Scrap Maybank ruling on 50% bumi partnership for law firms on its panel – unacceptable NEP extension

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi should scrap the inequitable and unacceptable Maybank extension of the New Economic Policy (NEP) by requiring law firms on its panel to have at least 50 per cent bumiputra partnership.

Maybank has imposed the rule that with effect from 1-7-2007, one of the criteria for legal firms to be on its panel is that 50% of the equity of the partnership of the legal firm must be held by Bumiputras. For legal firms which are already on the Maybank panel, they have a year to comply with the new ruling.

Maybank, a government-linked company, has justified the new ruling on the ground that Malaysia was working towards improving the quality of service industries including the legal profession to face the challenges of globalization.

But this is a most unconvincing ground for the new Maybank ruling has nothing to do with the upgrading of the quality of service industries, whether legal profession or other fields. On the contrary, the opposite may be the case.

Furthermore, it will create new national divisions by undermining the nation-building process especially at a time when the country is celebrating the 50th Merdeka anniversary when Malaysians have discovered that the country had not made much progress in promoting national integration in the past five decades.

After the Ijok by-election, Abdullah asked MCA and Gerakan to explain why there was a swing of Chinese voters to the Opposition. Let MCA and Gerakan Ministers tell the Prime Minister that it is unfair and inequitable policies and measures like the Maybank ruling for 50% bumiputra partnership for legal firms on its panel which have aggravated disaffection and alienation in the country.

DAP MP for Bandar Kuching, Chong Chieng Jen, will move an emergency motion in Parliament tomorrow to protest and demand end of the unacceptable Maybank extension of NEP by requiring its law firms to have at least 50 per cent bumiputra partnership.

Let all Barisan Nasional MPs stand up to support the DAP motion in Parliament opposing the unfair and unacceptable Maybank extension of the NEP.

  1. #1 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 5:19 pm

    “Maybank, a government-linked company, has justified the new ruling on the ground that Malaysia was working towards improving the quality of service industries including the legal profession to face the challenges of globalization”.

    This is fatuous argument to cover a racist policy, a policy that as far back as the late 1980s Maybank unofficially had but only openly owns up to it.

    The quality of service industries including the legal profession to face the challenges of globalization depends on professional advisors who are (1) knowledgeable in the law especially in the field related to banking (2) have sufficient practical experience in both legal principles and commercial imperatives to know how to balance the bank’s legal interest with commercial interest without at the same time sacrificing the legakl protection to which the bank is entitled, (3) in terms of the challenges of globalization, have the size or net work with legal firms in other countries to exchange in put and collaborate in cross border lending/security transactions and (4) have a professional attitude to work and responsibilities involving values like excellence in value added service to clients and putting the bank’s interest first and foremost and not fee or other extraneous considerations in conflict – all 4 criteria solidly grounded on Merits and not Race!

    Maybank is premier bank having most branches in which we all put our money throughout the country, some in FDs and many in mere current accounts where there’s no interest but the bank could make money out of this free float to make profits year after year.

    Maybank is the custodian of public funds : it should be prudent to lend out the money based on sound credit criteria and secure them by competent lawyers based on merits and not race.

    If they are not competent and the loan and security documents are loose and not tightly knitted for the Bank’s protection how is the Bank going to recover the moneys – our moneys – in the case of default – and especially widespread default/NPL in next crisis?

    The other thing worrying is that if the bank on an issue like its panel of solicitors can harp on race quota (50%) wouldn’t this be suggestive of other policies of the bank in terms of human resource, promotion etc which have direct bearing on credit culture of the Bank?

    If the credit culture deteriorates, what are we looking at here – a big hole another massive bailout?

    Maybank was here since the birth of the country : it is a household word an icon that has served our economic progress. What is the message here after 50 years to tell Malaysians that we need a quota of 50% on our panel lawyers?

    Amirsham & the Board – think!

  2. #2 by firehawk on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 5:41 pm

    The fact that the gomen and AAB see it fit to introduce arbitrary extensions to the NEP reflects the true predicament the gomen is facing. NEP has obviously not worked, yet they can’t just take the NEP ‘off the market’. So patch-ups originating from mediocre policies shroud a blanket of smokescreen.

    At the end my guess is things are only going to get messier and worse, till things get better. Law of nature.

  3. #3 by CoolMike on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 5:50 pm

    Dear KS,

    When the water level drop, the fishes has to fight for air and water. The economy is not doing well, the property market is very bad shape. Hence not enough contract to go around, customer will want an efficient, friendly and effective legal advise.

    I have used a few bumi lawyer before, my experience of using their service are: –

    1. He think he is so important
    2. He is more intelligent because he has a law degree.
    3. Not efficient, have to wait for him
    4. Service? Worst than government services

    Actually he is just a lawyer who manage to get his degree because of the NEP policy, or else I am not he cannot even get into the degree based on merit.

    I will never used one since 1998 after having used a few in 1995-1998.

    Just improve yourself la! Shame on then keep asking for handout!
    I can only said they are worst than OKU! OKU people has dignity, and they have non!


  4. #4 by DiaperHead on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 6:04 pm

    “Maybank has imposed the rule ….the criteria for legal firms to be on its panel is that 50% of the equity of the partnership of the legal firm must be held by Bumiputras.” LKS

    You either pretend not to know or chose to gloss over the fact that all the Chinese businesses have discriminated against bumi firms for decades. They do not have to make public announcements of their policies because they are private companies owned and operated by private individuals. Who is to say what they should or should not do? So what’s the big fuss?

