In
Malaysia, last Saturday may have been one of the most anticipated weekends
ever. The Premier of the Federation of Malaysia, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak
unveiled a slew of economic measures targeting the Bumiputra (indigenous
population of Malaysia encompassing the Malay race and the aborigines) under
the Bumiputra Economic Empowerment Plan.
This
is widely seen as a continuance of affirmative action scoping on a particular
group in Malaysia, which is in this case, the Bumiputra group. Whilst this has
been received with inundating support from various quarters, particularly the
Malay-business groups (with PERKASA, a Malay supremacist group demanding even
more up to RM 1.4 trillion of Bumiputra Economic measures), many politicians
and public figures have been quite critical of such announcement.
Bumiputra Economic Plan; Good or Bad?
In
Malaysia, a country which boasts with a multiracial community (I know it’s
quite cliché), inclusiveness of public policy which favours all the races is
significantly needed. Any initiative that only puts emphasis to the development
of only one race can be detrimental to the growth of the nation, in macro view.
In the name of affirmative action, the Bumiputra group has been aided by the Government
with the intention to elevate the economic status of the community. But, by
saying this, has all the other races in Malaysia, the Indians, the Chinese, the
Punjabis, etc, to name a few, been left out?
The
special focus on the Bumiputra community has been closely linked with the
so-called “social contract” (which in my opinion is non-existence). To the
uninitiated, the Social Contract is usually referred to Articles 14-18, 152,
153 of the Malaysian Constitution. This social contract is said to be “verbally”
agreed by the founding fathers and is based on “quid pro quo” basis. It was
purportedly agreed that in return for the Malays’ consent in awarding
citizenship to the new group of other races by the concept of “jus soli” rather
than “jus sanguinis”, the non-Malays agree that special positions or “benefits”
as mentioned in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution shall be given to the
predominant Malays. But history aside, the idea of existence of this “social
contract” is widely debated. In my perception, any contract which is made
verbally, without any documentation, does not hold water. But, even if it
exists, is the social contract still relevant?
Article 153?
This
particular article in the Federal Constitution elaborates about the special
positions reserved for the Bumiputras. These special positions include having
quota reservations for the Bumiputras in education, public service employment,
public scholarships and issuance of governmental permits and tenders. While I
believe in equality regardless of skin complexion, I believe the Reid
Commission (which drafted the Constitution) had noted the need of such
constitutional provision. In 1957, when Malaya gained its independence, the
polarization amongst the various races is inevitable. The blame for such
polarization is usually put on the colonial masters for their divide-and-rule
approach in administering Malaya prior to independence. Thus, it is
understandable that in order to convince the Malays on the need for “accepting
the new family members mainly from mainland India and China”. To put it
succinctly, our ancestors made a trade which lasts up to now.
This
Article 153 has been used by many, namely the Malay-supremacist groups to
indicate that socio-economic benefits for the Bumiputras need to be increased
more extensively. But, one has to remember…when Lord Reid and his team of five
drafted the Constitution, this particular Article is given duration of merely
15 years that is up to 1972. Supposedly, in 1972, the bicameral Parliament
should have made a review, whether to retain or to repeal the Article, This
constitutional provision was never meant to stay indefinitely. This review,
however never materialised as in the aftermath of the 1969 racial riot, a
ruling was made that any discussion or debate relating to the special positions
of the Bumiputras are strictly prohibited. One could now only wonder what could
have happened if the review was really made in 1972.
As
a further matter, the introduction of the New Economic Policy in 1971 has made
the expansion of affirmative action more possible. More and more plans and
benefits were introduced for the Bumiputras, and these include issuance of
Approved Permits to import foreign-made automobiles, government tenders for
supply and service below RM 100,000, government tenders on works below RM
50,000 and much more.
Many
politicians have tried and will continuously defend these actions under the
name of “affirmative actions” or “positive discrimination”. For them, the
Bumiputras constitute of almost 80% of the household and priority should be
given to improve their lifestyle. Plus, they might even argue that the
Government’s aim to achieve 30% of equity ownership among the Bumiputras is yet
to be attained and thus, such affirmative actions should resume.
