Gini coefficient will be high.

Not only that, there are concerns that capital owners (owners of business entities) do not reward their employees appropriately in relative to the profits made by the business. This concern is also justified. In Malaysia, the compensation of employees, CE (labour cost) stood at 34.3% as of 2014. Shockingly, in 1971, the CE stood around 33.8%. Not much difference along the years. CE needs to be increased to more than 40% to ensure better allocation of reward for the labour of the workforce. Some countries have even CE above 50%. A higher CE ensures that wealth is not extremely concentrated in the hands of the “capitalists”.

This article suggests that the Malaysian government provide attractive tax breaks and other perks for companies that has low intra-company Gini coefficient (say, below 0.35) and high intra-company CE (say, 40%). The figures are made-up to simplify understanding, but should be altered appropriately according to the current situation.  Such initiatives will help to reduce the inequality within corporations and companies, and further complement efforts to boost equality at macro level. This measure may also help to reduce the gender-wage gap in Malaysia that discriminates the women, if computed for the eligibility of tax breaks. The Department of Statistics’ findings has shown that there are differences in the wage received by the women compared to their male counterparts. In 2014, the median monthly salaries & wages of male employees was RM1, 600 compared to female employees at RM1, 500. The gender wage gap in 2014 stood at 5.8% compared to only 4.6% the previous year.

However, it has to be reminded that these measures will not create income equality out of nowhere, but rather, it will facilitate the reduction of inequality. We have to be mindful that the shadow economy (unregulated economy) in Malaysia is large at about 30% of the national gross domestic product (GDP). Thus, these measures may not produce much success under the unregistered companies.

All in all, achieving equality in income is not about forcing the corporations to pay more. A higher pay should commensurate with better productivity and skills. At present, only 27% of Malaysians are categorised as “skilled workers”, having tertiary education. And only 10.4% of the workforce are degree holders. This needs to change. The corporations and the government need to collectively find ways to enlarge the pool of skilled workers in favour of knowledge-driven economy. Past evidences have shown clearly that higher education does contribute to better income. As highlighted by Khazanah Research Institute, in 2013, those with a degree would have a median wage of RM 3,890, which is 159 percent higher than those with SPM qualification. Thus, reducing inequality should not be a zero-sum game, but rather a win-win situation.

Inequality in Malaysia may not be too over-whelming, but a sudden downturn in the economy can worsen economic conditions, may create ripple effects on racial relations. The Chinese are still seen as dominating the economy although the real situation is, most Malaysians are somewhere in the same range of economic standards. In tough economic times, fuelled by ridiculous racial slurs incited by unscrupulous beings (politicians in many cases), inequality may invite racial divide. Thus, it is pertinent that this subject matter be dealt with great concern. Welfare society may be idealistic, but through education and appropriate government policies, the transition to a welfare society can be facilitated.

Tax the Malaysians More

I attended the National Unity Youth Fellowship workshop conducted by one of the leading think-tanks in Malaysia, IDEAS Malaysia during the last weekend, which focused on socio-economic and national unity in Malaysia. The founder of the think-tank, Mr Wan Saiful presented his views on free-market economy or economic liberalism as preached by the demi-god Adam Smith. He also questioned the need to be afraid of the rich and advocated for reduction of taxes in Malaysia.

Whilst it was a good presentation, nevertheless I choose to differ in opinion. Should we be afraid of the rich and reduce the taxes?

No, to both questions. The rich or even the super-rich are “capital accumulators”, which means they play significant roles in providing economic opportunities to the masses or as in Karl Marx's term, the proletariat. While the government can also partake in domestic investments to spur the economic growth, it is unsustainable as the monies in the public purse may be exhausted in the long run as the monetary resource should also be used to fund infrastructure developments and domestic welfare programmes.

Not only that, to have the government as the only economic engine would mean more revenue generation. Knowing that revenue from commodities, namely natural resources are not sustainable and bound to deplete, the only way is to impose taxes on all, regardless of their economic status. But, astronomical increment of taxes will only hurt the people or ironically, cause less tax-revenue generation as presented by the Laffer's curve of taxation. Apart from all these, government's intense participation in business sphere will also crowd out private investment and “de-motivate” the private sector from engaging in economic investments.

Having said that, private sector is very vital in the economic well-being and here is where the capital accumulators or the rich play their role. So basically, there is no need to be afraid of the rich or their accumulated wealth. However, it does not necessarily mean that the rich should be taxed less. In fact, the rich should be taxed even higher compared to now and in different forms.