    In fact the newly announced policy by Maybank implies that this public listed company does not require 50% bumiputra ownership prior to this date.

    There are numerous law firms, big and small, with bumi partners. This is not new. It is not to comply with any policy but it is just a display of good commercial sense. Still such firms especially the small to medium ones fail to make any headway when it comes to getting on the panel of companies like Maybank.

    This newly announced ruling by Maybank is misleading in so far as it suggests business from this Bank is being fairly forked out or distributed to all firms i.e. small and large and bumi and non-bumi. The few law firms doing good business with the government, statutory bodies or public listed companies with large government holdings are the politically connected ones – not that they are bumiputra owned and operated or with substantial bumi equity. In many of the cases if there is a bumiputra partner he’s probably a retired government servant or a stay-at-home mom who lends their names for a few bucks every month.

    Being placed on the Bank’s panel does not mean much of anything. It does not mean that you’ll get business from the Bank. The division is not between bumi and non-bumi but between large and politically connected to the small and the unconnected.

    All companies linked to the government require that they be owned and operated jointly by bumiputra partners. This is nothing new because it has been that way for decades. It does not guarantee business. What does is when partners are politically connected to UMNO or the MCA – and the partner with the political connections need not even be the bumi partner.

  5. #5 by DiaperHead on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 6:07 pm

    So LKS, please do not politicize the issue.

  6. #6 by izrafeil on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 6:20 pm

    ali baba practices will be the norm

  7. #7 by kelangman88 on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 6:20 pm


    If you think about it, Maybank actually a very rascist company. Therefore I wouldn’t want to do any banking with Maybank.

    “All companies linked to the government require that they be owned and operated jointly by bumiputra partners. This is nothing new because it has been that way for decades.”

    Come on. If the policy is bad. We should change it right? If not, how to globalize?

    “You either pretend not to know or chose to gloss over the fact that all the Chinese businesses have discriminated against bumi firms for decades”
    When does the discrimination come from? Are you sure that there’s a discrimination? Or is it actually because the company does not do well and thus not getting the business? Let’s say a Malay company rating is C and a Chinese company rating is A. And are you saying the private company discriminate because the company use the Chinese company? And if the Malay company rating is A while the Chinese company is C, will the private company still take the Chinese company?

    I believe, DiaperHead mentality is causing problem with our country. That’s why there’s so many structural problem with our recently open court house. This is because they are giving Malay company that rating C to do the construction instead of giving to Chinese company which is rated A.

    I’m 29. I have another 30 years to see this country died with people that have the same mentality as DiaperHead. I guess that’s why DiaperHead is named that way. Never grown up. Stick to cry baby policy. I feel sad for you and your rascist company.

  8. #8 by Richard Teo on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 6:26 pm

    The only way to counter this is to ask all Chinese Chamber of commerce in every state to ask request all chinese businesses in Malayan Banking close their account and transfer their business to Public bank and Hong Leong Bank.Let Maybank die a slow and natural death.

  9. #9 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 6:38 pm

    Yes, being on the Bank’s panel is one thing, getting their business is another. Go speak to the partners of small to medium law firms with significant bumiputra shareholdings.

    It is common knowledge that it is not the fact you are a bumi or non-bumi firm with minor or significant bumi equity that matters. It is the large firms with mat salleh sounding names that in many cases get to enjoy their business. Otherwise,it is the large bumi owned, bumi named, or those owned and operated with substantial non-bumi interests that get their business. You must remember some of the very large ones have had business dealings with Maybank long before it was taken over by the government in the 60s. Don’t forget the government took over this Chinese owned and operated Malayan Banking when there was a run on the bank in the early sixties to help protect the interests of its Chinese depositors.

    Yes, today you do find but rarely a few of these small to medium firms getting some of the business. But generally such firms bumi or non-bumi operated singly or jointly don’t even get to enjoy the crumbs they are throwing out. When they do give out the crumbs it is because of political pressure brought to bear on them – and even then it is only a tiny fraction of what the big firms are getting, bumi or non-bumi singly or jointly owned.

    So Kit here is your chance of championing the interests of the working class Malaysians – Chinese, Malays or Indians.

    Sadly to say you either chose not to or have missed out on the opportunity. By doing so you have unwittingly played into the hands of the racists who maintain rightly or wrongly that the DAP is a Chinese party.

  10. #10 by kelangman88 on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 6:43 pm

    Richard Teo, I agree with your suggestion. Chinese now must be more racist to counter racist. Last time, we just want to earn money and getting the best deal. But now, someone step our leg. We must do something or else our future in Malaysia is doom.

  11. #11 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 6:49 pm


    Speak to your lawyer friends i.e. if you have any, and I don’t think you have any, they’ll tell you how difficult it is just to get on the panels of companies like Public Bank. Getting on the Bank’s panel would not mean anything unless you get some of their business.

    It is true that many of these banks be they government owned or Chinese owned do put small to medium firms of whatever bumi equity on their list. That does not guarantee their business.

    So it is not that you have a firm which is majority owned by a bumi partner that matters. Like Kit, the CEO of Maybank is politicizing the issue probably because of political pressures brought to bear on the man, pressures he has had to face from UMNO.

  12. #12 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 6:51 pm

    But what political pressure does Kit face?? Except his own?

