Prologue
This is the continuation of the paper written in 2003 while I was doing my Business Ethics class at the university in a course leading to the award of the MBA. It is an academic paper backed by statistics, in the line of social justice and ethics. I chose this topic over perhaps 30 other topics as the NEP and the Malays social standing have always interest me and I would then like to know more about the arguments for and against affirmative action.
Again, as an academic paper, it will not be wise for me to take a stance, so instead I tried to look at both perspectives, argues for both perspectives before reaching a conclusion. This paper was co-written with my fellow colleague Siti Nafisah, HR GM at a leading oil and gas organization.
AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION IN MALAYSIA
-
ARE BUMIPUTERA RIGHTS ETHICAL AND /OR
ISLAMIC?
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
2.0 History Leading to Affirmative
Action in Malaysia
Malaysia
gained independence from the British in 1957. At the point of independence, the
Malaysian societies were based on 3 major races – indigenous Malay and other
native tribe population, and the immigrant population of Chinese and Indian.
Social disparity had existed in pre-modern Malaysia even before the arrival of
European colonial powers. However during those eras, the population was
relatively homogenous and so social and economic disparities were silently
condoned and accepted as a fact of life.
Large
scale Chinese immigration started in the second half of the nineteenth century
as the British encouraged such immigration to provide cheap labour for tin
mines. By 1901, 46 percent of the population of the state of Perak constituted
of Chinese.
Likewise,
labourers from India
were encouraged with the establishment of an Indian Immigration fund in 1907.
They were given free passage and accommodation to their employment place in the
then Malaya. As a result, the Indian
population increased almost twenty-fold from 20,000 in 1891 to 380,000 in 1931.
The
Chinese labourers concentrated on the tin mines, while the Indian immigrants
were employed as rubber estate and railway workers and lived as isolated
communities.
In
contrast, the Malay population proportion dwindled from 90 percent at the
beginning of the nineteenth century to 45% in 1931, as a plural society emerged
in pre-independence Malaysia.
This
period of mass immigration coincided with the period of rapid growth of the
country’s economy. The increasing number
of non-Malays coupled with their increasing control of the economy, became a
source of fear and jealousy to the Malays. Coupled with the resentment against
the British colonialism, it became an important factor in organizing the Malays
politically.
As
Malaysia
was gaining independence in 1957, even development amongst the major races was
a ‘feature’ the plural society. The immigrants, who used to be a ‘transient’,
were now permanent residents. By the late 1960s, 85 percent of the economic
middle class were from the immigrants.
A growing sense of alienation and
resentment led to the racial riots which started in Kuala Lumpur on the evening
of May, 13, 1969, or the May 13 Incident as it has since come to be known, and
is one of the most controversial political events in Malaysia's history.
Racial
hatred between Chinese and Malays that peaked May 13, 1969 started the
bloodiest riot ever seen in the streets of Kuala Lumpur. Over two hundred were killed,
and over 450 seriously injured, shattering the `image' of racial harmony in Malaysia for
years to come.
The
May 13 Incident was a result of the increasing economic wealth among
Chinese-Malaysians, while the indigenous Malays were left out in the economic
wilderness.
The Aftermath of the May 13 Riot
It
was obvious that the social and economic imbalances in the Malaysian
society were developing along racial
line, culminating in the May 13 riot. It has become an explosive phenomenon to
discuss the economic disparities. It was against this background that the
Malaysia ‘s ambitious ‘affirmative actions’ policy was formulated in 1971 under
the name of the New Economic Policy (NEP).
The
NEP was launched in July 1971 and it stressed the its ultimate and over-riding
objective of forging national unity. It contained a two-pronged development
program. The first prong aimed at reducing and to eventually eradicate poverty
by raising income levels and increasing employment opportunities for all
Malaysians. The second prong aimed at accelerating the process of restructuring
the Malaysian society to correct the economic imbalance, so as to eliminate the
identification of race with economic functions.
These
two objectives can be categorized as distributive and restructuring
objectives. The distributive objective
can be considered a noble aim as it was intended to eradicate poverty
irrespective of race, and hence no implication of racial biases. Poverty is obviously more widespread amongst
the Malays and hence there are disproportionately more Malay poor than other
races, but there are also a signification Chinese and Indians who were poor.
However,
the second objective is intended to correct the imbalance amongst the
races, obviously favouring the Malays and other indigenous groups (labeled as
Bumiputra or son of the soil). To this end, the government set a timetable that
within a period of 20 years from the inception of the NEP, as stipulated the
Second Malaysia Plan
·
Malays and other indigenous people will
manage and own at least 30 percent of the total commercial and industrial
activities in all categories and scale of operations
· A Malay commercial and industrial
community will be created by means of deliberate training and human resource
development programs
· The employment pattern at all levels
and in all sectors, particularly in the Modern Rural and Urban Sectors, must
reflect the racial composition of the population
·
New industrial activities in the
selected new growth areas will be established.
How
did the government expect to achieve all of the above targets? The government
would need to intervene and participate directly in the commercial and
industrial enterprises. Agencies such as PERNAS, UDA, MARA, PNB etc were
created to realize the objectives. These government agencies played the role of
interventionist with the objective of improving bumiputra’s economic
participation.
Another
component in the NEP was a large-scale human development and training including
the setting up of junior colleges throughout the countries, sending student
overseas for tertiary education, instituting quotas for enrollment in local
universities and granting bursaries and scholarship. NEP also tried to
restructure employment at private companies by instituting racial quota. Large
companies with certain capital and employment were required to restructure
their ownership to ensure Bumiputra’s participation and ownership.
The
targets that the government had set were formidable, to say the least. The
Malays had high expectation that the NEP would improve their position, while
the non-Malays, especially the Chinese were full of apprehension and would
prefer to maintain their status quo.
How did the NEP fare?
While at the end of NEP in 1990, the government has
not been able to achieve this target, the benefit it has provided to the
country has been tremendous. Economically a good proportion Malays are no
longer in the poverty line and would be able to compete with the rests in the
country.