As I mentioned above, the rich are the capital accumulators. But they also have a different form of existence in the economy. The rich are the “wealth hoarders”. Reading into Thomas Picketty, a French economist's argument in his magnum opus, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, it is deduced that “rate of return on capital is higher than the rate of return on economic growth”. This effectively means, the return from economic activities enjoyed by the rich is higher than the return by other participants in in the economy i.e. the working class.

 While the return from the capital investment by the rich may be re-invested and further spur more economic activities, a significant portion of this “new-found wealth” is hoarded in the form of savings (not to mention “parking” the money in sealed Swiss banks), real estates, equities, etc. These form of assets can be considered as “unproductive” and have little multiplier effects on the economic growth. Anyone with an academic background in economics can surely recall the first “mantra” thought in class, which is “resources are scarce”. It is true, and this applies to financial resources. When the rich “hoards” the financial resources in these form of unproductive assets which are incapable of creating more jobs and opportunities, it causes reduction in resources for further economic activities to take place.

For example, Mr GK is a super-rich industrialist. For the fiscal year of 2014, he made an extra wealth of RM1, 000,000,000. But since he choose to “park” his money in Swiss bank accounts and to buy four more bungalows, he is left with RM1,000,000 in hand and this is the portion of wealth that he re-invests. This is how vast financial resources are hoarded by the rich and contributes to the reduction of “productive” assets that generates the economy.

This situation is worrying as it presents more negative implications that we can imagine to the economy. Inequality is a major problem arising from this scenario. Going by the official records in 2009, 2012 and 2014, inequality in Malaysia as measured by the Gini coefficient is going down. The Gini coefficient is a measure to show the inequality of wealth between the rich and the poor. A zero coefficient shows an equal distribution of wealth in an economy while the extreme end, which is 1 shows the most unequal distribution of wealth. Malaysia's records are 0.44, 0.43 and 0.42 in 2009, 2012 and 2014 respectively. Although it shows a declining trend, the coefficients show us an unequal distribution of wealth and that wealth is concentrated in the hands of some. As a contrast, Norway which imposes high taxation rates, stands at 0.25.

So, the question is, how do we solve this?

Increase Taxes and Introduce More Types of Taxes

These solutions may not invite the acceptance of many at the first sight. Ordinary working class Malaysians will absolutely be fumed over such “ridiculous suggestions”. These suggestions are not to be imposed on the low income and the middle income earners, but rather, on the rich group of Malaysians.

Many people around the world have always seen taxation only as a tool to raise national revenue. But apart from that, taxes can also redistribute the wealth of a society. Official records from Department of Statistics show that Malaysian workers' wage share of GDP (or economy size) in 2013 stood at 33.6%. However, the employers' share of GDP is at 64.2% and merely, 2.2% was collected as taxes.

In contrast, in 1971, wages to GDP stood at 33.8%. 51.7% was employers’ share whilst taxes comprised a higher share of 14.5% of GDP. To note, a higher proportion of return on GDP is retained by the employers now compared to in 1971, due to the low rate taxes imposed in recent times. However, I would not say that society was more equal in wealth distribution in 1971 as the Gini coefficient was 0.513 then. So what went wrong? The problem lies in weak social safety net of Malaysia in 1971.

My argument is, high taxes should be imposed on the rich and the proceeds from the taxes should be channelled to the poor in the form of social welfare programmes, targeted subsidies and cash transfers (although the current form of cash transfer, BR1M is not recommended). World Bank in 2014 mentioned that Malaysia's Gini coefficient – although reported as 0.43 in 2013, after taxes and transfers, it remains at 0.41. For OECD countries, the inequality index after taxes and transfers is 0.32, 0.14 points less than the initial coefficient of 0.46.

This is the impact created when high taxes on the rich are channelled to the poor through strong social safety net programme. This is where Malaysia needs to emphasise on. However, having said that, I do not advocate on raising the corporate taxes as Malaysia's highest rate of corporate tax is already one of the highest in the region. Low corporate tax is needed to entice multinational companies to invest in production capacities within Malaysia. Low corporate taxes also prevent home-grown companies to flee the country to invest abroad, and thus weakening our domestic direct investment.