  13. #13 by kowtim on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 6:56 pm

    Nothing new, afterall virtually 100 % contruction contracts are only for 100% bumi company be there tender or negotiated contract. Looks like Maybank is kind enough to impose a 50 % condition but mark my word it will be 100 % in 2 years’ time. Good luck to all non bumi Lord Denning.

  14. #14 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 7:03 pm

    “f they are not competent and the loan and security documents are loose and not tightly knitted for the Bank’s protection how is the Bank going to recover the moneys – our moneys – in the case of default – and especially widespread default/NPL in next crisis?” Jeffrey

    The loan and other security documentation that you refer to, does not depend on the lawyers but the Bank. It is drafted by law firms with mat-salleh names as referred to earlier, who have been their lawyers during the time when MayBank was a Chinese bank, and to whom today they pay huge retention fees to keep them.

    Don’t think the lawyers draft their own! This documentation are all boilerplate drafting.

  15. #15 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 7:12 pm

    “The only way to counter this is to ask all Chinese Chamber of commerce in every state to ask request all chinese businesses in Malayan Banking close their account and transfer their business to Public bank and Hong Leong Bank.Let Maybank die a slow and natural death.”

    Get real!

    Business is business. They are there to make money. These people will tell you that politics is best left to the politicians

    Don’t think Chinese businesses, big and small, are doing business with companies like MayBank because they like to, as if they have a choice. In many cases they do so because the Bank is able to offer competitive rates and conditions which commercial banks like Public or HLB are unable or unwilling to offer their clients.

  16. #16 by Loh on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 7:13 pm

    ///Maybank, a government-linked company, has justified the new ruling on the ground that Malaysia was working towards improving the quality of service industries including the legal profession to face the challenges of globalization.///

    Let us guess how the qualify of legal services can be improved, by having an increased Malay equity in the legal firms. The services are to be provided by the persons, the lawyers whether employees or partners. So the amount of equity does not help to improve the services. When the amount of equity is increased, it might mean that the number of Malay partners is increased to reach the target of 50%. This implies that only Malays when they were put up as partners can improve the service of the legal firms. Its logic is then based on the argument that the ability is based on race, and that Malays are better than other races. Even if that was true, isn’t it the responsibility of the legal firms to take care of the issue of their quality of services, and not the Banks. The Banks should not interfere in the running of the legal firms, and certainly not the ownership structure. The dealing between the Banks and the legal firms concerns the services, and the Banks is free to terminate dealings with any legal firms when the quality of the services are found wanting. They should not make disparaging profiling that legal firms with less than 50% Malay equity are not able to provide service of the required quality. If that was the official argument made by Maybank, the bar council, or the legal firms affected should take a court case again the bank, for libel.

    We know very well that this is the result of ketuanan Melayu. Having now controlled the banking sector, the greedy parasites are thinking of controlling the services connected with banking, similar to obtaining government projects, and acting as middlemen.

    Foreign investors have shown the government that they are willing to comply with unreasonable requests so long as they are able to make the money. Unlike the government, they have a budget on what to spend. When there is a layer of contractors for legal services, would the real service providers accept the job with reduced fees. When the first class providers decline the second class groups will be landed with the jobs. In time we will see the equivalence of collapsed builings in this sector.

    Is it not true that WTO is against non-tariff barrier for all trade in goods services, and that legal services is scheduled to be subject to globalisation at some future date? The Maybank action appears to be against WTO requirements. Should bolehland sour its relationship with WTO so that some Malays could use the Maybank rules to be made partners to the larger legal firms in the country?

  17. #17 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 7:15 pm

    This unthinking drive to perpetrate racist policies can only divide the people more.

    It is time non- Bumi Maybank a/c holders close their accounts in protest!

    What is more disturbing is that this exposure of Maybank is but the tip of the iceberg. There may be more of such disgusting stories lying beneath the surface. I hear Petronas purchasing policies is another of them.

  18. #18 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 9:57 pm

    “Now, we see a new technique to convert the control of legal firms to Malays. It used to be a normal practice that partners are selected from among those employees who proved best capable to contribute to the firms. That capabilitiy would include PR skill, no doubt. With the new 50% requirement, race becomes an additional qualification.” Loh

    What bull are you talking about?? Race has always been a consideration for decades when dealing with the government and government controlled organizations – but never the only and overriding consideration.

    Don’t you know that this is an attempt to show the Malay public especially the rank and file of UMNO and their cronies and supporters that the BN run government is not just giving lip service to the NEP?

    Don’t you know that this an attempt to mislead the public? I dare the management of MayBank to reveal figures and refute my allegation that their business is going to a selected few among the large law firms irrespective of whether these are majority owned by bumiputra partners or partly owned.

    I am in fact prepared to go further and say that it has more to do with the politically connected among the Malay lawyers who are unable to get offers of partnership that would give them control of their firms. What better way can they do, what they fail to do privately, than by bringing political pressure to bear publicly on their partners under the guise of the NEP? Who are the lawyer politicians? Shahrizat is one. Hamid Albar is another. There are many others – these people though only minimally connected to the day to day operations of the firms, should not be vying for businesses connected to the government because of the potential conflict of interests. But that is another matter for another day!

    Nothing is a better example of the on-going collusion between big businesses and big name lawyers. Don’t let a ruling like this one cloud our thinking.

