COMMENT The insistence on declaring one’s “race” in official forms has been justified by the prime minister on the basis that “race” is still necessary for policy decisions. How consistent has the BN government been in meeting this objective?

Those of us who have been following official statistics in this country will know that statistics on “race” have been methodically perverted by the powers-that-be. For a start, the New Economic Policy (NEP) was formulated in 1971 with a view to “eradicate economic function with race”. Thus, the earlier Malaysia Plans would provide statistics with ethnic breakdown.

Do statistics promote feelings of ill-will?

Suddenly, in the late Eighties or so, such statistics considered vital for social and economic restructuring, were deemed by the government to be “likely to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between the different communities”.

Subsequently, the later Malaysia Plans did not provide statistics with ethnic breakdown anymore.

This was the reason I received to a question in parliament for figures on student enrolment into institutes of higher learning according to ethnicity, on April 30, 1993. (See Kua Kia Soong, “Reforming Malaysia”, Oriengroup 1993:65)

Another question I asked on May 6, 1992 regarding why the hard-core non-bumiputera poor were not entitled to the RM500 million government assistance that was being given out, was again disqualified under Parliamentary Standing Orders 23(2) even though the NEP had declared that poverty eradication is irrespective of race.

On Aug 21, 1991, I wanted to know what proportion of scholarships, loans for certificate, diploma and degree given to bumiputeras had been given to children from poor households.

This was similarly rejected under S.O. 23(2) because apparently it was likely to “promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different communities in the federation or infringe a provision of the constitution or Sedition Act.”

Another question asking for the numbers and proportion of Malay, Chinese, Indian waged labour and their respective earnings on May 4, 1992 was again rejected based on the same stipulation of the Standing Orders of Parliament. Even a question on the breakdown of the indigenous minorities according to their different ethnic groupings was likewise disqualified under Standing Orders 23(2)!

Thus, while on the one hand, Umno insists that “race” is still necessary in official forms, ethnic (not “racial”) breakdown of official statistics is no longer seen to be obligatory since they no longer bother to justify “racial” quotas anymore.

During the early eighties, the quota system for entry into the universities and access to scholarships and loans had to be justified.

Now this discrimination is practised so blatantly that a former minister could even declare at an Umno general assembly that he would never allow a single non-bumiputera to enter UiTM.

By the early Eighties, the enrolment in residential schools and colleges, Mara science colleges already showed more than 95 percent bumiputera, some even showed 100 percent bumiputera; scholarships and loans for first degree in overseas institutions showed more than 90 percent bumiputera, even 100 percent bumiputera for some years. (ibid)

The domination of the civil and armed services (above 90 per cent) by bumiputeras is today an undeniable fact.

Statistics on ownership of wealth elusive?

The perversion of statistics on ownership of capital according to ethnicity in Malaysia was highlighted when Dr Lim Teck Ghee resigned as the research director of Asli's Centre for Public Policy Studies over the report which concluded that bumiputra corporate equity ownership was much higher than what government statistics showed.

Dr Lim ( right ) said he stood by the report which stated that bumiputra corporate equity ownership could be as high as 45 percent and not 18.9 percent as stated in government statistics.

His resignation followed after Mirzan Mahathir, the president of Asli or the Asian Strategy and Leadership Institute, issued a statement that the report - Corporate Equity Distribution: Past Trends and Future Policy - was flawed in its methodology and assumptions, and its conclusions could not be "vigorously justified".

Lim, a former United Nations regional adviser and World Bank senior political scientist, and the recipient of many international academic awards said:

"It is the fundamental right of the Malaysian public to question all government statistics and policies, more so when these are not transparent or defensible."

The centre's report had concluded that the National Economic Policy (NEP) target of 30% bumiputra equity ownership had already been exceeded, and said the official methodology inherited from the 1970s to measure corporate equity distribution was "narrowly-based" and "unrealistic".

According to the 9MP, bumiputra equity ownership in 2004, as measured by the Economic Planning Unit (EPU), stood at 18.9 percent.

An Umno vice-president  described the report as "rubbish" while then-prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that the report was "baseless", "inaccurate" and "irresponsible".

On Oct 9, 2006, Utusan Malaysia also quoted former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad as saying the centre's findings were "illogical" because bumiputra economic control was far below that of other races.

Affirmative action or racial discrimination?

Information relating to ethnicity may be necessary for health reasons since certain ethnic groups show tendencies that may be different from other groups, or the information may be necessary for equal employment opportunities or for related workforce studies.

Thus, any official form that asks for information relating to the individual’s ethnicity (not ‘race’) requires a convincing justification. It should not be used for blatant “racial” discrimination disguised as affirmative action.

KUA KIA SOONG, a former MP, is adviser to human rights group Suaram.