To substantiate this argument, it is worth noting that Singapore's highest corporate tax is at 17%, Thailand at 20% while Malaysia's at 24%. Indonesia recently has indicated to reduce its tax from 25% to 17.5%. Hence, to remain competitive, Malaysia also needs to reduce its corporate taxes and present itself as an investors' haven.

To be fair to the Najib administration, it has done a good job in introducing GST (despite certain flaws and silly remarks from ministers) and in restructuring the income taxes. Compared to the previous years where above RM3,000 incomes are taxed, from 2015 onwards, only those earning above RM5,000 will be taxed. Highest tax income bracket has also been increased from RM100,000 to RM400,000 to focus more on the rich. However, the highest tax rate is reduced from 26% to 25%. I personally do not see this as a good development.

What Type of New Taxes?

The Malaysian government should introduce Capital Gains Tax (on equity transactions), inheritance tax on inheritance of huge sum of estates from one individual to another and Malaysian version of under-occupancy penalty (Bedroom Tax) on the rich who owns huge residentials despite having small families.

Apart from that, Malaysia should also introduce a flat-rate tax on Malaysians living abroad but hold Malaysian citizenship. Currently, Malaysia's income taxes are imposed on income earned within Malaysian borders, regardless of the individual's citizenship. Income earned abroad is not taxed. Malaysians living abroad should be taxed at a minimum flat-rate as an obligation to the citizenship and for the nation's well-being. But of course, these Malaysians should be appreciated and allowed to vote in the general elections without the need of returning home, unlike the current scenario.

Taxes are not bad, but should be imposed on the individuals with the capacity to pay. Taxes on everyone, regardless of rich or poor, can be devil's toy. But again, high taxes coupled with imprudent spending by the Government, only destroys the society.

Malaysia needs strong trade and workers’ unions

The concern over trade or workers’ union in Malaysia has never been remarkable. Having repressive laws that inhibited the influence of trade unions even since colonial era, Malaysians paid less attention to the role of trade unions in a society’s welfare. Moreover, with Hudud and GST clogging up the public sphere, probably less Malaysians takes concern over the relevance of trade unions.

Trade unions are instrumental in creating and strengthening collective bargaining power between the employees and employers. A good relationship between a strong trade union and the employer helps the workers to enjoy more benefits and see better pay commensurate with increased productivity. Strong trade unions are pertinent in making sure the rights of the workers are not violated by the employers, besides being a medium to boost labour productivity.

Historically, the colonial master, the British Empire was never fond of workers’ union. The British introduce the Societies Ordinance as far back as 1889 to prohibit the growing influence of the working class, apart from the nationalist fighters. The Communist forces, which has been painted negatively in Malaysian history played vital role in the growth of trade unions of Malaya back then.

The Malayan Communist Party led the Open Front comprising of other political parties and organisations in the aftermath of recapture of Malaya by the British forces after the downfall of Japanese occupation. In this front, the General Labour Union (GLU) played a crucial role in fighting for the Malayan independence. This GLU was later divided into two; one in-charge of Singapore’s labour union whilst the Malaya’s was taken care by the Pan-Malayan Federation of Trade Union (PMFTU). The Communist force also played a role in controlling the PMFTU and advocating against liberation of Malaya.

Looking at the possible damage that can be caused by such labour unions in many issues and particularly opposing the Federation of Malaya 1948 proposal, the British oppressors enforced registration of all trade unions. Government servants were prohibited from joining unions of non-government employees. This is in pursuit of a divide in unity of the domestic workforce. Further actions were taken to mandate registration of trade unions in which trade unions’ membership can only be opened workers’ in similar occupation and industries. This rendered PMFTU as illegal and further weakened trade unions’ activities in Malaya.

A comprehensive analysis of current legislations pertaining to Malaysia’s labour law show that such provisions introduced by the British exist till today.

Malaysia’s legislations on employment and industrial relations comprises of the Trade Union Act, Industrial Relations Act and the Employment Act. There are many existing provisions that weaken the influence of trade unions. For example, trade unions can only be regional and not national which means that a trade union can be formed to cover Peninsular Malaysia or Sabah or Sarawak, but a single trade union cannot include all three. Besides, workers’ unions used to be not permissible in industries conferred with “pioneer” status under Section 15 of Industrial Relations Act, but has since been annulled after amendment in 2007. To note, whilst trade unions can be formed within the electrical sector, in electronics sector, trade unions were limited to “in-house establishment”, which means trade union within a company and not inclusive of employees of the company’s subsidiary workers. This rule was only relaxed in 2009 when the Cabinet allowed regional trade unions for the electronics sector.

