“Instead of affirmative action based on poverty it was exclusively based on a policy of helping just one race irrespective of the wealth of that person.” LKS

I am shocked at this misconceptualization of the Policy.

I respectfully submit that the NEP is not and has never been a policy based on anything but of “helping just one race” as this race which came to be referred to as ‘bumiputras’ or ‘sons of the soil’, was lagging behind the other races. (The definition of ‘bumiputra’ or ‘sons of the soil’ included the indigenous races of East Malaysia. It is a term which entered into popular use after the race riots of 1969).

This new economic policy was meant to address the dysfunctional aspect of a post-colonial Malaya and then Malaysia which though politically independent continued for another decade or so without addressing the issue of the identification of economic functions with race – a factor believed to lead to the race riots of 1969 which claimed hundreds of lives both Chinese, Indians and Malays. It was generally believed that the origin of the riots was grounded in socio-economic factors rather than political. The riots were a manifestation of something larger than just Malays responding to the electoral defeat they suffered at the polls as readers like Loh would like to have us believed – or the Chinese under the Opposition making political inroads into several states of the federation which were regarded as UMNO strongholds as readers like Loh would like to have us believed. He believes the riots were planned, organized and orchestrated by Malay ultras in UMNO.

I believe the NEP was an honest attempt at addressing some of the issues which gave rise to these riots. I could agree with LKS if he says that the policy is flawed because it makes no distinction between the poor among the Malays as a race and the poor among the other races. The preoccupation in the immediate post-1969 was to address the issue of the identification of race with economic functions which is a source of great instability. The riots of 1969 were a manifestation of that instability.

It is obvious that the NEP would work well in situations when the national economic pie is expanding because it is then possible to avoid the perception that the NEP is nothing more than a smoke screen for a policy which is morally wrong and indefensible – which is robbing Paul to pay Peter. Resentment from the other races in such situation is generally believed would be kept at a minimum. What happened during the recent Asian Financial crisis of the late 90s is proof that the expanding national economic pie analysis has its limitations.

Thirty years downstream, we see the inequities, unfairness and injustice a Policy like the NEP has. The NEp has succeeded in widening the Malay middle or the middle class among the Malays – a factor believed indispensable and rightly so, if the country were to have long term political stability. But with it also comes a new rich Malay upper class. We are today constantly reminded of the presence of this newly emerging rich Malay upper class whenever these individuals live out their obscene lifestyles. This generates a lot of resentment not only from the disadvantaged among the other races but also among the Malays themselves.

Perhaps what is wrong is there should have been a separate affirmative action programs to benefit the poor among the other races running parallel to the NEP. Perhaps the two could be made to merge at some predetermined time in the future. Perhaps this could still be made today into an ‘alternative’ to the UMNO’s NEP.

What say you?

Allow me to respond to some of the major issues raised by a resident reader here.

Loh says “The government has not been sincere in implementing NEP to dissociate job function with race since day one. The government services was heavily populated with Malays. That was the result of article 153.”

A response to this assertion is not possible without looking at the historical context. The government like in many other countries in the developing world is the largest employer. Political control was and still is in the hands of the Malays regarded by the Brits at least if not by others as the indigenous race of colonial Malaya. The Brits looked to the Malays when dealing with issues of administration. Civil service positions were naturally filled by Malays and so were the military and the police which provided the backbone to any government. They were not the kind of employers anybody like a community with strong tradition in business and private enterprise would normally look towards for employment. It is not the result of any constitutional provision.

Loh says, “The riots started in Selangor when the position of the MB was on balance. The procession came out from the residence of the MB.”

Racial disturbances, for want of a better word, had their origins elsewhere in peninsular Malaysia but came to be concentrated in Kuala Lumpur. Arguendo, the riots started in Selangor but there were the manifestation of a major dysfunction that was ripping the communities apart i.e. the symptom rather than the cause. A post mortem analysis revealed to us that in the initial stages, the riots showed the kind of spontaneity that could not be explained or dismissed by mere assertions that they were organized or bore the hallmarks of ‘organized’ riots. Historians have always referred since then to the event of May 13th as ‘riots’ and not by any other term. ‘Organized riots’ are contradiction in terms. Be that as it may, there was admittedly some evidence of the working of an invisible hand in the later stages of what came to be referred to as the May 13th riots. This is what Loh is constantly relying to support his thesis that the riots were organized. That is understandable if you are looking for justification for your political views. Irrespective of our own political affiliations, we should see it as what it is and not we would like it to be. To dismiss the riots as the work of politicians without more is to do injustice to the rest of us who are trying to understand and avoid a repetition. The root causes of such a tumultuous event lie elsewhere – in sociology rather than politics, in socio-economic factors. Having said that the major caveat here is I have no access to government documents that suggest one version and not the other.

Loh says, “The Razak government certainly did not want to take the MB of Selangor to task. He was an UMNO member. The easiest blame would be at Chinese, and since Chinese did not have political power, so blame them on economy.”

The downside of any attempt at rationalization such as this is the tendency to brush aside the facts, downplay some and exaggerate others – even distort. Crying “Conspiracy!” at each turn may have its attraction to those seeking sensationalism. But as students of the truth our duties go beyond that. We owe it to future generation of Malaysians to see the riots as what they were and not what we want them to be. Politicians are not the best students of the truth for they are committed to a political agenda.

Loh may want to read this statement carefully:

“I respectfully submit that the NEP is not and has never been a policy based on anything but of ‘helping just one race’…”

It is a policy meant to address some of the issues. Unfortunately, it has also been manipulated and abused by the powerful and the politically connected to enrich themselves, their families and their cronies, all under the umbrella of a policy which seeks originally to redress the economic imbalances which sadly were mostly along racial lines.

The NEP should not be looked upon as the panacea to everything that is dysfunctional about our society.

“However, when the first term of NEP expired in the 90’s NEP was structured to help every race based on poverty and not on race.” Richrad Teo

I think you’re referring more to the rhetoric spewed by BN politicians that one gets to hear and read in the media.

The truth is that the NEP has always been focussed on the Malays as a class without consideration to income – Malays seen as a disadvantaged class. It was meant to be phased out over time because the intention was to level the playing field to allow for a fair competition between peoples at different phases of development.

The DAP however would need to undergo a transformation of its public image – from being a Chinese party to a truly Malaysian party. We need to give a Malay face to the Party.

Mere assertions that it is not a Chinese party is not enough.

Richard Teo,

What he meant by that is with political stability, every citizen (Malays, Chinese and Indians) gets to reap the benefits of this Policy aimed at leveling the playing field for the Malays. It is what he didn’t say that matters or failed to elaborate that matters. Razak was a shrewed and crafty politician – not to be taken at face value.

These people are the unintended beneficiaries of the Policy. The flaw has to be corrected and corrected now.

Why are the powerful and the politically connected getting all the contracts? Why are rich kids getting scholarships when their parents could afford the cost of their tertiary education? This has nothing to do with the objectives of a policy like the NEP.