PROPERTY
Indeed Article 2 of the UDHR instructs us that no distinction shall be made on the grounds of "race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status". There is also no specific mention of affirmative action in UDHR. However, it alludes to such need at various places.
Article 8, for instance, introduces the term, "effective remedy", which probably could be interpreted as amounting to compensatory justice - an aspect of affirmative action. Similarly, Article 23 introduces us to "right to work", "equal pay for equal work", and "just and favourable remuneration" - words, which, again, could broadly be interpreted as suggesting an affirmative action programme. In Article 25, we see the "right to a [certain] standard of living" and the "right to security in the event [of a misfortune]". And finally Article 26 provides that "everyone has a right to education".
Now, it is clear that every human persons have all these rights; but how can they exercise their rights if the natural circumstances had imposed constraints - natural or man-made, physical or mental - on them? Therein comes affirmative action.
In any case, international human rights instruments have actually gone further than that. In 1965, the UN adopted the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (entry into force: Jan 4, 1969). It specifically provides in Article 1 itself that "Discrimination between human beings on the ground of race, colour or ethnic origin is an offence to human dignity and shall be condemned as a denial of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations."
However, Article 1(4) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination that was adopted in 1965, explicitly provides thus:
"Special measures taken for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be deemed racial discrimination, provided, however, that such measures do not, as a consequence, lead to the maintenance of separate rights for different racial groups and that they shall not be continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved."
Affirmative action programmes, among which quota system is one, are certainly consistent with the safeguarding the human rights of persons, as long as it is not maintained after the reasons for which there programmes were instituted in the first place had been met.
The question is: Are there any compelling reasons to maintain affirmative action programmes now, in Malaysia, after all these many years?
I believe that affirmative action still has a role to play in our Malaysian experience. But the proper implementation of affirmative action is utterly dependent on transparency.
The current controversy that there might be over 7,000 places reserved for bumiputra students left unfilled owing to the lack of qualified bumiputra candidates. This is a serious problem. Why should there be such a lack? Are the present set of policies ill-advised, misguided, and/or unsuitable?
These questions cannot be answered as long as the university intake policies are shrouded in secrecy. It is this very lack of transparency (hence the accountability) that should be the cause of our concern.
So, instead of asking if quota system should be abolished, as our prime minister did, we should ask ourselves if there should be greater transparency in the implementation of the system by the UPU (Unit Pusat Univerisiti).
Let's ask the right question; let's demand transparency.