  19. #19 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 10:05 pm

    The truth is small to medium law firms be they Chinese controlled or completely Malay or jointly owned, find it difficult to make a living depending only on the business from banks.

  20. #20 by ihavesomethingtosay on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 10:51 pm

    What a year, 2007, a vintage year in racism perharps?

    Suddenly, 2 local banks requires that law firms must have a 50% equity in bumi shares for law firms that wants to do business with them…..

    lets see, Maybank has been in business for a long time now, and NEP started during the 70’s. but why now starts this race bias policy?

    we are continuously told that the Bumi equity in this country’s economic cake is at best only 19+%, is this really true? if it is, why not imposed the ruling much ealier? like the 70’s, or even the eighties? is it because the bank then through these years needed much of the non bumi support to bank with them? and best not to aggravate the business community by imposing an apathied ruling that will angers the community.

    It would seems that the bank now feels confident enough in business to impose such unfair business ruling, hence it is reasonable to say that the bank’s business is secure without non-bumis, which is also reasonable to say that the bumis equity in Malaysia’s slice of economic cake is far higher than that of the government’s claim.

    Personally, I will ask all my friends to cease banking with them, move their money elsewhere where they are treated fairly.

    2007, what a year, AAB is still the Perdanan Mentri, and the year that racial harmony is at it’sd lowest in Malaysia.

    Tell us the truth, what is bumis’ euity in the country now.

  21. #21 by Jeffrey on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 10:54 pm

    It is true that being in the panel of Maybank does not necessarily imply business from the bank by which expression means regular referrals of (i) cases of suing delinquent borrowers and recovering loans in default and (ii) documenting loan and security documents to secure the loans granted.

    Referrals depend on personal relationship of the panel lawyers with the managers and officers having the discretion to assign cases, considerations for assigning being dependent on a myriad of individual circumstances ranging from efficiency of service to entertainment or benefit to the managers and officers.

    Business in general including legal business is never based alone on merits but a mix of a lot of factors, principal of which is personal relationship (in political context, described as cronyism) but in spite of this Maybank latest policy of requiring its panel solicitors firms to have 50% bumi equity breaks new ground and is retrogressive departure from prevailing practice in following ways: –

    It is first time a major bank has made an overt and official policy based on race criteria. It is not just having a bumi partner but a significant partner of not less than 50% ownership of the firm. This itself is a stark departure from practice of the rest of the banks.

    Second, this requirement of 50% bumi equity bears no rational nexus with the official rationale for it, which is “improving the quality of service industries including the legal profession to face the challenges of globalization”.

    Third, it takes away pre-existing rights of existing firms in its panel which in the past had served the bank well and are still serving the bank well. For example a large firm with 10% bumi equity, which has been serving the bank well is suddenly required to top up the equity ratio to 50% within 1 year or face being dropped out of the panel.

    It also prejudices smaller sized or medium firms who may have expertise to serve the bank in various capacities and whose relationships with the bank’s officers are mutually beneficial enough to stand a good chance of being emplaced in the panel but for this new ruling do not qualify for emplacement to the mutual disadvantage of the firm seeking business and the officers of the bank seeking their service.

    The argument that being emplaced in the panel is no big deal if it does not necessarily imply getting business from the bank is in general terms true to an extent but must be qualified by the preceding example that if the firm seeks emplacement in panel, the chances are they would know officers in the bank who encourage them to apply by reason of their service being perceived needed. This is not possible now with the 50% bumi equity stipulation.

    Even if the particular firm has no personal relationship with the banks officer and hence gets no referrals at this moment, it does not mean that the situation is static that the firm’s lawyers may not know the officers in the future.

    It also does not mean for the time being there is no business benefit because if the lawyer is someone known to me whom I trust, if I were to borrow a loan from Maybank, I, as a consumer can at least avail of my lawyer friend’s service to attend the bank’s loan documentation as the firm is already in the panel of solicitors.

    Fourth, there is the argument raised that the Bank has a prerogative to set its criteria for appointment of its solicitors. However Maybank is an institution which has become a success today due to the support of Malaysians of all races. It should show a better example than officially articulate a policy based on not what is conventionally rational – on merits – but race. It is showing a bad example to Multiracial Malaysia on the eve of our 50th Anniversary. Maybank may say that it’s ultimate shareholder is PNB and it is its duty to implement government’s policy, but even here this may be rebutted on basis of the following:-

    The ultimate shareholder control may be a government agency like PNB but presently Maybank is still a public listed company and not in para position as a GLC like MAS or Proton and even in the case of GLCs like MAS or Proton we have not heard of such a blatant policy tainted by race quota articulated officially. Beyond that the bank is also custodian of public funds and if race were an important criterion for external lawyers appointment wouldn’t its internal staff and credit appointments be even more race based? What is the repercussion of that on credit culture and chances of protecting public funds? Even specific bumi quotas for FIC and listing requirements hover around 30% and not as high as 50% stipulated by Maybank which marks a new milestone.

    What is worrying is the trend to extend the NEP from public companies to the professions and not just law. Take for example the Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act (“PHFSA”) recently gazetted and implemented by which our authorities tightly regulate private medical practitioners, dentists and nurses.

    Prior to PHFSA, medical practitioners could open their clinics anywhere they deem fit for their practice but now they complain that authorities have drawn up zones to look into distribution and have the right to prohibit the medical practitioner from practicing in certain, perhaps lucrative zones. Whether true or otherwise, many aggrieved by this policy speculate that this zoning policy is motivated by imperatives of the NEP to ensure that its beneficiaries are afforded the chance to open clinics in the lucrative places.