Thus, the status quo is establishment of four regional trade unions in Peninsular Malaysia; Western, Eastern, Northern and Southern. However, the rule is not fully liberalised since the Electronic Industry Employees Union covers only workers in Peninsular Malaysia, not including workers of East Malaysia. As aforementioned, apart from not allowing civil servants to join trade unions with non-civil servants, only workers from similar occupation can form a trade union. This essentially means, while lorry drivers can form a trade union, it cannot include teachers and bankers.

Effects of Poor Labour Law

Such rules and provisions fragment the workforce and weaken collective bargaining power. This opens the way for the “capitalists” to ill-treat the workers and not paying sufficient wages. This explains why there are claims regarding employers not adhering to the minimum wage rule and mistreating the employees. A study by Verite (a global NGO) and funded by the United States Department of Labour, found evidences about abuse of workers' rights in Malaysia's RM241 billion electronics industry.

Malaysia’s 1^st Human Development Report specifically touches on effects of weak workers’ union in Malaysia. Share of wages to national income has actually decreased from 33.8% in 1970 to 32.9% in 2012. But in contrast to this, corporate profits has increased from about half of the national income to nearly two-thirds during the same period. Malaysia’s share of wages is low in comparison to other countries; South Korea’s share is 50.6%, Singapore’s 42.3% and the United Kingdom’s 62.6%. It is also added that trade union density has dropped by about 40% since 1982 and currently only eight per cent of Malaysian workers belong to a union. This is despite growing number of union members and trade unions in Malaysia.

In the past, workers’ who tried to fight for the rights of the other workers have been suspended and even fired. For instance, Keretapi Tanah Melayu Berhad (KTMB) took serious actions (sacking, issuance of show-cause letter) over many employees after nearly 700 Railwaymen’s Union of Malaysia (RUM) picketed against the mismanagement of KTMB. They also voiced for the resignation of KTMB’s President, Datuk Kadir Elias. Although the affected workers were re-instated, they were required to sign a memorandum which included reduction of salaries, according to the President of RUM, Abdul Razak Md Hassan who refused to sign.

Apart from that, President of the National Union of Flight Attendants Malaysia (NUFAM), Ismail Nasaruddin was terminated by Malaysian Airlines Systems Berhad (MAS) for issuance of media statement urging MAS CEO Ahmad Jauhari Yahya (now former CEO) to resign. It was mentioned by NUFAM that the CEO has failed to take care of the workers’ plight since his appointment. The list goes on and on about such actions by employers that weaken and inhibit the activities of the trade unions.

Conclusion

Malaysia’s productivity level, despite being lower than many developed nations such as Japan and Singapore, is actually growing ahead of other emerging economies. Data from the Malaysia’s Productivity Report 2013/2014 shows that productivity between 2009 and 2013 has increased by 11.7%. But, the bigger question is, has the salary increased as much too?

To recall, minimum wage policy was introduced after it was noticed that salary increment fell behind productivity growth. Few years ago, a World Bank report noted that in the past decade, Malaysia’s productivity growth was 6.7% whilst the salary increment was merely 2.6%. Such scenario may re-emerge, and thus strong trade unions (especially a national-level trade union comprising of all workers) can work towards helping the workers get compensation that they deserve.

For that, Malaysia needs strong amendments to the existing laws with the workers’ welfare in mind, while at the same time, is fair to the employers. However, recent announcement by Deputy Human Resource Ministers, Datuk Seri Ismail Abdul Mutalib that the government will propose amendments to the Trade Unions Act 1959 to ensure it will be in tandem to the TPP trade agreement, creates more questions. First, is the TPP sure to be ratified? Second, will the workers’ right be trampled in order to satisfy foreign multi-national corporations (MNCs)?

Malaysians need to voice out for stronger trade unions; for your own benefit.

Islam; Why is it growing?

The recent shooting spree in France might trigger the rise of Islamophobia not only in Europe which is seeing high spike of Muslim immigration, but also in the entire world. Recent incidents such as arson attacks in few mosques in Sweden are fuelling unwarranted anticipation of Islamophobia. However, there are chances where the carnage in France will create more sympathisers and support for the ordinary Muslims, as seen in Australia recently after the lone gunman siege.