What
these public figures fail to understand is, there are also members of the other
races that fall in the low-income group and suffers from poverty. Since 1971,
Bumiputras percentage of equity ownership has increased, but why are many
Bumiputras out there, still suffering from low-income plague. Affirmative
actions have been implemented in many other countries apart from Malaysia. One
good example is South Africa. After the election in 1994 which was won by the
blacks-majority African National Congress for the first time, affirmative
actions were introduced to elevate the economic status of the blacks. Fast
forward, now after 19 years, achievements of such affirmative actions are very
much doubted. Yet, one can be very certain to highlight whilst not many blacks
have benefitted from the actions, the elite blacks have surely made their
bucks.
This
also happens in Malaysia where it is widely argued that the Malay elites have
benefitted a lot from the affirmative actions. While it may be true that many
other poor Malays have now escape poverty and attain high percentage of
literacy, the number is still relatively small. It is evident that affirmative
actions in Malaysia only favoured a small percentage of Bumiputras.
To
summarize, what Malaysia NEEDS is an economy distribution that promotes
inclusiveness. Ruling leaders should understand that words of unity alone are
unwanted.
- Bring in meritocracy into administration
- award public scholarships to anyone with excellent grades regardless of race,
- entrance to public universities should be made equal, any preference of a particular race must be eliminated
- Government tenders and those related government-owned companies should be opened to everyone, without exception
- Housing discount which is now only entitled for the Bumiputras should be stopped (perhaps, such discount can be given to people of low-income group; this will certainly help everyone)
- Abolish the requirement that 30% of unit under new housing projects should be sold to the Bumiputras
- Matriculation programme seats should be given on merit, not according to quota
- And many more….
If
a major overhaul is done in creating a just economy distribution to all the
races, Malaysia definitely will achieve better aspirations.
P/S:
Please stop talking about the “Malay rights (hak kaum Melayu)” or the “Malay
Supremacy (Ketuanan Melayu), they never existed in the Constitution and were
never mentioned by the founding fathers.
Clearly NAJIBS 1 Malaysia concept was only meant to be a facade, a gimmic so to speak. You see how quickly he jumped the boat - after the infamous APA LAGI CINA MAU!! I would advise the voters to think, do we want a party which blatantly lies to the face of the general public... With only malicious intents, bn is dead and irrelevant. Why can't they understand all the people want is to say NO TO OPEN RACISM AND YES TO MERITOCRACY.
ReplyDeleteYou should reread the Article 153 and understand the cases before commenting. How can you want to put aside the historical facts when it comes to law. Do you know, why Malays have those rights in this land historically? Malay rights and the rights of other races (I do agree some Malays ignore this) have been agreed during the formation of Malaysia. So have a respect.
ReplyDeleteWith such "rights",Malays will be made into a superior class in Malaysia compared to other races.I don't wish to see that.An equitable Malaysia is what we need.Being a student of economics,believe me...these privileges have brought more harm than good to Malaysia.
ReplyDeleteWhat harm? I think only in Malaysia vernacular schools existed. And see how others can practice their beliefs freely. I do admit now there is some Malay who breach the limit like perkasa, isma, etc. But just see during the era of Dr. M. You can see the richest businessman in this country, for which race he is? I rather choose improvisation, rather than replacement. Being a law student, we have a faith on this law since it was granted in constituion and agreed by all. You as a Malaysian such have a respect to the country and the constititution
ReplyDeleteTo set the record straight, I too have immense respect on the Constitution.And for you to know,the "Grundnorm" of our country has been periodically altered and amended to be relevant as time passes by. Why? Because a society has to be socially progressive to remain effective at all times. When you ask "what harm", this clearly shows your lack of understanding about our society and your mere insistence to stick to what have been drafted some time ago. Do you know that our country have lost many capable Malaysians because of this biased affirmative actions?This is even recognised by World Bank. Due to special preference given to the Malays, many unqualified ones manage to get government jobs. Many hardcore, "Malay supremacists" like to claim that the economy is dominated by the Chinese.I'm not denying...but do you know that most of these businesses remain as SMEs because of government preference through "vendor programmes". My friend, since you read law, go have a look at the Industrial Coordination Act 1975 and its content which required 30% of Malay participation in firms. This created "lazy groups" through Ali Baba concept and more Chinese businesses refusing to "upgrade" their businesses as they want them to remain family owned.
DeleteJust for your information,75% of the Bumiputera corporate equity is owned by only 1.3% of Bumiputera community.Can't you see only a small portion is benefiting,not the whole? Brother,if let's say you become a policy-maker in future,just by knowing law and not other areas,you will fail to create a good policy.