  22. #22 by kurakura on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 10:56 pm

    Since they have scraped the NEP policy for the IDR, the lost pie has to find its way somewhere else. And bang….now they found out where the lost pie will go.

  23. #23 by Tai Lo Chin on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 11:09 pm

    If Maybank is one of the two major banks coming out with this official 50% Bumi equity policy, does anyone here know which is the other major bank?

  24. #24 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 11:16 pm

    “Maybank’s policy of requiring the law firms in its panel to have 50% Bumi partnership is racist and even worse than that of FIC’s requirement of 30% equity.” Tai Lo Chin

    Tell me about it!

    Is the policy racist? Sure it is. It has been the requirement of businesses owned or jointly owned by government to require some Malay equity participation. Is it not best viewed as a private matter between the parties to the business. Sure.

    It started as a policy during the time of Razak as Prime Minister, when Tengku Razaliegh was Finance Minister during a time when we see the emergence of an ‘innovative’ way of doing business – led by the Malay contractors who bid for government contracts, wining them even without the necessary track records, and then sub-contracting them out to the more experienced Chinese contractors. Guess where the connection leads to? UMNO.

    When Mahathir became Prime Minister and sought a way to make known his xenophobia, his hatred of everything ‘mat salleh’ British in particular, he declared the Asians have been there and done that first, and the mat sallehs can learn a thing or two from the Japanese. Why not? Especially when he gets freebies from the Japanese for doing so. He got his children studying in Japanese institutions.

    Mahathir saw the role played by small scale industries in the Japanese economy, of how such industries are indispensable to the success of the economy. Some credit must go to him especially in the early days for wanting to see the growth of the spirit of ‘muhibbah’ among Malay and Chinese businessmen – one needing the other, one complimenting the other, one teaching the other when the other is less experienced of the way of business. What better way then to promote goodwill and unity!

    It is the same spirit that we see spilled over to another field – this time it is the legal profession, and not just construction. Except that it has been made to look like it is nothing more than racial discrimination. What if it is discriminatory if to discriminate means to instill the spirit of ‘muhibbah’? It is never: if you are not a Malay legal firm you do not get our business!

    But what has been happening in the ‘legal’ field so to speak goes beyond that. What should worry us is the collusion that it represents between big business and the government. It has little to do with small three-partner legal firms of Ahmad, Ah Chong & Ameer & Co. Increasing the requirement from 30% to 50% equity, does not change anything as far as such firms are concerned.

    Remember too that the impact of any such requirement is only felt if at all in the area of real property – of housing loans. That is not even a large slice of the pie to begin with.

  25. #25 by Xiao Zhu on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 11:45 pm

    Maybank policy on the 50% bumi-san partnership is nothing new
    to shout about in bumiland. There are so many
    GLCs that have such policy and including staff intakes,
    promotions, out-sourcing their busineses and contracts
    for bumi-san only.
    Are we going to boycott such companys????
    So we don’t fly with MAS, don’t put our monies
    in Maybank? We are just helpless and hopeless
    in bumi-land whereas other countires are moving forward
    and we are going backward.

  26. #26 by kelangman88 on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 11:52 pm

    come to think of it,it is weird that we’re so upset… many policy like this….

  27. #27 by izrafeil on Sunday, 6 May 2007 - 11:55 pm

    do you know that 3/4 of the middle management in Maybank = Chinese?

  28. #28 by private_undergrad on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 12:08 am

    Fortunately it’s only law firms for now. If this absurd policy expands to other businesses or dealings with the bank, surely disaster will happen. LOL :D

  29. #29 by digard on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 12:24 am

    Fine. So we’re all going down together, Chinese, Malays, Indians, lain-lain.
    Because nowhere on this globe, notime in history of mankind, has a state or nation survived when all sides were preoccupied with counting ethnic backgrounds.

    India has a Muslim president and a Sikh prime minister.
    In the so greatly despised USA, a black chap (Obama) could become president.

    That’s all I can say here.

  30. #30 by dawsheng on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 12:29 am

    Bad policies are norm in our country. Is such bad policies that we are now falling behind, we could have achieved much more but because of bad policies we are now struggling to keep in pace with the ever changing world. Malay peoples are the worst among other races that suffer in this country, majority of them still cannot competes without NEP. This only meant that NEP had failed to help the Malays, it only weaken them. Their dependancy on NEP is partically like air, they can’t breath without it, and most of them not even know why. Those that called themselves UMNO are creating bad policies towards the path of destruction, not only for their own kind, but for all of us as well.

  31. #31 by Richard Teo on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 12:51 am

    The chinese will have to mobilize and use their business clout to change their racists mentality.This is a gradual process to change the econmic landscape. The next thing would be to force Accounting firms to have 50% bumi equity in order to get jobs with their banks.

  32. #32 by Richard Teo on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 1:03 am

    ” The truth is small to medium law firms be they Chinese controlled or completely Malay or jointly owned, find it difficult to make a living depending only on the business from banks.”
    That shows how little understanding you have regarding this issue.Banking works are bread and butter for small, medium and large firms.Unlike litigation where payment is slow, banking works provide instant cash flow for most legal firms, big or small.Same as conveyancing work they provide instantaneous cash flow.Therefore it is the life blood of every firm big or small.And banking work is not a small pie. It is an extremely big pie going into the billions in service fees.Not many legal firms can merely survive just on litigation cases as payment is slow and subject to cases being heard.