Islam has become one of the major issues to be discussed in Europe in recent days. Some reasons are attributed to the escalation of tension caused by Islamic State and its affiliates worldwide, returning mujahideens from the IS conflict back to Europe and growing anti-immigration scepticism over increasing number of Muslim population (albeit not forming majority) in many European countries.

Muslims' population in the world has increased robustly and as noted by many sources,it is the fastest growing religion in the world in percentage terms. Islam is now only second to Christianity in population share, and there are predictions that Islam might overgrew Christianity in a matter of few decades, although not anytime soon. What causes Islam to grow at such fast pace?

-Muslim population is vastly concentrated in third-world countries where population check is weak (birth rate is high). Low education level in many Muslim countries especially within conflict-stricken states has helped to increase the population. This is in contrast with the scenario in the Western nations where birth rate is low and the population is ageing.

-Restriction on freedom of religion in many Islamic states and members of the Muslim world (read: OIC) has “helped” to contain the possible conversions of Muslims into other religions. In certain Islamic states, apostasy is punishable by death. In some others, like Malaysia, Muslims are prohibited from conversions and members of other faiths are not allowed to proselytise Muslims. Such practices have maintained the population volume. Such restrictions are not applied in other countries, thus causing fluctuations in the number of faithful of other religions. It is notable that atheism is on the rise as many individuals in modern times reject religious doctrines.

-Muslims’ population in Europe is growing as more immigration of Muslims (educated and non-educated alike) into the region from is notable. This has drawn the ire of many anti-immigration parties in Europe although this is a sense of fear not only targeted to the Muslims alone,but also to other non-Europeans as well. Such increase in population can be attributed to instability in the conflict-stricken countries in Near East with huge scores of refugees and asylum seekers seeking “shelter” in Europe. Other than that, many others are arriving in Europe and the United States in search of greener pastures, which many Near East countries could not promise.

-Like it or not, Islamophobia has done both good and bad for the faith of Islam.In the aftermath of the devastating 9/11 incident, Muslims in the United States and also in other Western nations have seen backlash in the form of harassment and discrimination. However, such incidents have also created sympathisers for innocent common Muslims and this in turn has paved the way for many non-Muslims to get to know Islam in detail. This could also help in conversions into Islam as well.

-Strong devotion to Islam as shown by many Muslim faithful might have also helped in recent conversions of non-Muslims. Lack of understanding and poor belief in one’s religion may cause the individual to lose faith in his or her religion. And in the process of finding peace and soul-searching, he or she might be attracted to the practice of Muslims.

-As the number of youths in the Muslim world is high according to a Pew Research report, the religion will see a significant increase in more members. However, with the Middle East struggling in conflicts and sectarian war, poor healthcare and high death rate may also cause the growth to be less “encouraging”.

To summarize, while the common notion is that Islam will grow, researches have shown that other religions together with atheism shall also increase. Christianity, according to the Pew Research, will also be able to retain its position as the world’s biggest religion longer than expected.

Malaysians are fooled; Economically

In the recent UMNO General Assembly, Tan Sri Muhyidin Yassin proposed a new National Economy Policy (not to be confused with New Economy Policy 1970) to catalyse the realisation of the success of the Bumiputera Agenda. In his speech, he stressed that the Bumiputeras are still left out in getting a bigger share of the economy. As a remedy, he spoke about the dire need of this new policy to achieve the Bumiputera Agenda. He, however, missed the entire point or perhaps, did so deliberately.

The policy that he suggests seems to have the same,old aspirations of the NEP of 1970. NEP was crafted after the 1969 racial riot with two prongs; alleviate poverty and redistribute wealth among the diverse races of Malaysia. Whilst poverty reduction has seen the success desired although the figures could be disputed, wealth re-distribution is never so. Under NEP, the Bumiputeras were expected to hold 30% of the corporate equity by 1990 as it was only at 1.9% in 1970. The sad news is, to date, this 30% benchmark is yet to be achieved. However, non-governmental researches have indicated that this 30% corporate equity share have long been achieved; it is only understated by the BN government through its disputable methodology. Examples of questionable way of calculating the corporate equity holding include the use of par value instead of the commonly acceptable market value to quantify market capitalization and the refusal of the government to divide the government’s equity in corporate companies according to the proportion of the racial composition in Malaysia. The latter is important as the Malaysian government owns huge shares in the top companies in Malaysia in terms of market capitalisation.

Currently, the Bumiputeras’ corporate equity stands at approximately 24%. But even if the status quo is 30%, it does not necessarily means that the Bumiputeras are better off compared to other races in Malaysia. Why is it so?

