"New Malaysian Trend"

Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

Working paper presented by Dr. Boo Cheng Hau as a panelist on Interracial Relations and Conflicts at the "New Malaysian Trend" seminar organized by Selangor Chinese Assembly on 15-16 April 2000 in Kuala Lumpur Other panelists: Datuk Ong Tee Kiat and Thock Kah Wah Many including scholars have been awfully confused about affirmative Action which is a need-based preferential policy by helping the under-privileged regardless of race. It is only coincidental that one specific ethnic Group may need state assistance more than the others for historical reason.

To understand Malaysia's preferential policies such as the NEP, one has to read Malaysia's history in conjunction with South Africa's history. Apartheid was also a form of preferential policy starting out by Helping the 'poor whites' natives namely the white Afrikaners of Dutch descent whose ancestors established the first 'civilised government' in South Africa. Despite the fact that Khoisan people were the first natives of South Africa and Afrikaners only saw their own 'poverty' in relation to South Africans of British descent, Apartheid was based upon nativism or better known as Bumiputeraism in Malaysia. It was not affirmative action.

Despite the existence of Orang Asli as the first settlers of Peninsular Malaysia, the author of the Malay Dilemma felt morally justified to Define Malays as the 'definitive race' who established the first 'definitive government' in the land. Neither did he denied that Orang Asli were the first settlers. So to both white Afrikaners and Malay fascists, native or Bumiputeras merely means a dominant race defines what a native means regardless of their being minority or majority race. Majority racial dominance is not better justified than the minority dominance but it is only more evil as everyone else takes it as a rule of nature, and in reality majority dominance is harder to dismantle than the minority dominated apartheid regime. Any policies should be judged upon its morality before its effectiveness.

During the apartheid regime's rule, South Africa had had a continuous economic growth without recession for 43 years. Should we praise apartheid for its miracle economic "growth"? So has Malaysian economy grown in the past 40 years but it does not mean that we should not question the morality of every policy under the present regime. NEP is a form of apartheid for its immoral nativism or Bumiputeraism based. To start Talking about affirmative action is to do way nativism that has been a centre of argument in apartheid South Africa.

Nothing is more justifiable that what Albert Luthuli said against Bumiputerasim or nativism of its very fascist nature: "For us, the questions of Who came first to which part of South Africa, are irrelevant. The vital issue is not a squabble over the past, but the reality of today, and salvation in the present." Yes, salvation in the present is affirmative action all about. Affirmative action is based upon realism and not solely "historical deprivation". Apartheid, on the other hand, is based on endless racial self pity—a repeated regurgitation of the history that 22,000 young Afrikaner fighters died in battle fields in addition to 25,000 Afrikaner women and Children died in British concentration camps during the Boer War against the British "colonisers" between 1989 and 1903. Apartheid was started out by the all-White National Party in the 1940's to help the "poor whites", namely the Afrikaners whose average income was only half of the British South Africans. In the 1970's apartheid regime was able to close the gap to 70% income ratio while totally neglected the 'black and Asian aliens'.

Coincidentally, Malays average income was about 45% of the Chinese' in 1969 before the commencement of Malaysian apartheid NEP. Today 30 years after the NEP Malays average income is only 55% of the Chinese'—isn't it right to say that NEP is worse than apartheid in terms of its effectiveness without entioning the similar ideology between the two? While the Malay-only UMNO embarks on Malay Nationalism similar to white Afrikaner Nationalism of apartheid South Africa in similarly Multiracial societies, UMNO deliberately ignores two important facts: the presence Of Orang Asli as the poorest Malaysians and first settlers, and only a Handful of Chinese owned that 30% of equities. Affirmative action does not Concern redistribution of equities among the rich people. We were all poor but The Malays were and still are definitely poorer than the Chinese.

It is only Malaysian and South Africa fascists talked about race-based Only financial institutions, race separated universities, racial quotas on jobs, unequal distribution school allocation according to race, a single-race only trust funds, nationalist based insurance companies, and so forth. Under the Seventh Malaysian Plan, the ratio of allocation between each Chinese and Malay school student is 1:10, exactly the ratio between Black and white students in Apartheid South Africa; the ratio between each Tamil School student and Malay school student is 1:4; and 1:5 between Indian And white students in Apartheid South Africa. Unequal school allocation based on race than needs is a sign of non-physical apartheid. A non- bumiputera can drive around in the compound of Malay only Mara University but he cannot enrol in that University. This is what is termed as non-physical segregation or apartheid which is much evil than the physical sings of 'whites only" which were removed overnight when apartheid was announced no longer the law in South Africa.

