I’m writing this in response to a segment of a speech made by Dr Boo Cheng Hau, state assembly representative of Skudai, in the Johor state assembly last week where he alleged that certain lending practices made by Dana Johor smacked of apartheid practices because the non- bumiputera were charged a higher interest rate compared to the bumiputera.

While Boo makes many valid points on the question of fairness, his comparison between Malaysia’s regime and that of South Africa during apartheid is not only factually and historically wrong but more importantly, counterproductive to the interests of himself, his party and that of the coalition he belongs to, Pakatan Rakyat.

I want to state here that I do not disagree on the question of fairness on the part of Dana Johor in charging differential interest rates purely on the basis of race without any attempt to means-test. But my disagreement with Boo begins with the comparison between this specific practice and the policies practiced under the apartheid regime in South Africa.

Where do I begin? Boo is right to say that apartheid is not just the physical separation of the different races in South Africa but that it also involves the complete domination of one race over the other – economically, politically and socially. But it has to start with the aspect of physical separation.

malaysians 050905

Without this aspect, Boo falls into the danger of picking and choosing different characteristics of different countries to compare Malaysia unfavourably with on very weak theoretical grounds.

For example, I could also have said that the affirmative action policies introduced in India for the scheduled castes and tribes are similar to the affirmation action policies introduced in Malaysia for the economically disadvantaged Malays thereby justifying these policies using a more legitimate democratic example.

But neither comparison is accurate. In the first case, the regime in apartheid South Africa involved an economically and socially dominant minority ruling over an underclass majority while in Malaysia, one may argue that the situation just after independence described a historically disadvantaged majority ruling the country together with component parties representing all the other races in the state.

More importantly, there is no physical segregation of the races, at least not as a matter of government policy. In the second case, ethnic and caste identity in India is much more fluid compared to Malaysia.

Boo also erred in saying that apartheid was originally conceived as a system to help the poor whites. This may be true to the extent that apartheid gave more political power to the numerically superior but economically inferior white Boer population vis- à -vis the white Anglo population.

'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'

But ask almost any South African political scientist and I am certain that he or she will say that this was a project that was conceived from the beginning with the main objective of institutionalising minority rule in South Africa.

Aren’t all these debates rather academic, one may ask? Perhaps. In the cut and thrust of politics, one may argue that one cannot afford to pay attention to these minor ‘details’ which are better left to political scientists to argue about. I would respond by saying that politicians who pick and choose their cases illustrate the point that ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing’.

In any case, even if one were to discard these ‘academic’ debates, Boo’s argument scores poorly from a political strategy standpoint. The strategy employed by Boo is not a new one. He is indirectly trying to undermine the moral authority and basis of the NEP as well as its implementation in Malaysia and in doing so, directly issues a critique against Umno.

This is a slightly different critique of the NEP than Anwar Ibrahim’s in that Anwar acknowledges the second point but not the first.

malaysia people rakyat What did Boo hope to achieve with this comparison between Malaysia and apartheid South Africa? If his intention was to win over more non-Malay support, he would already be preaching to the converted. Most non-Malays including those in Skudai who voted for Boo would readily concede this point.

But this has not stopped them from voting for the BN in large numbers in the past. And this is probably not the reason why many non-Malays decided to vote for Boo in March 2008. If his intention was to gain recognition for himself within his own party, the DAP, then he probably scored some points for taking on the NEP and Umno. But at what price?

As a seasoned politician, Boo should know that the mainstream media would immediately latch on to this particular segment of his speech and play it up to the detriment of his party and of Pakatan, in the eyes of the Malay voter. Very, very few people will bother to read his speech in context. Most Malays who read the headlines in regard to this issue will immediately think that this is yet another example of the DAP showing itself to be anti-Malay.

Two Umno leaders from Johor, senior vice-president Muhyiddin Yassin and Menteri Besar Abdul Ghani Othman, immediately jumped on this comparison and rightly so from a political strategy standpoint.