Bumiputeras real economic condition

In terms of Gini coefficient which measures income inequality, the Bumiputera group has inequality of 0.421 in 2012. A Gini coefficient of 0 shows income inequality spread equally in a community, with 1 showing an unequal distribution of income. While in 2012, the Gini coefficient of the Bumiputeras were the lowest in comparison to the Malaysian Chinese’s and Indians’, in 2009, the Bumiputeras had the highest. Not only that, merely 1.3% of eligible Bumiputeras hold 75% of the shares of Amanah Saham Bumiputera and the vast majority own around RM500 worth shares, according to a research by KS Jomo, a famous Malaysian economist. Besides that, within the Amanah Saham Bumiputera (ASB) which is the largest unit trust fund in Malaysia and serves only for the Bumiputeras (hence the name), the Gini inequality is 0.836 and this shows that the 83.6% of the invested amount of ASB is concentrated in the hands of few.

Taking a bigger macroeconomic picture, the bottom 40% of the Malaysian population’s monthly mean household income is merely RM1,847. In contrast, the top 20% has monthly mean household income of RM12,159. This is the state of Malaysia’s inequality. If we focus on the Bumiputera group, 75.5% of them are located within this bottom 40%. In the Malaysian workforce, 64.3% Bumiputera have only SPM qualification.

It is mind boggling that after all the efforts taken to improve the economic conditions of the Bumiputeras, the inequality within the community has remained the same, if not worsen. This is where the BN government has gone wrong.

New Economic Model; same old mantra

Now, that Najib Razak has gone back on his promise to repeal the Sedition Act, it is worth to note that this is not the first time he had done so. When the New Economic Model (NEM) was introduced in March 2010, only Part 1 was tabled in the august Parliament and Part 2 is to be introduced together with the 10^th Malaysia Plan. NEM is supposed to be the country’s long-run framework for economic and social development from 2011 till 2020. NEM was promised to re-create Malaysian public policy on the basis of meritocracy and no longer race-based. Whilst this created overwhelming response from all fraternities, the introduction of NEM’s Part 2 brought back only disappointments.

The Part 2 was not released together with the 10^th Malaysia Plan, instead only on December 2010. Interestingly, merely 10 days before 10^th Malaysia Plan and Part 2 of NEM were supposed to be revealed, at the Malay Consultative Council Congress, Perkasa head, the Malay supremacist, Ibrahim Ali has said that the “Malays have rejected the NEM”. And in the 10^th Malaysia Plan, key race-based policies were retained and as expected, in the Part 2 of NEM, race-based policies in support of the Bumiputeras were mentioned and highlighted. This is clear showing of lack of political will and Mr. Najib dancing to the tunes of Malay supremacists.

Malaysians are fooled

Malays have been constantly fed with the idea that the non-Malays, in particular the Malaysian Chinese, have been stealing “their” economy. This story has been around since even before the 1969 incident until now. But, the bare fact is, before the introduction of NEP, the economy was “stolen” from the Malays by the foreigners who own vast Malaysian wealth and corporate shares. And now after NEP, it is the Malays whom “stole” the economy from the other Malays. Confused? The figures aforementioned are the proofs. Policies under the NEP have created a new layer of Malay elites that controls the Malays’ wealth. While individuals like Mirzan Mahathir, Mokhzani Mahathir, Syed Mokhtar al-Bukhari are feverishly increasing the wealth annually, the ordinary Abu, Ali and Ahmad are still in deplorable economic conditions.

It is true that race-based policies will only create an elite line within a society and will never reach effectives. In Thomas Sowell’s “Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study” which focuses on Nigeria, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, India and the US, it is deduced that

·         Affirmative actions encourage non-preferred groups to re-designate themselves as members of preferred groups to take advantage of group preference policies;

·         They tend to benefit primarily the most fortunate among the preferred group (e.g. Black millionaires), often to the detriment of the least fortunate among the non-preferred groups (e.g., poor Whites);

·         They reduce the incentives of both the preferred and non-preferred to perform at their best — the former because doing so is unnecessary and the latter because it can prove futile — thereby resulting in net losses for society as a whole.

