Introduction

COMMENT The purpose of this article is to discuss the relevance of the controversial New Economic Policy (NEP) today in our current demographics and economic situation. It is the author’s view that the NEP had not begun in the first place and should be given an opportunity to show its true potential governed by the right and fair principles. The NEP is something that awakes every five years only to be put back to sleep.

A. Purpose of NEP

1. Perhaps over the years, citizens of Malaysia have either forgotten or are clueless on the very objectives of the NEP policy. It was introduced to reach national unity. Forget about its hidden agenda. The fact of the matter is it was introduced.

It was essentially two-pronged. The two objectives are very clear and unambiguous. Firstly, it was for the eradication of poverty irrespective of race. Secondly, it was for the elimination of race identification with economic function. It was very clear.

2. We must understand that in 1971, Malaysia was fairly young and fragile to say the least. It was still developing in terms of economy. At that time, certain classes of people were identified with certain economic functions.

However, we must not forget that it is because of poverty, that those classes of people were associated with those economic function. No one wants to be in the poverty bracket working the trades that only people in the poverty bracket were burdened with. Being a CEO of a company would definitely be more pleasurable and rewarding.

3. Poverty is directly linked to economic function. To tackle this issue of NEP, we must be honest in admitting certain facts.

4. To start of, we must first admit that we are no more in 1971. We are in 2013. The reality of 2013 is what must be considered and not that of 1971. We would not be able to take the first step in tackling the NEP issue if we cannot admit to this glaring and obvious fact. It would be nonsensical to see to a correct implementation of NEP in 2013 taking into account the realities of 1971.

5. The glaring reality in 2013 in simply this. From the bottom 40 percent of all Malaysians, three out of four citizens are Malays. This is the reality in 2013. Can we now say that they do not need help? Would it not be in the interest of the nation as a whole that these people be helped, properly helped, at least for a particular time frame? For the right minded Malaysian citizen, it is something worth pondering and considering.

6. The NEP was introduced in 1971 to eradicate poverty of all Malaysians. However, for some strange reason, in the minds of most Malaysians today, the NEP has been considered as a policy which only helps the Malays. Perhaps the manner in which it has been abused over the years left that mark.

And yet, for some strange reason, again, today in 2013, after 42 years of its introduction, the Malays are still in the poverty bracket. So, one can ask: was the NEP implemented in the first place?

7. The first objective of the NEP has probably been understated and it cannot be emphasised enough. It is for the eradication of poverty irrespective of race. How is that discriminatory in nature? Malaysians have this notion that the NEP is for the Malays and the Malays only. The importance of the word ‘irrespective of race’ has been clearly overlooked, or concealed in time, depends on how one looks at it. We must firstly remove this misconception.

8. The problem, it would seem, does not lie with the NEP policy itself. Rather, it’s with the view that Malaysian have of it and how it has been abused and hijacked over the years to enrich a handful of people. That is the root of the problem.

If a proper explanation is given and Malaysians as a whole fully appreciate and understand the true intents and meaning of NEP, the surely the implementation of it, now, in the proper, correct and just manner, would not have objections.

B. What has happened to the NEP?

9. It would not be too far-fetched to suggest that the NEP, though introduced, was not implemented at all in the correct way. It is quite different from saying that it has not reached its goals or objectives. Those are two very different assertions. To say that a policy has not reached its objectives after 42 years, it must have been implemented in the correct way to begin with. That is definitely not the case here.

The NEP was meant to eradicate poverty, not to enrich certain classes of people. We must be clear on that. The reason for saying this is because of the underlying rationale of the NEP, which was obviously to ‘close the gap’ between Malaysians, not to make it even further apart.

10. We must keep in mind that if a particular mechanism introduced to carry out a policy , is inconsistent with the very objectives of that policy, then clearly that mechanism ought to be struck down and replaced with a new one.

11. If in the past 42 years, the composition of the classes of people belonging in the poverty bracket had remained the same, where was the NEP all this while? Has it been sleeping? Clearly, simply because, as we can see now, the NEP seems to have reached an objective, of which it was set out not to reach in the first place.

12. We must then ask ourselves this question and answer it honestly; was anything actually done for the poor Malays and poor non-Malays under the NEP which was introduced in 1971? I stress on the word ‘introduced’ because it would seem that that was all that came of it.

13. In the circumstances, would it not be fair to give the NEP a chance to do what it was actually set out to do, with a proper government implementing it, for at least a substantial number of years (and not indefinitely) in order to create a level playing field across the board? It cannot be argued that the NEP does need some amendments in terms of the way it would be implemented to ensure a fair and proper implementation of it is reached.

C. NEP vs fair opportunity vs special Malay rights

14. If we can admit that certain classes of people need help, and they are helped, in order to bring them onto a level playing field and not for self-enrichment, we can then say that we are on track to remove this identification of race with economic function.

NEP is a need-based policy. Many modern governments acknowledge this need to help certain classes of people to enable them to continue to play in a level playing field. This is normally known as affirmative action. There is nothing wrong with this, provided of course it is implemented in the correct manner.

15. The NEP was not meant to operate indefinitely. It had a 30-years time frame. The purpose of this time frame was obvious. Had it been implemented properly, we might now have a different view of the NEP. The NEP was not meant to help anyone become obscenely rich once they are embark on a level playing field. That is called something else.

16. Once given help, in the correct way and once these classes of people are comfortable on a level playing field, they were then to be set free, so to speak. Excellence then comes into the picture and decides on the fate of individuals as to their achievements.

17. Once these certain classes of people have been put on a level playing field, it is then the obligation of the powers to be to implement policies of fair opportunity. This policy of fair opportunity would never work if there is no level playing field. We must admit that fact.

18. If Razman and Chan attend their school football team selection with boots, and Muthu does not have boots but wants to go for the selection and decides to play barefoot, what should be done? Should Razman and Chan play barefoot as well?

Of course not. That’s not creating fair opportunity neither does it benefit anyone. What should be done is somehow Razman and Chan must find a way to help Muthu get a pair of boots so that all of them will be given a fair opportunity at the selection. That is NEP for you, in a nutshell.

19. There is another reason why the need-based, affirmative action and fair opportunity policies are important. This has something to do with the controversial issue of special Malay rights.

20. As we know now, special Malay rights have been embodies in our federal constitution. Putting it in writing and giving legal effect to it was probably the easy part. Having to even suggest the notion of doing away with it, that’s a different story altogether. However, a question that arises is this: is there a need to remove these provisions relating to special Malay rights?

21. As all laws, they only have any use whatsoever if it is enforced. A country may have many many laws which remain laws but are never enforced because of changing times and eventually those laws become archaic, but remain law nevertheless.

22. Similarly, if and when need-based, affirmative action and fair opportunity policies are implemented to help those in the poverty bracket, which would include but not limited to the Malays, would there be a need to enforce that laws relating to special Malay rights? Common sense would tell you that the only people who would, for whatever reason, want to enforce the laws relating to special Malay rights, would be the Malays themselves.

However, if they are helped based on policies as stated above, there would come a time when these laws relating to special Malay rights would just remain as laws that need no enforcement. So in an ideal situation, there would not be a need to remove the laws relating to special Malay rights. Nature would take its course.

D. Conclusion

23. If a change is to be effected, then fear must not get in the way. The truth is the only way. We cannot go wrong.

PUTHAN PERUMAL is an advocate & solicitor of the High Court of Malaya.