  33. #33 by ccjett on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 1:17 am

    Are malays really that incapable? Every little things need policies to get them in.. Even a fully qualified Malay Lawyer is so incapable?

    I have no objection to NEP if it is meant to help those incapables, but being a lawyer still need policies to get them into the business? what a jerk/joke

  34. #34 by ccjett on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 1:24 am

    Do Malays need this policy?

    in the track and field “Let the Malays run 50% of the track first then others may start running”

    in the toilet “Let the Malays piss 50% of their urine first then others may start”

    well.. okay, i will feed Malays 50% of the food first before i feed my best friend, snoopy. Hell shame on you

  35. #35 by ccjett on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 1:26 am

    This is way too far, nothing about the policies, but i would rather die than to become a shamed Malays without any pride.

    Or mb they regard pride is nothing.. or they dont even know what is pride..

  36. #36 by undergrad2 on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 1:35 am

    “Banking works are bread and butter for small, medium and large firms.” Richard Teo

    Precisely my point.

    Bank business coming from the end-financing is tied to the legal firms already on the developers’ panel of solicitors. Apart from the listed public companies and others like those representing big business interests, the small mainly Chinese property developers come to the banks with their list of panel solicitors.

    There is no rule against having solicitors acting for developers also acting for the lending banks. And so what happens is those firms not in their network, bumiputra majority owned or controlled or those small to medium non-bumiputra firms almost always find the doors shut in their faces – and there is nothing they can do about it.

    For the lucky ones i.e. those non-network firms so to speak who somehow manage to get their feet in the door, it does not mean they are assured of business. They still have to fight tooth and nail to get at the crumbs. The recent proliferation of small to medium law firms, bumis or non-bumis or bumi-controlled or those with some bumi participation have come to mean unfortunately that many of these firms have had to close.

    Do not underestimate the importance of the litigation business. If you are lucky all you need is do a few good litigation cases and you can take it easy the rest of the year or even two. It is true litigation is slow as there is a backlog. But that should not deter criminal white collar crime litigation lawyers who want to build their reputation.

  37. #37 by kcb on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 1:45 am

    izrafeil Says:
    May 6th, 2007 at 11:55 pm

    “do you know that 3/4 of the middle management in Maybank = Chinese?”


    About 60% of the middle management in Maybank = Bumi!
    I have work in Maybank for 30 years now.

  38. #38 by undergrad2 on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 1:52 am

    “Unlike litigation where payment is slow, banking works provide instant cash flow for most legal firms, big or small.Same as conveyancing work they provide instantaneous cash flow.Therefore it is the life blood of every firm big or small.And banking work is not a small pie.” Richard Teo

    I agree with you everything you say here except the reference to housing loan business being “a small pie”.

    I refer to this business from banks as being “small” in the sense that most of the non-network firms find themselves out in the cold as having nothing tangible to offer to the banks or to the developers who bring the business to the bank. To the banks and the developers they are looking for a free ride.

    I refer to this business as being “small” because I am referring to the crumbs of the business that get left over for distribution to these non-network firms for political and other reasons.

    The total volume may be huge. I agree. But that is where the problem lies. It is the same few large firms that get the business. Well, what about the others whose names appear during launching? They get a small piece of the small pie.

  39. #39 by undergrad2 on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 1:55 am

    sorry “not being a small pie” first para

  40. #40 by burn on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 2:04 am

    senang aje… pindah akaun dan berurus niaga kat bank lain.
    macam mana nak berniaga, kalau memilih atas status. siapa yang cekap, dia lah dapat! bukan sebaliknya. no challenge… in business, you win some and lose some.
    i had this experience before, big company dealing with phone cards. women in-charge (bumi) was very happy with my work that i have done during sukma sports, but when introduce to the head (bumi), they ask me whether im a ‘bumi’ company. i say NO!
    they say, for me to be eligible, i must have a bumi partner.
    well, i just smile, and know that i won’t get their business.
    firstly, why do i need a bumi partner, when im a freelancer with a company. anyway, women in-charge say sorry about the company policy, she didn’t know about it!

    aku punya falsampah!

  41. #41 by paix on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 2:30 am

    Why stop at 50%? Why not 100%? Who gives a damn about the non-bumis.

  42. #42 by kurakura on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 2:54 am

    It’s weird that the malays are still talking about pride when they use all this tricks.

    If i win a race by just running 50m instead of 100m others run…i will dig a hole and bury my head.
    Oh yea, when are they goin to impose that on the sports arena. Malays get to start before the other races in swimming, atlethics. Extra marks will be given to sports like gymnas, taekwando etc.

  43. #43 by undergrad2 on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 3:39 am

    …and, Richard Teo, do not underestimate the litigation business coming from credit card defaults and foreclosures. I know of one Chinese firm living off credit card defaults.

    As for criminal litigation, with white collar criminals you earn big and they are good paymasters. You don’t need to wait till the end to collect. You get paid for work-in-progress. For example, you would have to pay RM20,000.00 up front just to see this lawyer who is now an appellate court judge.

  44. #44 by accountability on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 4:19 am

    DiaperHead, stop being foolish!

    every business have the right to choose the best panel of lawyers or partners to ensure its success.
    (not just chinese businesses not selecting malay legal firms)

    by forcing malay equity as a requirement to become a bank panel, it is pure racism – it has nothing to do with encouraging good services!

    please get out from under your tempurung!

  45. #45 by accountability on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 4:23 am

    shit… can’t believe this…
    have the malays no shame??!!!

    those who implement these racist policies, shame on you!
    those who accept these crutches… shame on you even more!!

  46. #46 by firehawk on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 6:38 am

    At the end of the day, just hope and pray to god that these racist policies will end by 2020 from all parties in Malaysia. Not too far now. Or is that just a dream?

  47. #47 by Jeffrey on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 7:37 am

    There’s a back tracking of sorts by Maybank in an attempt the diffuse the brewing controversy of its racist policy of appointing lawyers in its panel.

    Today’s The Sun (May 7th edition) reported on left column of page 1 the following – (excerpts) (the parts in capital mine for highlight/nuance) : “In a statement released over the weekend, the country’s largest banking group said in its annual review of its solicitors, it had always taken a flexible approach, and it was not the intention to call for EXISTING solicitors to restructure their equity ownership…Addressing concerns by the legal fraternity, the Malayan banking Group says that equity ownership has NEVER BEEN THE SOLE AND OVERRIDING DETERMINANT for placement on its panel of solicitors…We would like to assure all parties concerned that the Bank has taken note of the issues highlighted and that the necessary review will be taken with due consideration of the feedback raised. Rest assured that efficiency and performances of the lawyers as well as their ability to provide the highest standards of service to the bank and its customer have always been a core requirement onto the Bank’s panel of solicitors”.

    I read the above statement as suggesting that Maybank :

    1. will not take away pre-existing benefit of pre-existing solicitors on its panel (that has served it) to restructure bumi equity but this does not mean the 50% equity requirement cannot be applied to new firms making applications to be emplaced in its panel.

    2. Even for these new firms, Maybank is saying “yes we can still have this 50% equity policy, even as a general policy, but it is not “sole and overriding determinant” as we are prepared to consider exceptions (based on merits).

    Translated, in reality, this means nothing because the bank can only assess merit, efficiency and performances of the existing law firms on the panel lawyers, it being not possible in relation to new applications by new firms.

    For this, the Bank can still enforce and put into effect (un-compromised and un-contradicted by its above statement), the newly introduced 50% racist ruling for application as criteria for new firms applying to be emplaced in its panel.

    The Statement then is a PR move to assuage negative public statements with the racist ruling basically unscathed but with back pedaling in so far as existing firms in its panel are concerned.

  48. #48 by kurakura on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 7:43 am


  49. #49 by DiaperHead on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 7:48 am

    “by forcing malay equity as a requirement to become a bank panel, it is pure racism – it has nothing to do with encouraging good services!” accountability

    Who says it has? Kindly take out those cotton wools you stuffed in your ears before you go deaf.

  50. #50 by Jimm on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 8:59 am

    We are progressing into a new MALAYsia with a 2020 vision. Most of our foreparents trusted the leaders then for a better future for our next generation. To the end of this journey, those who do not like what this country have to offer, please leave and look for another that can suite your request. Believe me, that’s the common policies to be heard in a very near future from those whom we used to live with as fellow Malaysian.

  51. #51 by ccjett on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 9:13 am


  52. #52 by ccjett on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 9:15 am

    what’s the singular word of “babies” in malaysial?

  53. #53 by Counterpoint on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 9:37 am

    This is another classic example of how the original intention of the NEP ,of helping really needy Malays, gets abused.

    Don’t the Malays, especially the ones that already established themselves feel any shame at all still being dependent on crutches and handicaps instead of actually working hard for the money?

  54. #54 by Jimm on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 9:43 am

    Let us not get carried away emotionally here. That’s what they want us to do and so singled out us for being ‘unhealthy’ Malaysian.
    We all should act proffesionally here. Great to voice out. Act accordingly to avoid being used as scapegoats when they want to to put some names for ‘display’.
    The Almighty will bless us all for ‘fighting’ this silence war for the righteousness to make this country a place for all.

  55. #55 by madmix on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 10:29 am

    as I said before, this will lead to other sectors imposing the 50% bumi requirement. This is not about lawyers able to get business if they are on the panel or not, this is about instituitionalising racism.
    The only way to fight this is to boycott such banks if you can, like cancelling you credit cards; not taking housing or car loans from them if you are a new customer; withdrawing yopu FDs, etc.

  56. #56 by Godamn Singh on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 10:47 am

    Good idea madmix, your family, friends and you go first. But why is that I think you do not have a borrowing a/c with any bank anywhere for you to close?

  57. #57 by k1980 on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 11:22 am

    Next, will all private medical clinics be required to have at least 50 per cent bumiputra partnership before they can be licensed? And the petrol stations after that? Had the BN been defeated in Batu Talam, Machap and Ijok consecutively, this nonsense would never enter the mind of the racist govt. The above 3 victories enboldened BN to tighten the screws on the non-bumis

  58. #58 by ihavesomethingtosay on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 12:25 pm

    “izrafeil Says:
    May 6th, 2007 at 11:55 pm

    “do you know that 3/4 of the middle management in Maybank = Chinese?”


    About 60% of the middle management in Maybank = Bumi!
    I have work in Maybank for 30 years now” – kcb Says:

    Well said man, let me point out the obvious…..

    100% top management = BUMI

    so, why the racism now?

  59. #59 by sheriff singh on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 12:51 pm

    Maybank, my bank of 25 years, now wants 50% bumi equity participation by its lawyers.

    Since my insurance policies, credit cards, accounts and fixed deposits are 100% non-bumi, I have decided that I don’t qualify to be one of the bank’s clients.

    Once my FDs mature, I will transfer all my balances and businesses elsewhere so that the bank will no longer have an issue with me. I urge you all to do the same.

    Good bye, Malaybank.

  60. #60 by smeagroo on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 1:36 pm

    50% mana cukup? Another way of buying into the hearts of the bumi lawyers. Sure they will vote for BN come GE. I wonder after the low life rempits they hv targeted and now the “sharks” (pun intended) who will be their next recruit?

    Having said this, I surely support for a 70% recruitment instead of 50%.

  61. #61 by smeagroo on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 1:37 pm

    But this isnt the end yet. Later the govt will require maybank to have at least 75% of customers to be bumi.

  62. #62 by Jonny on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 2:00 pm

    Easymoney. Ali baba style.

  63. #63 by democrate on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 2:04 pm

    Simple, stop depositing your money into this racist bank!

  64. #64 by ccjett on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 2:35 pm

    I have cancelled my credit cards and withdrawn my money from this MALAYSIAL-BANK.

    Too bad I have 2 housing loan still locked-in, but count on me, after the lockin period of just another 2 years, I am sure to refinance them with Public Bank.

    Shamed Malays

  65. #65 by ccjett on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 2:49 pm

    Here is my email to Malaysial-Bank:


  66. #66 by smeagroo on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 3:00 pm

    First they churn out 1/2 past six lawyers who cant get a job. Now the easy way for them is to tie-up with some firms (pinjam nama) and they can eek out a living. WHat’s next? Looks like in Msia when at first you supported them and they mae it big they will turn their backs on us all. Look at the astrocious fees we hv to pay now to use their services like atm and withdrawals.

  67. #67 by kelangman88 on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 3:10 pm

    k1980 Says:
    Next, will all private medical clinics be required to have at least 50 per cent bumiputra partnership before they can be licensed? And the petrol stations after that?

    All new petrol station is 100% own by bumiputra except those got their license 20 years ago.

  68. #68 by sotong on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 3:14 pm

    Thanks to our leaders/politicians, our country had lost her education battle to properly educate the people of the value of hard work and achievement.

    What is the use of a certificate, degree, Master or PhD, if one is not prepared to work very hard for a long period of time(20 years) to build a successful business and contribute to the country.

    The bad example set by our leaders/politicians – to make lots of easy and quick money by hook or by crook- are creating a grossly unfair and unhealthy business environment which are destroying our country’s economy and competitiveness in the globalised world.

    There are very few real entrepreneur/businessman in the country.

  69. #69 by Godamn Singh on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 4:15 pm

    Boys, boys, boys! Cynicism and threats will not take you anywhere. We are here not only to vent our anger and frustration if need be but also to suggest new ideas and to suggest how change can be facilitated.

    The fact that despite all the protests, and all the threats you guys still maintain accounts with banks like MayBank speak loud and clear. It is just all hot air.

  70. #70 by Fort on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 7:28 pm

    Let”s move our fund out while we have the oppotunity. If not one day all the banks may be required to follow the same rule. Then it will be too late.

    I will do it! Tell all my friends to do it!

  71. #71 by gan on Monday, 7 May 2007 - 8:43 pm

    Say NO to racism. Stop all dealings with maybank to teach the racist bank a lesson. Anyway, there are many other banks to choose from. Maybank is not better than any other bank.

  72. #72 by Godamn Singh on Tuesday, 8 May 2007 - 3:57 am

    Goddamn it!

    Nobody says anything about Public and Hong Leong Bank? To be fair I have yet to come across Malay solicitors who are on the banks’ panel and doing work for them.

  73. #73 by DiaperHead on Tuesday, 8 May 2007 - 5:43 am

    Isn’t this all too familiar? It has happened before and MayBank is still around.

  74. #74 by abbas gany on Thursday, 10 May 2007 - 6:56 pm


    Do you expect the Malays to mark up to the NEP. You can go on for another 100 years and you will still find Malays KAIS PAGI MAKAN PAGI, KAIS PETANG MAKAN PETANG AND KAIS MALAM MAKAN MALAM.


    Just imagine A mother and her three children travels 2 KM on foot to a SOUP KITCHEN run by a PASTOR and which serves FREE FOOD
    for the needy and situated in ALOR STAR. She and her children have a nutritious meal and packs some home for the next meal.

    Anothe Malay boy runs away from the childrens home in BM or Kepala Batas and tries to make his way to his Hometown in Alor Star just to be with his poor helpless mother. He had shown much interest in studies but poor fellow no money no school.

    Who is the KNIGHT IN SHINING ARMOUR why Of Course MCA who have stepped in to help the MALAY BOY return to school with books and uniform, shoes provided by MCA and also monthly pocket money of RM 60/=

    It may sound irrelevant to the LKS topic but when you were all talking about NEP and MALAYS NOT MAKING THE MARK AND WILL NEVER MAKE THE MARK I had to come out with the above story published in the STAR which I belief most of you must come across


You must be logged in to post a comment.