Boo has to realise that in his capacity as opposition chief in the Johor state assembly, he is not just responsible for his own political career but that he is also responsible for spearheading the efforts of the opposition as a whole to make further headway in Johor, a state which the BN has been dominating electorally ever since the first post-independence elections.

That small segment of his speech, while not politically crippling Pakatan, has surely set back the image of Pakatan in the eyes of the Malays in Johor.

Doing Pakatan Rakyat no favours

As a non-Malay politician and leader in a largely non-Malay party and running in a non-Malay majority seat, it is not surprising if Boo feels that he needs to channel the feelings of hurt and unfairness that are felt by non-Malays. If this is the case, Boo would be not that different from politicians from the other side who feel that they have the responsibility and the need to ‘channel’ their anger towards certain leaders of the opposition who had the temerity to call them certain offensive names!

Of course, Boo’s platform is a much more civilised one – within the august halls of the state assembly in a speech rather than outside the august halls of parliament in a fashion more befitting of gangsters rather than politicians.

I do not pretend to have done this well but I can imagine myself in the position of a Malay professional or academic who, because of the NEP, was able to go abroad to study under a government scholarship and has managed to rise up the ranks of her profession by working hard. She would see the NEP has an instrument which has helped her to get to where she is today.

Perhaps she thinks that most non-Malays would have been able to go to university using their own funds, on the assumption that most non-Malays are more financially independent than the Malays. By equating the NEP with apartheid and by giving ammunition to the BN and to the mass media to use his speech to allude to this point, Boo is guilty of allowing his statement to be used to paint himself, his party and Pakatan in an anti-Malay light.

That person whom I mentioned above, would see the attack on the NEP as an attack on her own achievements and not as some statement made in the context of having a healthy discussion.

pakatan rakyat penang rally 160608 anwar ibrahim The political reality that Boo should realise is that if Pakatan wants to take on the NEP, it would be much more suitable for a Malay politician within Pakatan to take up this challenge. Even someone with the political stature of Anwar, who has taken this issue head on, has received significant criticism for it from Umno and other Malay groups.

What more someone like Boo who does not have the street credibility of someone like Lim Guan Eng who was jailed for defending the rights of a Malay rape victim? This does not mean that the important issues raised by Boo should not be debated. He just needs to frame the debate in a different manner. Here is how I would have framed it if I were in Boo’s position.

After almost 40 years of the NEP, a large and successful Malay middle class has emerged which is made up of professionals and entrepreneurs who are more than capable of standing up on their own two feet. I have seen and experienced this myself.

Throughout the course of my studies at two distinguished universities in the UK, through my first job as a management consultant in the KL office of a well-known US-based management consultancy, through my many interactions with Malay professionals and intellectuals in Malaysia, I can safely say that I have felt inadequate next to many of them.

These friends of mine do not need the NEP to win contracts or to build up their businesses. I think many of them would even feel embarrassed that people would think they got to where they are today because of preferential treatment.

Quite a number of them probably won’t mind seeing the NEP or its implementation changed significantly such that it is targeted towards the poor of all races and not just the Malays. Indeed, this is exactly what PAS spiritual leader and Kelantan Menteri Besar Nik Aziz Nik Mat said, when asked to comment on the statement by Boo.

By framing the debate in these terms, I do not think that Boo runs the danger of alienating larger numbers of Malay voters and at the same time, does not run the risk of giving ammunition for the BN, specifically Umno, to attack him, his party and the opposition coalition.

The larger point of my article is this – that it is counterproductive for DAP leaders like Boo to discuss the NEP by looking ‘back’ as it were. It would be much more productive for him to take the discussion forward by looking at contemporary times and perhaps even projecting into the future. This, would be much more helpful for the DAP as well as for Pakatan, moving forward.

ONG KIAN MING is a PhD candidate in political science at Duke University. He can be reached at im.ok.man@gmail.com.