COMMENT Compared with the affirmative action policies carried out elsewhere, for example in the United States, we find some glaring inconsistencies in this country:

Principle 1: Affirmative action in the US was implemented to rectify the glaring discrimination experienced by historically marginalised groups, such as the African American minority in the US.

In contrast, affirmative action in Malaysia is driven by the politically-dominant and majority Malay elite and directed at the Malay community as a whole, as the beneficiary group, regardless of wealth and position.          

Principle 2: Any preferential treatment for any group should be followed by specific goals, quotas and sunset clauses, as is the case in the US.

In contrast, the “Never Ending Policy” of the NEP continues its populist run in Malaysia.

Principle 3: Affirmative action policies in the US are fundamentally not “special rights” of the African Americans, Hispanics and other minorities; policy adjustments to rectify social inequality have a time limitation once the objectives have been reached.

In Malaysia, affirmative action is interpreted as “special rights of the Malays”.

Principle 4: The definition of the target group for affirmative action has to be precise.

The definition of the main target group in Malaysia, namely, “the Malays” is imprecise and allows confusion when any Muslim who is not ethnically Malay can claim to be a beneficiary;

Principle 5: In the US, affirmative action is extended to all discriminated groups including, for example, women, Hispanics and other minority groups.

In Malaysia, only the “bumiputeras” (the “princes of the soil”) are included, while the poorest and most marginalised group, arguably the original people of this land, the Orang Asli, have been excluded from this policy.

Contrasting origins in US and Malaysia

The contrasting origin of affirmative action in the US and Malaysia is worth noting. While in the US, it came about as a result of the civil rights movement in the 1960s by the downtrodden Afro-Americans, Malaysia’s “special position of the Malays” had its origin in colonial policy of divide-and-rule.

The British strategy propped up the Malay feudal elite and divided the people into the “native Malays” versus the “Chinese and Indian immigrants”.  Thus, Malays were given priority in civil service employment and the Chinese and Indians were also excluded from the political arena until an accommodation with the Chinese and Indian capitalist class was found during the Emergency.

The political machinations by the British colonial power during the post-war constitutional crisis, from the Malayan Union (1946) through the Federation of Malaya Agreement (1948) to the Independence Agreement (1957) led to the inclusion of Article 153 in the federal constitution pertaining to “the special position of the Malays.” (See Kua Kia Soong, Patriots & Pretenders: The Malayan Peoples Independence Struggle, 2011 Suaram)

Why do millionaire bumis need discounts?

In strong contrast to the US, affirmative action in Malaysia covers not only higher education but also land reservation, quotas in public service, licences, permits, scholarships and grants.

The most glaring inequity is seen when bumiputeras can buy houses costing more than a million ringgit and still claim a discount from the market rate. Can a wealthy Afro-American in the US do the same?

The New Economic Policy of 1971 has led to a carte blanche for the ruling Umnoputras to control the commanding heights of the Malaysian economy, including banks, plantations, oil and gas, properties and other sectors.

Furthermore, several of these bumiputera-controlled sectors are monopolies. You certainly do not find such a situation with the Afro-Americans in the US!

The NEP’s 30 percent bumiputera equity share target by 1990 has clearly been reached but there seems to be no end to a policy that allows the Umno elite to continue reaping the benefits of the policy.

Besides being onto a good thing, such a discriminatory policy has populist appeal to win over the Malay vote by portraying non-Malay citizens as “immigrants” who cannot enjoy the equal rights stipulated in Article 8 of the Federal Constitution.

Clearly, affirmative action cannot be justified across the board for communities that are thoroughly class differentiated, such as the Malays, Chinese and Indians in Malaysia. The Orang Asli are a community that has not undergone class differentiation on a scale similar to the other ethnic communities in Malaysia, but they enjoy no such privilege!

New affirmative action needed

In Malaysia, since the passing of the deadline for the NEP in 1990, it is high time for a new, socially just affirmative action policy based on need or class or sector. Thus, if Malays are predominantly in the rural agricultural sector, we should create policies that benefit the poor Malay farmers and not the rich Malay land-owning class.

Only such a race-free policy can convince the people that the government is socially just, fair and democratic and walks the 1Malaysia talk.

The cost and consequences of the racially discriminatory policy in Malaysia have been immense, especially since the NEP in 1971. It has caused crippling polarisation of Malaysian society and costly brain drain.

While the working class Chinese in Malaysia have largely adapted to this discrimination in the public sector by trying to make a living in the private sector, many working class Indians in Malaysia have not been so fortunate and have found themselves marginalised, especially with the destruction of the traditional plantation economy.

The phenomenon of the Hindraf movement which erupted in 2007 is a warning of social problems waiting to explode. The cost of preferential treatment has also seen greater intra-community inequality, with the higher class members creaming off the benefits and opportunities.

Thus, Malaysians should be able to reclaim their inalienable rights and understand the transient nature of affirmative action. For a truly “1Malaysia”, let there be no more obfuscation about “rights” of any particular ethnic community but a commitment to unite all Malaysians by eradicating institutional racism through:

- Corrective action in all economic and education policies based on need or sector or class and not on race, with priority given to indigenous people, marginalised and poor communities;

- Implementing merit-based recruitment in the civil and armed services;

- Ratifying the Convention on the Eradication of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

To head for national integration...

To conclude, the solution to the 100 percent racial discrimination at Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) is not what its law graduate and DAP candidate for Teluk Intan Dyana Sofya Mohd Daud has suggested, namely, have public institutions for the other ethnic groups. We do not want public institutions that discriminate according to ethnicity (so-called “race”).

We want UiTM and the other “bumiputeras only” institutions to open their gates to all Malaysians so that true national integration can be facilitated.

We want Chinese Malaysian and Indian Malaysian youth to learn a trade with other Malay and indigenous peoples and not become drop-outs of mainstream society.

Only those who are totally ignorant of Malaysian social realities believe that “all Chinese Malaysians are rich” and “all Indian Malaysians are lawyers”.

    

It is perhaps understandable how our country has regressed to such a level when we have leaders who do not know such basic facts and statistics relating to Malaysia’s socio-economic reality and who do not know the Federal Constitution.

Yesterday: 'Article 153 doesn't condone UiTM bumi policy'

KUA KIA SOONG is adviser to the human rights organisation Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram).