Affirmative Actions in Malaysia
- Are
Bumiputra Rights Ethical and/or Islamic?
Co-Written in 2003 with Siti Nafisah
Abstract
Malaysia being one of the bastions of a
multi-racial country had long advocated and implemented affirmative actions to
benefit the indigenous Malay/bumputra population of the country – a race that
is dominant politically, but economically weak. This paper attempts to analyse
and describe the situations in Malaysia vis-à-vis ethical considerations and
argues why such policy was a necessary evil and try to prescribe some policy
changes to make it more socially and universally acceptable.
Keywords: Malaysia, Affirmative Actions, New Economic Policy, Ethics
TABLE OF CONTENT
1.0
INTRODUCTION
2.0
HISTORY LEADING TO AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION
2.1
THE AFTERMATH OF MAY 13 RIOT
2.2
HOW DID THE NEP FARE?
3.0
THE ETHICS OF NEP
3.1
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
3.1.1
STATISTIC
3.2
COMPENSATORY JUSTICE
3.3
ARGUMENTS AGAINST NEP
3.4
IS THE NEP ISLAMIC?
4.0 CONCLUSION
1.0 Introduction
Affirmative
action is a phrase describing a range of policies to seek out, encourage, and
sometimes give preferential treatment to a selected group of people[1].
Affirmative
action is not a new phenomenon. It has been implemented in various forms by
many countries and organization for many years. It has existed in many parts of
the world – in totalitarian countries like the former Soviet Union and China,
as well as democratic countries like India and Britain, as well as Malaysia,
Nigeria, and New Zealand, to name a few.
For a start, let's select countries beyond Malaysia, which we will discuss in greater details later. India has one
of the oldest affirmative action policies, created when the country gained
independence in 1947. In
India, for example, many universities have reserved seats for the Dalits – formerly known as the
‘untouchables’ and many of these seats remain unfilled. In Brazil,
the state of Rio De Janeiro
instituted racial quotas in its university system that targeted black and those
with some African heritage, who were disadvantage under the country’s legacy of
slavery. South Africa
had instituted the 1998 Employment Equity Act to benefit the black majority.
However,
even as these affirmative actions were heavy-handed, many had resorted to
direct efforts to fight in equalities. Some blacks are taking property back
from white farmers, who still own 80 percent of farmland, by force.
There
are various reasons, and justification as to why such affirmative actions were
taken by its advocates. Of course to the critics, these are merely excuses.
It
is said that the most common outcome is that the benefits of affirmative action
programs go only to a small minority within the group that are supposed to
benefit them. This, it is said, is already the most prosperous segment of these
groups[2]. This
can be seen in the case of India
where the various benefits offered are actually used by sub-groups who have the money, education and other advantages that
enable them to make use of preferential access to higher education or higher
level job. Violence against the Dalits has escalated in view of the
preferential treatment, ironically one that few Dalits are able to take
advantage of.
The
South African experience is similar. The Employment Equity Act had only
benefited the black elite. The rest of the blacks still live in poverty,
devastated by generations of oppressive apartheid policies.
No comments:
Post a Comment