Well, one can say the Chinese can always go to TAR College and Indians TAFE College, or they are always rich enough to go overseas. So, during the apartheid rule, Indians went to Indian universities, blacks to black universities and whites to white universities and colleges. One language policy is neither a monopoly of UMNO. Like the Malay Nationalists, Afrikaner nationalists loved their language and culture so much that they wanted to imposed Afrikaans their own mother tongue as the only language of instruction in all schools in the 1970's . Black masses went to the streets in protest until the Apartheid regime had to back out on that. So, didn't we have the same discontent in the 1980's? One language policy is to keep a dominant race's monopoly in proclaiming absolute racial supremacy and nothing more.

On the other hand, the no country in the world in good sense would polarize its corporate sectors along the racial lines. In Apartheid South Africa trust funds, similar to Amanah Saham Nasional and Bumiputera, were open to the 'poor whites' only. How about the poor blacks, Malays and Indians and coloureds in the South African context? How about the poor Chinese, Indians, Orang Asli in the Malaysian context? BTW Chinese and Japanese were classified as Honourable Whites in the Apartheid South Africa, should we take pride in that? Of course not. We should look out for equal rights for all as what has been stated in the new South African constitution as a common citizenry of equal obligation, duty and responsibility in return for equal rights, privileges and protection from the State.

A: The question should be as to whether, without NEP, there would be a broader Malay Middle class. Without NEP, Malay Singaporeans' average income is 70% of the Chinese'. In Malaysia Malays average income is still at 55% of the Chinese as compared to 1969's 45%. Nonetheless, urban Malays average income is also 70% of their Chinese counterparts. That same ratio already existed between the urban Malaysia and Chinese in 1969. It proves nothing more than the fact that Malays have benefited from generalized urbanization and industrialization policies that have upgraded the living standard of Malays in general the so called the racial quotas in giving them privileges in public sector and universities.

While Malaysia has been obsessed by the NEP, Taiwan whose GNP per capita was less than ours in 1969 has now surpassed Malaysia many times. Its GNP per capita is about 5 times of ours, and so has South Korea surpassed us. Upgrading the population's living standard in absolute terms is the first priority than being tied down by apartheid-like racial quotas. Taiwan has a population of the same size of Malaysia but it also has 60 tertiary education centres with research centres that are even more superior to Singapore's. Malaysia has only 10 universities of which half of them are questionable in quality.

Q: Datuk Ong Tee Kiat's commented that without NEP Malays would not account for 25% of professionals in the country.

A: I think it is dangerous to leave the country being run by leaders who do not understand simple arithmetic at all. For instance, 25% of 100 is 25. But 5% of 1,000 will be 50 which in absolute terms is more than 25. I mean Malay professionals would be more in absolute terms if Malaysia has as many universities as Taiwan today. It is the absolute terms matter most.

A: I do not think we should ban any race-based political parties. It is like sweeping the garbage under the carpet. I would advocate electoral and constitutional reforms to force all parties to adopt non-racial politics. First of all, if the executive heads (at all levels) is directly elected by the populace, Mahatir would think twice in writing The Malay Dilemma and he might never be the Prime Minister at all. Secondly, a system of proportional representation and additional constituency-based members should be elected for legislatures at all levels. Thirdly, local councilors should be freely elected and so is local government executive head such as the mayor. At last, selection of judges or judiciary reforms have to be underway and voting has to be made compulsory.

(Datuk Ong Tee Kiat openly admitted that the restoration of local government election is necessary-see SinChew Jit Poh's report on 17 April)

Q: I believe that Government has provided false figures on Bumiputera equities ownership in the corporate sector. Is the Bumiputera ownership still less than 30% today?

A: First of all, affirmative action does not concern with percentage of equities ownership. At any given times in any country, those who are able to own equities in the corporate sector are an extremely small fraction of the population, say less than 1%. It was wrong to say that all Chinese were rich when only a handful of Chinese taukehs owned 30% of total equities in 1970. It is also wrong to say that all Malays have benefited from equities ownership even if 50% of them are owned by a few Malay entrepreneurs.

It is absolutely absurd to rely on equities ownership to judge distribution of wealth. No sensible statisticians would rely on that except for the politically inclined scholars and politicians. I am extremely disturbed by the fact that many scholars including some of them call themselves 'socialists" have actually rely on the equities ownership along racial lines to judge distribution of wealth. Perhaps we should look at the socio-economic performance and distribution of wealth in a population according to the UN recommendations, i.e. the Human Development Index which includes life expectancy, real GDP per capita (US$) in Purchasing Power Parity, primary to tertiary enrolment, and literary rate. it is right to say that the NEP has created a Malay entrepreneur class and the Malay middle class is still confined to civil servants.

It is wrong to say that all Malays have benefited form NEP. The majority of Malays are still impoverished, and those who have benefited from NEP forms a small minority of all races. An economic policy that benefits the minority in the population is rightly to be named Apartheid.