All three scenarios are evident in Malaysia through the implementation of race-based policies. Many individuals want to be recognised as Bumiputeras such as certain Indian-Muslim groups, wanting them to be labelled as Bumiputeras to enjoy the policies helping the Bumiputeras. The second scenario is, only small fractions of Bumiputera individuals are receiving the positive impacts of NEP and they form the elite group of Bumiputeras. And lastly, race-based policies have restricted non-Bumis growth, both socially and economically (Industrial Coordination Act 1975 required firms with annual turnover of RM2.5 million and 75 workers to allocate 30% ownership to Bumiputeras, scholarships preference for the Bumis, etc). This has also created negative impacts within the Bumiputera community as many individuals have resorted to become “Ali-Babas” to earn instant profit. Race-based affirmative actions have created rent-seeking Bumiputera community, Tun Abdullah Badawi has even stated that 85.37% of projects dished out to the Bumiputeras end up being sub-contracted to non-Bumis.

 It is said that after dismantling the Apartheid Law in South Africa and the enfranchisement of the blacks, late Nelson Mandela introduced race-based affirmative actions to empower the blacks by emulating Malaysia’s model. While this sounds positive, it is most disheartening to see most blacks are struggling from economic inequality. A group of black elites have formed within the larger society and is reaping the most benefits from the affirmative actions, while the poorer sections are left unattended.

Orang Asli

Tracing back to the early history of Malaya, the indigenous groups of the Peninsular are the earliest settlers of Malaya. Currently, there are 18 ethnic groups within the Orang Asli’s larger grouping, with three main classifications; Senoi, Negrito and Proto-Malay. These indigenous people are not recognised in the Federal Constitution to receive the special positions as per Article 153, albeit the fact that they are the rightfully indigenous human beings in Malaya.

As Malaysia’s economic policies are skewed towards the empowerment of Bumiputeras (read: Malays), the Orang Asli groups are severely left out. The fact is, despite the government proudly claiming that abject poverty has been reduced to 0.2%, 50% of the Orang Asli households or half of the 30,000 households is living under the poverty line. While it is true that some members of Orang Asli have become important figures of the Malaysian community, the truth remains that most of them are still living under deplorable means.

Malaysian Indians

The Malaysian Indians are also left out in Malaysia’s economic planning, despite several attempts to “help” this community. The major drawback of this community is, they are clumped together with the Malaysian Chinese in the form of non-Bumiputeras. Thus, very often than not, Malaysian Indians are seen well off than the Bumiputeras or precisely, the Malays.

Even before NEP was formulated, Malaysian Indians’ equity share was only 0.9% when the Malays’ was 1.9%. At that moment, the Malaysian Indians’ share in professional and management group was merely 4.3% whereas the Malays are at 12%. Similarly, the percentage of lndians in the technical and supervisory category was only 6.1 percent compared to 20 percent of Malays. Taking a second look, it seems like the Malaysian Indians needed affirmative actions more than the Malays. Fewer actions have been taken to increase their corporate equity share.

MIC’s first economic seminar in 1974 projected for ambitious 10% share of corporate equity by 1990. By 1980, this was again revised to 6%. But, MIC’s plans and projections for the community were never listened by the UMNO-led government. Now, after 44 years of NEP introduction, the Malaysian Indians’ corporate equity stands at dismal 1.6%. Not only that, their Gini coefficient in 2012 has increased to 0.443 compared to 0.424 in 2009. Now, that’s an achievement.

Malaysian Chinese

It is a pity that this community has always been viewed with negative perceptions. They are often labelled pejoratively as capitalists and controllers of the domestic economy. However, government regulations that were introduced under the pretext of helping the Bumiputeras, have restricted their capacity to grow economically and socially. This has indeed been proven by many studies.

Special Positions

Malay supremacists have often claimed that their special rights cannot be questioned by any other non-Malays. But the very fact shows us that as enshrined in Article 153, it is not “rights” but rather, “special positions”. In the deliberation process of drafting our Federal Constitution, it was earlier suggested that these special positions are to be reviewed after 15 years of independence. However, with the recommendations from Tun Dr.Ismail in the Tripartite Working Group, this 15 years requirement was removed, however, it is accepted that the special positions will be removed once the Malays are capable “to stand by themselves without crutches”. Tun Dr Ismail has noted this in his writings that the special positions are not meant to be forever.

Conclusion

Malaysia has to move away from race-based economic policies to put ourselves on the right track and compete internationally. The government needs to help individuals without preference to race and importance should be given to meritocracy. Remember, race-based policies do not only affect the non-Bumis, but also the intended group, Bumiputeras themselves. It’s now or never.